> David wrote:
>
>         >What's the difference between psychological and physical? Don't you
> think
>         >emotional pain is real? Should all threats be legal if they aren't
> literally
>         >carried out?
>
>         I would argue that a threat that causes a person to take an action
> should be illegal:  "I'm gonna to whup yer butt" would cause me to get some
> kind of restraining order against my assailant.  "I'm gonna call you names
> and tell the world yer ugly" doesn't phase me in the least.  I'd say that
> inflicting or threatening to inflict psychological pain is simply bad
> manners and shouldn't be illegal: inflicting or threatening to inflict
> physical pain is why we subscribe to the social contract and so by
> definition is illegal.
>
>         Note that the basis for libel is a physical one based on ones
> position.  Thus, we have the Clinton fiasco, while the rest of us are
> relatively free to commit adultery ... within the constraints of the sexual
> harassment laws.  Can you give an example of when causing psychological pain
> that is CURRENTLY illegal?
>
Bigamy, drug laws (HIGHLY debatable, don't flame either way),
the CDA  (well, not quite current (praise whomever)), disturbing the peace,
my school has severe rules on swearing, insubordinating teachers etc.
>
>
>
>         What if the stranger convinced the one you cared about to hurt
> themselves
>         physically? (or in this case, let themselves die?) Is that physical
> or
>         psychological?
>
>         How can I care enough to be hurt about someone who allows themselves
> to be convinced to be hurt?  That seems to be "victim's" thinking ... ala
> the various "anonymous" groups.  Do you blame the people selling drugs for
> the people who take them?  Do you blame the liquor manufacturers for the
> alcoholics?  Of course currently America is blaming the tobacco companies
> for nicotine addiction ... but I think thats a scary trend.
>
>         I find it hard to believe you think everything is so clearly black
> and white
>         when it clearly is not.
>
>         Of course everything is not black and white ... but it seemed to me
> that you are advocating legislating things that are not black and white ...
> and that is a slippery slope.
>
>         What does this have to do with memetic engineering?  The world is a
> scary enough place with me worrying about getting sued for selling a faulty
> appliance at a garage sale ... can you imagine what it would be like if we
> had to start worrying about causing psychological pain by offering a
> reasonable argument for getting your navel pierced? <or even suicide>
>
Truly, quite scary.  Not to mention if each religion had to shut up outside
their homes and church, that might be nice but would be a slippery slope.
-- Nathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net"Oppenheimer funds, a secure investment for your future"
-Billboard at a stadium