anthropologically Anybody that knows me can attest that I’m not a liberal, I’m just anti conservative. Many of my views on life revolve around a simple philosophy: “if it’s not infringing upon the rights of anybody else, I don’t have a problem with it.” This explains my stance on seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.
Anyway.. is the world growing more conservative, or are people just going overboard trying to complain about things?
After the Snickers commercial was taken down, I’m glad to see that some companies are starting to stand up to the conservatives.
GM has refused to take down it’s robot suicide commercial after pressure from suicide help groups, and I agree with GM here. It’s a robot. Robot’s don’t commit suicide. It’s not a human, so it’s funny. Get over it.
In a like move, Amazon has ignored requests of the Human Society to take down a cockfighting magazine. While cockfighting is illegal, publications about it aren’t. (see high-times magazine for proof of this.)
What’s worse, I’m not even sure why they’re going after Amazon. The magazine is being sold by a 3rd party that is just using Amazon’s storefront. Clearly, they should be going after the publisher not Amazon right?
I just want to say kudos to GM and Amazon for standing up for themselves when other companies are quick to give in to conservative demands.
You say:
“Many of my views on life revolve around a simple philosophy: “if it’s not infringing upon the rights of anybody else, I don’t have a problem with it.†This explains my stance on seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.”
I agree with the sentiment, but not sure about the examples.
If you drive without a seatbelt and get into a serious accident and become disabled, guess whose health insurance premiums, car insurance premiums, and welfare costs go up? Everyone else’s!!!
So, driving without a seatbelt on is NOT a victimless crime.
(& surely there are people who care about you, & they’d be rather upset if you became a drooling semi-vegetable, no?).
As to making money from cockfighting (directly or indirectly), it seems victimless until we factor in the quite dreadful animal cruelty and the fact that those who abuse animals often also abuse people.
Amazon is posturing itself as a 1st Amendment Savior, but it’s really about greed. Me, I’ll buy books elsewhere.
(High Times is really a much more valid example of the victimless crime idea)
Bottom line: whether something is infringing on other people’s rights is not as simple as it may seem.
Comment by Tess — February 12, 2007 @ 5:52 pm