29-05-2003 13:36									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Christ there are some idiots here. Adultery is obviously not a good thing, however for people to genralise and say you should be punsished or get lees of the matrimonial assetts is stupid. What if a woman has been beaten for 15 years by her husband but has 2 children and can't leave him(I know she should but it can be difficult) Then she meets someone who is loving caring etc she has an affair and leaves her husband. Does the husband get all the money or does she get thrown in prison. Adultery should be seen as reason for divorce but it it should not be used in the settlement process.

It rarely has an impact on them here in the U.S., contrary to some of what has been said in the thread. Usually the judge just isn't interested.

	29-05-2003 13:43									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I thought thta would probably be the case, In the UK, parties conduct is one of the factors used in distributing the assetts however it is normally seen as the least important and the conduct has to be extreme to be taken into account.

	30-05-2003 00:24									#63
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

My Mom cheated on my Dad about 8 years ago, but the marrage had become very loveless. Plus she said that she had stayed married so long because of my brother & I, plus being single is very hard with the debt that my Dad had accumulated. ~Shrugs~ I think that she made a bad desicion, but on the other hand I *KNOW* what was going on & why it happened, so I do not completely blame her. Nor do I believe that it warrants jail time. divorce maybe, but not jail time. ~Grins~ Thus is life.

	30-05-2003 00:44									#64
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Sikander So why don't you go find one (soicalist state) and get on with your life, and quit incommoding us with your constant whining about a country that you do not come from and don't live in?

I could very well ask why you don't do something about your barbarous country meddling in everyone else's affairs.

	30-05-2003 01:18									#65
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Not too far back in the thread, you were talking about standards of proof and trials a la other partnership dissolutions. That's a lot of lawyering and court time for mild sanctions.

Not really, I don't see how it would be too much different from what goes on in divorce hearings.

quote: Then how far would you take it - say one spouse with a low drive level decides to "punish" the other spouse by withholding sex (in states with dissolution for cause only laws, that gives rise to a tort known as "constructive abandonment." The cheating spouse argues they didn't want to divorce and put the kids through the wringer and sell the house, they just want to get laid for the first time in two years. JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! Any process into which you can introduce two lawyers, a jury and money to be fought over is sure to go right into the cesspool.

If I was talking about that sort of thing, I'd be worried. But I'm not, so I ain't.

quote: Arguably, so are moral rules against drinking, smoking, eating fatty foods, mixing stripes and plaids, fat women wearing short skirts, tubby men with body hair going shirtless, questioning the government or the party , and a plethora of other things. The operative question is whose morals does the state decided to impose. Oh, and are party members exempt?

Now you're just being silly. It's a moot point whether smoking and eating fatty foods are moral issues on par with adultery.

quote: This from the guy who's location field used to read "left of Lenin?" In the US, pretty much everybody has the opportunity to get those things.

I like that, the "opportunity". Well 1/5 of them seem to have slipped up somewhere. Where I come from, everyone gets health care - it's simply a mark of civilisation.

quote: You're in good company. Mullah Omar, John Ashcroft, and the Ayatollah Khomeini (peace be upon him) all share the same views about the state's business to creatively legislate moral matters.

The distinction between moral and legal matters is not cut and dried. Murder is a legal issue and it's also a moral issue. The correct question to ask is, when does a moral issue become a legal issue and when doesn't it. The answer is: when treating it as one leads to a better overall result. This can change as society changes and some things become more or less of a problem, or as I said earlier, social sanctions falter.

Adultery is a problem, it causes extreme misery to its victims and undermines the welfare of children. There is a reason why most societies have had prohibitions against adultery and that is because guarantees of fidelity give men more incentive to take care of their children and women more incentive to have children.

quote: Societies are an abstract creation of individuals.

So are rights, so what?

quote: The rights of individuals have to be balanced against other rights, but the rights of individuals are paramount.

This sounds like a profound point, but it isn't. Since right claims conflict and we should always prefer less rights violations over fewer all this boils down to in the end is a version of utilitarianism. Of course people try to deny this, but that shows that they don't understand the logical form of the issue. Your statement should say, the rights of individuals are paramount and the rights of the many take precedence over the rights of the few.

quote: The optimum level of coercion is the minimum necessary to achieve the popularly agreed upon goals of government, in a manner consistent with individual rights.

Unfortunately, individual rights are posterior to the popularly agreed goals of government. There are no god given rights - believing in them is like believing in fairies. The point of living in a community is to raise one's level of welfare over the solitary and brutish existence we'd have on our own. Given that some people's welfare can come at the expense of others good laws are designed to minimize such conflicts and regulate behaviour such that the vast majority of people are better off than they would have been otherwise (of course there are always a few who will complain come what may). The distribution of rights and freedoms is determined by which particular rights and freedoms will increase welfare. That's the point of rights - they make us better off. If a right ceases to do so, it should be dispensed with - or you're in the silly position of saying it's preferable that we are worse off.

quote: Sorry, my ancestors made a hobby of plinking Redcoats, so you won't see me advocating statist tyranny over the individual anywhere this side of hell.

Statist tyranny? More Libertarian gobbledigook.

	30-05-2003 01:28									#66
	Get a bigger avatar today!

So why don't you go find one (soicalist state) and get on with your life, and quit incommoding us with your constant whining about a country that you do not come from and don't live in?

Because he likes US. Duh.

	30-05-2003 01:34									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Flare My Mom cheated on my Dad about 8 years ago, but the marrage had become very loveless. Plus she said that she had stayed married so long because of my brother & I, plus being single is very hard with the debt that my Dad had accumulated. ~Shrugs~ I think that she made a bad desicion, but on the other hand I *KNOW* what was going on & why it happened, so I do not completely blame her. Nor do I believe that it warrants jail time. divorce maybe, but not jail time. ~Grins~ Thus is life.

I agree, this is the typical case. There is no resultant good from punishing people for this sort of thing - only the extreme philanderers are a problem.

	30-05-2003 20:24									#68
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Agathon, that is my slant on things. ~Sigh~ The whole situation was not fun, but they were BOTH to blame. ~Shakes my head~ My Mom tried for years, but my Dad would not change. He is still the same.

	30-05-2003 20:58									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Speer - I did this thread a while back as a half-troll. You can search for it if you want a few more pages of debate on the matter.

	30-05-2003 23:45									#70
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Shouldn't Adultery be a crime?

No.
Well... shouldn't we burn people at the stake for being witches?

	31-05-2003 00:12									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I must say, though, infidelity in marriage (or even relationships, for that matter) is a real pain in the ass. Why so many people engage in it, I don't know.

	31-05-2003 05:05									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

i have no respect for infidelity.

Love the one your with or leave!

	31-05-2003 05:28									#73
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Sava No. Well... shouldn't we burn people at the stake for being witches?

Witches can't really harm anybody, Sava.

	31-05-2003 05:52									#74
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Not really, I don't see how it would be too much different from what goes on in divorce hearings.

In a majority of states, dissolution proceedings are no-fault, and not subject to trial - just division of assets, custody, and child support. Who supposedly did what to who is generally inadmissible, unless it can be shown that there's something of such great magnitude as to be a risk to the safety of any children who might live with that parent. i.e. if one parent is a crack dealer and keeps loaded automatic weapons around the house, it's an issue.

quote: If I was talking about that sort of thing, I'd be worried. But I'm not, so I ain't.

You haven't dealt with the US legal system. If you open up the door to "sanctions" for certain acts, you get the trial circus.

quote: Now you're just being silly. It's a moot point whether smoking and eating fatty foods are moral issues on par with adultery.

Not silly, nor moot at all. The point is the self-appointed powers of the state (or party, if you prefer) to decide which personal conduct matters to regulate.

quote: I like that, the "opportunity". Well 1/5 of them seem to have slipped up somewhere. Where I come from, everyone gets health care - it's simply a mark of civilisation.

I thought it was a 1/3, but the left never worries about facts. There are public health care programs out the wazoo - Federal, state, Indian tribes, hell, even illegal immigrants have the "right" to free prenatal care without their immigration status being questioned. You can't get a boob job or transgender surgery from them, but they are available to just about everyone on a means test basis at worst. With a little digging around, you can find public health clinics, hospitals, and services providers just about everywhere. In an acute life-critical situation, even private hospitals are required by law to provide medically necessary care regardless of ability to pay. The one-fifth to one-third number that gets bandied around is the number of working people who don't have private health care benefits through their employers, not some mythical number of people who have no access to healthcare at all.

quote: The distinction between moral and legal matters is not cut and dried. Murder is a legal issue and it's also a moral issue. The correct question to ask is, when does a moral issue become a legal issue and when doesn't it. The answer is: when treating it as one leads to a better overall result. This can change as society changes and some things become more or less of a problem, or as I said earlier, social sanctions falter.

"A better overall result" is so vague and ambiguous that it is legally ridiculous. Mullah Omar, OBL, al Qutb and al Maududi will insist that "a better overall result" is obtained when all acknowledge Allah and live according to the one true law he handed down for all mankind.

Jerry Falwell would have his own standard. The Libertarian Party has theirs, and you have yours. The real answer for when it becomes a legal matter is when the issue is such that even a private action is such a grave offense to public peace, security, or the basic functioning of society that there would be a substantial harm to the society as a whole of the activity in question was not made illegal. Legalized murder would lead to all sorts of potential stuff, including private wars, blood feuds, and a general breakdown of the entire society. Legalized property crimes would lead to the economic breakdown of society. Even relatively minor things like development and zoning laws fit in with that theme.

Matters of personal morals do not. Is there any public harm in adultery if there are no kids and all parties consent to it? Not in a legal sense, no. Is there any public harm if it is not accepted by all parties and there are kids? Again, no - not if the affected party has the option to terminate the relationship and move on. You can argue there's a private harm, but there's at least the same degree of private harm from a non-adulterous, but self-aborbed husband or wife who sits down in front of the TV, ignores spouse and kids except to demand to be waited on, and is otherwise a useless waste of DNA. Are you going to legally sanction all forms of being a bad husband/wife/parent? The magnitude of public and private harm can't be distinguished between those types of situations and adultery. The remedy for the harmed party is (a) fix it, (b) accept it, (c) move on with your life.

quote: Adultery is a problem, it causes extreme misery to its victims and undermines the welfare of children.

In some cases, yes. And the (privately) affected parties have (private) remedies. No need for the state to step in, except to provide the judicial forum for the divorce.

quote: There is a reason why most societies have had prohibitions against adultery and that is because guarantees of fidelity give men more incentive to take care of their children and women more incentive to have children.

Laws against adultery don't guarantee fidelity any more than the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act guaranteed sobriety.

quote: So are rights, so what?

Since they're equally arbitrary and subjective, then the state has the obligation to take the least action necessary to preserve and maintain compelling public interests.

quote: This sounds like a profound point, but it isn't. Since right claims conflict and we should always prefer less rights violations over fewer all this boils down to in the end is a version of utilitarianism. Of course people try to deny this, but that shows that they don't understand the logical form of the issue. Your statement should say, the rights of individuals are paramount and the rights of the many take precedence over the rights of the few.

Only in your perverted version of it. "The rights of the many" over the "rights of the few" can be used to justify nearly every wrong in history. The notion that individual rights are paramount requires the state to take the least level of action necessary when it regulates those individual's actions.

quote: Given that some people's welfare can come at the expense of others good laws are designed to minimize such conflicts and regulate behaviour such that the vast majority of people are better off than they would have been otherwise (of course there are always a few who will complain come what may). The distribution of rights and freedoms is determined by which particular rights and freedoms will increase welfare. That's the point of rights - they make us better off. If a right ceases to do so, it should be dispensed with - or you're in the silly position of saying it's preferable that we are worse off.

So we have a party mechanism with the party members deciding by what criteria most people will be better off, and regulating all activities contrary to that criteria. Central Committee, or Mullahs, what's the difference?

The distribution of rights and freedoms should assure life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness. There is no universal "we." There is a collection of individuals, with a certain degree of common interests.

quote: Statist tyranny? More Libertarian gobbledigook.

As opposed to a Cromwellian-Orwellian-Leninist statist gobbledygook?

	31-05-2003 06:01									#75
	Suffering from ads?

I've noticed and heard from talk shows & what not that most guys who cheat do so just because they can while most women who cheat do it because they are really upset with their existing relationship. The guys, on the other hand, are often satisified with their wife or girlfriend but the other girl is willing so...

Another interesting thing is that most women want there boyfriend oir husband to find out eventually. There pissed off at him so this is a way of getting at him while most men try to hide it from the woman in their life. At least that's what Love Line and Doc Ruth say.

	31-05-2003 07:14									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat In a majority of states, dissolution proceedings are no-fault, and not subject to trial - just division of assets, custody, and child support. Who supposedly did what to who is generally inadmissible, unless it can be shown that there's something of such great magnitude as to be a risk to the safety of any children who might live with that parent. i.e. if one parent is a crack dealer and keeps loaded automatic weapons around the house, it's an issue.

This is the same in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

quote: You haven't dealt with the US legal system. If you open up the door to "sanctions" for certain acts, you get the trial circus.

There's something else that needs to be reformed.

quote: Not silly, nor moot at all. The point is the self-appointed powers of the state (or party, if you prefer) to decide which personal conduct matters to regulate.

It is silly, because that's what the law does anyway - it regulates behaviour. The division between what is subject to legal sanction and what's bad and isn't subject to legal saction is a pragmatic one. To imagine it as some moral truth laid up in heaven is simply ridiculous. Similarly with the distinction as to what is to count as a private matter and what isn't. Thus it's flexible. The plain fact is that we are often better off not subjecting certain things to the legal system because doing so does more harm than good. It's a moot point whether mild sanctions against adulterers will do more harm than good, just as it's a moot point how far the state should be able to interfere in family life to protect the welfare of children.

quote: The one-fifth to one-third number that gets bandied around is the number of working people who don't have private health care benefits through their employers, not some mythical number of people who have no access to healthcare at all.

The fact is Americans spend a fortune on health care for worse service than Canadians get through the single payer system. Public health care is simply more efficient at allocating the maximum resources for the minimum cost than a private system. These are just the facts.

quote: "A better overall result" is so vague and ambiguous that it is legally ridiculous.

Not really - it isn't vague at all. If the general level of welfare is increased it's a good thing. We make judgement calls like this all the time. And the utilitarian calculation has nothing to do with the law - it is prior to it, so saying it's legally ridiculous, is to miss the point entirely.

quote: Mullah Omar, OBL, al Qutb and al Maududi will insist that "a better overall result" is obtained when all acknowledge Allah and live according to the one true law he handed down for all mankind.

The fact that these people get it wrong about what the result of their policies will be doesn't mean that the general notion of constructing a legal system to try and increase welfare as much as possible (preferably using some maximin principle) is wrong. To say that it is is to make the mistake of confusing an empirical application of a value principle with the value principle itself.

quote: Jerry Falwell would have his own standard. The Libertarian Party has theirs, and you have yours. The real answer for when it becomes a legal matter is when the issue is such that even a private action is such a grave offense to public peace, security, or the basic functioning of society that there would be a substantial harm to the society as a whole of the activity in question was not made illegal. Legalized murder would lead to all sorts of potential stuff, including private wars, blood feuds, and a general breakdown of the entire society. Legalized property crimes would lead to the economic breakdown of society. Even relatively minor things like development and zoning laws fit in with that theme.

I agree with this.

quote: Matters of personal morals do not. Is there any public harm in adultery if there are no kids and all parties consent to it?

Since I'm not advocating either that it should be punishable as a criminal offence or that it matters that much if children aren't involved or that there is any harm done it all parties consent to it I can't see how this is supposed to be aimed at my position.

quote: Not in a legal sense, no. Is there any public harm if it is not accepted by all parties and there are kids? Again, no - not if the affected party has the option to terminate the relationship and move on.[QUOTE] Again - I never took aim at these cases, so I don't see what this has to do with me. [QUOTE]You can argue there's a private harm

This is sophistry. There is no such thing as private harm and public harm. There's harm, period. If there is a point here it's between harm to oneself and harm to others. But adultery is often a harm to others. Presumably you are going to say that if it's in a private relationship then that gives it some different status than if it's in some public arena. Bull - wife beating is harm that takes place in a private relationship - presumably you don't think the state has no interest in stopping that.

quote: but there's at least the same degree of private harm from a non-adulterous, but self-aborbed husband or wife who sits down in front of the TV, ignores spouse and kids except to demand to be waited on, and is otherwise a useless waste of DNA. Are you going to legally sanction all forms of being a bad husband/wife/parent?

No and by my logic I don't have to. I've repeatedly said that I think that extreme philanderers are a social nuisance and that I think that some form of punitive recognition in a divorce court of this would be worthwhile. This doesn't commit me to any of this other stuff.

Frankly, the same goes for the deadbeats who go around fathering 20+ children that they can't support (I know a guy like this). Everyone else pays for the consequences of his intemperance in various ways.

quote: The magnitude of public and private harm can't be distinguished between those types of situations and adultery. The remedy for the harmed party is (a) fix it, (b) accept it, (c) move on with your life.

Great - what if we treated wife beating this way?

quote: In some cases, yes. And the (privately) affected parties have (private) remedies. No need for the state to step in, except to provide the judicial forum for the divorce.

"Private remedies" usually means "no remedy". Presumably in the days when it was legal for a husband to rape his wife, the wife had private remedies. No substitute really.

quote: Laws against adultery don't guarantee fidelity any more than the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act guaranteed sobriety.[QUOTE] Nor do laws against wife beating. [QUOTE]Since they're equally arbitrary and subjective, then the state has the obligation to take the least action necessary to preserve and maintain compelling public interests.

So are laws, and we could go on. The fact is that the law can't work this way. At some point the law has to say "this is verboten" because it's a harm.

quote: Only in your perverted version of it. "The rights of the many" over the "rights of the few" can be used to justify nearly every wrong in history. The notion that individual rights are paramount requires the state to take the least level of action necessary when it regulates those individual's actions.

It doesn't matter. If you have one person's free speech rights creating a situation in which twenty people can't exercise their free speech rights, the one person has to be gagged. Rights based systems that endow rights to guarantee goods and prevent harms can't avoid majority-minority conflicts any more than a straight utilitarian system.

quote: So we have a party mechanism with the party members deciding by what criteria most people will be better off, and regulating all activities contrary to that criteria. Central Committee, or Mullahs, what's the difference?

Um, no... we have a democratically elected government that decides where to draw the line of state involvement and when to change it based on altered circumstances. You could take it one step further having a system of constitutional rights, but the same problem would occur.

quote: The distribution of rights and freedoms should assure life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness. There is no universal "we." There is a collection of individuals, with a certain degree of common interests.

You know, not one argument I've offered here is anti-individualist in princple. My point is simply that if we are all going to get along and do well we need to be flexible about how far the reach of the law goes. This is simple pragmatism. If you had to sit down and work out how to run a country full of human beings and right them a legal code, these would be the sort of problems you'd encounter.

quote: As opposed to a Cromwellian-Orwellian-Leninist statist gobbledygook?

Let's stop the insults there..