Stupid Laws.

[Anarchy_Zach1507]

Here…you can list laws that YOU think are “stupid” and why.

No Spanking Law.

The government shouldn’t have a say in how you raise your children.

Some parents abuse their children, but that is totally different from spanking.

Example:
If a child goes to touch a burning candle…they should be smacked on the hands so they know not to do it and so they don’t get hurt. It’s for their safety.

The NO SPANKING law is one of the stupidist laws I have ever heard of!

[Dr.Satanical]

I think the idea of a coersive state entity dictating what is acceptable behavior to me or anyone else is already the height of stupidity.

[Mudman]

I wasn’t even aware of a no spanking law. That is pretty dumb, I will admit.

[Phaedrus]

Laws against suicide are pretty much retarded. What punishment could possibly dissaude one from killing oneself?

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Phaedrus

Laws against suicide are pretty much retarded. What punishment could possibly dissaude one from killing oneself?

Death penalty?

[Anarchy_Zach1507]

@someoneisatthedoor

@Phaedrus

Laws against suicide are pretty much retarded. What punishment could possibly dissaude one from killing oneself?

Death penalty?

Haha…

[someoneisatthedoor]

Here’s an amusing law that was passed in 2005 in the UK, but has subsequently proven illegal.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which grants the Home Secretary the power to impose control orders on suspected terrorists, can be read here:
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050002.htm

In the very first paragraph we find the following:

1 Power to make control orders

    (1) In this Act "control order" means an order against an individual that imposes obligations on him for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

To be clear, the aim of these control orders is not to protect the public from terrorism, or even to protect the public from a risk of terrorism, but ‘for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism’. So, the actual aim of these control orders is never stated, merely ‘purposes connected with…’. Given that these control orders were later ruled to be illegal by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, one can only speculate as to what is the aim of them.

Of course, this Act was introduced to deal with the problems with the prior anti-terrorism Act (2001), parts of which were also ruled to be illegal. It seems that the British government has nothing better to do than try to pass laws that aren’t legal. Of course, since they aren’t legal, they’re absolutely useless in terms of fighting terrorism.

And people wonder why I don’t trust the government in my country…

[aspacia]

@Anarchy_Zach1507

Here…you can list laws that YOU think are “stupid” and why.

No Spanking Law.

Agreed.

The government shouldn’t have a say in how you raise your children.

What if you are raising your children to murder and discriminate against those of a different skin color or faith? What if you are raising you child/ren to be loud and aggresive? Then they mouth of to U.S. policeperson? Said child could easily be tasered or shot.

Some parents abuse their children, but that is totally different from spanking.

True.

The NO SPANKING law is one of the stupidist laws I have ever heard of!

LOL, true enough, but it is illegal in some European countries.

aspacia

[phawkins1988]

Let’s have some examples of where a jury has convicted someone for spanking.

[Wobbly]

What if you are raising your children to murder and discriminate against those of a different skin color or faith? What if you are raising you child/ren to be loud and aggresive? Then they mouth of to U.S. policeperson? Said child could easily be tasered or shot.

I know I plan to raise my children in accordance with won’t get them shot by a power hungry frat boy in a uniform.

[aspacia]

@Nihilistic

What if you are raising your children to murder and discriminate against those of a different skin color or faith? What if you are raising you child/ren to be loud and aggresive? Then they mouth of to U.S. policeperson? Said child could easily be tasered or shot.

I know I plan to raise my children in accordance with won’t get them shot by a power hungry frat boy in a uniform.

What about the “power-hungry frat boy” the type in Animal House???

My point is should the government intervene when some parents are unfit??

With regards,

aspacia

[someoneisatthedoor]

news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi … 219484.ece

Tony Blair’s government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.

The astonishing tally brought accusations last night of a “frenzied approach to law-making” that contrasts with falling detection rates and climbing levels of violent crime…

…In total, the Government has brought in 3,023 offences since May 1997. They comprise 1,169 introduced by primary legislation - debated in Parliament - and 1,854 by secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council.

Remarkably, Labour is creating offences at twice the rate of the previous Tory administration. During its last nine years in office, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, fewer than 500 new crimes reached the statute book via primary legislation.

And the rate at which offences are being created is accelerating the longer that Tony Blair remains in Downing Street. In 1998, Labour’s first full year in power, 160 new offences passed into legislation, rising to 346 in 2000 and 527 in 2005…

…Many offences are uncontroversial and will have widespread support, such as tougher penalties for selling contaminated food or against violent crime. But the Government has still managed to produce a surreal list of new offences.

It is now illegal to sell grey squirrels, impersonate a traffic warden or offer Air Traffic Control services without a licence. Creating a nuclear explosion was outlawed in 1998.

And people wonder why I don’t trust this government. Note that well over half of the crimes created since 1997 haven’t even been subject to parliamentary debate. Britain used to rule the waves, now it just waves the rules…

[OK_Computer]

“The United States is a nation of laws that are badly written and randomly enforced.”

-OKComp

[Anzha]

There is a law in the state of Maryland prohibiting Oral Sex.

…how would you even enforce such a law? I can see it now, the cops busting down the door, saying "We have a warrant to investigate potential oral sex in progress!? Geez. XD.

[Anarchy_Zach1507]

Holy crap… I live in Virginia…but I have never heard of such a law…It’s so stupid though.

[aspacia]

@OK Computer

“The United States is a nation of laws that are badly written and randomly enforced.”

-OKComp

True, and true in most other nations as well.

With regards,

aspacia

[Thinker-Kid100]

@someoneisatthedoor

Here’s an amusing law that was passed in 2005 in the UK, but has subsequently proven illegal.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which grants the Home Secretary the power to impose control orders on suspected terrorists, can be read here:
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050002.htm

In the very first paragraph we find the following:

1 Power to make control orders

    (1) In this Act "control order" means an order against an individual that imposes obligations on him for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

To be clear, the aim of these control orders is not to protect the public from terrorism, or even to protect the public from a risk of terrorism, but ‘for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism’. So, the actual aim of these control orders is never stated, merely ‘purposes connected with…’. Given that these control orders were later ruled to be illegal by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, one can only speculate as to what is the aim of them.

Of course, this Act was introduced to deal with the problems with the prior anti-terrorism Act (2001), parts of which were also ruled to be illegal. It seems that the British government has nothing better to do than try to pass laws that aren’t legal. Of course, since they aren’t legal, they’re absolutely useless in terms of fighting terrorism.

And people wonder why I don’t trust the government in my country…

Sounds alot like the damned and infamous “Patriot Act” which is itself unpatriotic as it overrides most of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Burn them both!

[aspacia]

@Thinker-Kid100

Sounds alot like the damned and infamous “Patriot Act” which is itself unpatriotic as it overrides most of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Burn them both!

Chuckle, we have always, and I do mean always, suspended most rights during a war, and we were attacked.

Of course there are two posters who claim that the USA is behind the 9/11 attacks, which is bs.

With regards,

aspacia

[Xunzian]

Is precedent sufficient for moral validation? Or could many of those extended powers be viewed as mistakens, given the validity of hindsight?

If that is found to be the case, then why extend them again. Einstein’s definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@aspacia

@Thinker-Kid100

Sounds alot like the damned and infamous “Patriot Act” which is itself unpatriotic as it overrides most of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Burn them both!

Chuckle, we have always, and I do mean always, suspended most rights during a war, and we were attacked.

‘Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you.’ - Richard Clarke, on the subject of 9/11.

So, the government failed in its duty, and you think it is a just response to grant them even more power?

Bizarre, quite frankly.

Of course there are two posters who claim that the USA is behind the 9/11 attacks, which is bs.

1. Find a single post where I’ve claimed that.
2. You haven’t even read the work that I cite on a regular basis, so your claim that it is ‘bs’ is totally unfounded.

Try again, aspacia…