List of things that should be prohibited, but aren't.
Anything that you could think of that should be made illegal, or shouldn't be part of modern society, but are. Actions, Items, Laws, even.
bringing a baby into a movie theater.
as much as i believe in just walking out, why the fuck should i? that bitch should be given a citation.
and being a dickhead customer is also not against the law, but it should be. I hate it when i see cashiers and baggers get told the worse shit by spoiled, cocksucking customers who are complaining that he didn't double bag one of the "heavier" items. those fuckers should just get shot. and the managers who allow that bullshit because of their "great customer service" should be given a citation as well.
seriously, i love just bitching out random dickhead customers at supermarkets that i go to. so fun to see the happiness in some of the employee's eyes.
I am a bagger at Tom Thumb(a grocery store) I get crap like that all the time. People wanting double bagged items in paper, or they give me a bunch of "save the earth" canvas bags to stuff their crap in. And the managers treat them like kings as if the whole company would crash if we lost one customer.
I once got yelled at for putting grapes on top of the bananas, because the lady thought the bananas where smashed, they were not, I had to take those perfectly good bananas to damaged and bring her new ones.
It sounds like you have worked at a grocery store before.
We need to have more of you at my store. I'm a cashier, the only one. I get to see it all.
The babies in a movie thing is de facto already. No one should do it and when they do and the baby starts making noise they usually take it out. It really wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have to day ~$25 to get in, and an extra fucking $10 for popcorn and water.
1. Nursing your infant in a restaurant or any public place.
2. Men hawking their phlegm on the street!
3. Music so loud in the next car that it looks like two people are fornicating in the trunk!
4. Hand held cell phones while driving. (Prohibited but not upheld)
Side: Prohibitively rude disgusting dangerous
1. It's a natural human thing, and is beneficial to the child. Do you oppose abortion?
2. This is a natural human thing too, I do it when I have to. Doctors tell you that if you have phlegm, cough it up, it's your body's way of expelling it. When there's nowhere to do it why not in the street? People do worse things in the street.
3. + 4. These are already prohibited (in California). "List of things that should be prohibited, but aren't." isn't a good place to put things that are already prohibited! ;)
(I'm not picking on you, I'm just playing by the rules.)
Side: Prohibitively rude disgusting dangerous
1. Nursing & Abortion? Where's the connection there? I do not oppose abortion in most circumstances...for the record. Get your fat ass up and nurse in the privacy of the ladies room.
2. Of course you should get it out, but not at the feet of the person who is walking toward you. Have you no tissues or a handkerchief? If one has a problem with phlegm, like I do, bring some!
3. & 4. In many states...but just because they are prohibited does not mean they are upheld.
(I know that Bradf0rd)
Side: Prohibitively rude disgusting dangerous
1. Yea, nature should only happen in private...right.
2. What would be more gross to you? 1. Having that phlem in your mouth/eating it, or just spitting it out? Do you swallow? If so, thats pretty gross.
3. This annoys me too, but my free speech should not be restricted in any way, even in volume. So this one gets opposed too.
4. Agreed. This is proven to be dangerous. No argument here.
Side: Anything Dangerous
I think unsolicited "direct marketing" mail should be prohibited. I get so much junk mail at my house every day that just ends up going into the trash. I'm pretty sure I fill up a landfill each year personally just by the amount of junk mail that I throw away. Since most of them are credit card offers I shred them first, but still imagine all of the trees and landfills that could be saved simply by implementing something along the lines of the "do not call" list for mail.
Side: Junk Mail
Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.
One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population, that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking - an activity which kills millions of people each year.
Smoking tobacco not only gives the smoker a high chance of an early grave it gives those around him/her the same chances due to second hand smoke. What does all of this lead to? An irresponsible government that lets Americans continue to poison ourselves and do nothing about it.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you less.
I feel that if we allow the government to ban tobacco then we are turning into a Communist nation. The more power we give to the government the less and less they have to listen to us, the people who put them in power in the first place. The government is not there to protect our health, contrary to popular opinion I know, but rather it is in place to protect our rights as individuals and our rights as a nation.
"One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population..."
I don't think so. The government, here anyway, is supposed to protect our rights to do as we please. One part of that is protecting other people from what we please. This mean, if I want to shoot my gun on my property, that's fine, but only so long as I don't shoot towards the street. This is because American's have the right to own and use weapons, but because it may hurt someone (accidentally or otherwise), we have restrictions on how we may use them.
We already have laws regarding the use of tobacco (again, in California). People cannot smoke inside because it damages the building and the second hand smoke lingers and can harm other people depending on how long they're exposed to it (for employees, it could be extremely harmful).
Socialism works, look at insurance. It's a law enforced mix between capitalism/socialism. You have to get insurance if you're going to drive, no matter how good at driving you are, or where you'll be driving, or how many cars you'll be driving at any given time... all of the cars that you have must be insured... not for you either, for the other person. Everyone pays for it, but only some people use the money, when they get in accidents. That's socialism. The capitalistic part is where these law requiring institutions have control over their prices and the way that they operate. Different companies offer different benefits, costs, maximum payouts, etc.
Socialism only works to a certain extent. But when you try and make all independent big businesses national or government run then it has gone too far because that messes with Capitalism. It feels like we are now turning into the very thing we fought so patriotically against during the Cold War! Socialism is just one step away from Communism, and if we have any American Patriotism left in us we should realize that if we continue down the path we are on now we will go against everything our forfathers left for us.
I'm sure I can think of a list in my head, but the most current one sticking in my head, is smoking within the military. It is actually listed as being majorly discouraged within the Air Force branch. If caught smoking or with cigs in tech school for instance, you're in major trouble. And it's so disencouraged because it does affect an Airman's performance within the job. And I hold the same argument about military men that are drinking regularly after work, and addicted to some sort of prescription drug that the military hands out like candy. The issue with smoking, is even though it's discouraged and written everywhere in the military, the Airmen (amongst other branches) can just go out and smoke on breaks and whenever and no one does anything about it. Also to mention, it is also heavily depended on in the military, which is pretty ridiculous. I think the military should grow some balls and stick to the shit they say. They might actually perform better physically and mentally when deployed (not implying that they're doing a shit job or anything by the way, just stating it physiologically).
I get your point, and I agree overweight people should stop eating food just making them worse. But that's really not the reason they're overweight. I'd blame overweight people from having a lack of personal self-worth and lack of knowledge of how food works in their body. Eating fast food becomes as much an addiction as drinking coffee (in a sense). And like giving up coffee, you can't do it unless you really convince yourself you want and you go for it. So really, there are better alternatives for overweight people than locking them out of fast food (there's still the drive thru...haha).
Hmmm, you have got a point. one up vote.
OK, here's what we'll do, we will take away their handicap parking privileges and force them to do exercise by forcing them to walk from their car to the store. We will also take away their wheel chair privileges. That'll fix them ;)
If they weren't allowed to leave the house they would keep growing. The most exercise these people get is probably in getting more food... Maybe they should measure people and give them a customized food menu instead... and make HEALTHIER FOOD CHEAPER so that there's an upside to eating healthy other than not getting 2000+ calories per meal.
I didn't say anything about them not leaving their homes. Also, if they go to a restaurant and order their healthy "fatty meal," what's to prevent them to go to another restaurant and reordering the same healthy "fatty meal" until they have consumed their 2000+ calories?
Public Displays of Affection
When I'm single, I always seem to notice the only couple in the room making out and it always makes me extremely jealous that they found each other and I didn't find anyone. Seeing other people express love publicly upsets me. And I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world. It's one thing in a movie or on TV, since it's just acting and I know that.
This is selfish. Just because you get depressed seeing people loving each other and being happy doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it. If that were a proper motive to criminalize something, then there would be a lot of fat, lazy, ignorant americans locked up that depress me when I see them.
Side: Anything Dangerous
No, he has a good point.
It's like when I see someone drinking milk and then I look at my water, and I see that it's not milk, and then I look back at this gluttonous bastard as he's sipping away on his tall glass of cold thick Vitamin D.
It's disturbing because WHERE IS MY MILK!?
Side: Anything Dangerous
Prohibition is the only form of law that exists to keep people from doing something in the first place. Once you stop prohibiting, you get crimes that cannot be punished. The law prohibits acts like murder. If you're caught trying to hurt someone, you get charged with attempted assault... why? Because you were trying to do something that is already prohibited.
Take away prohibition and you also lose reactionary services like your typical law enforcement. There would be no law to enforce. Nothing to apprehend people for doing, nothing to hold people in prisons for doing.
A "peaceful solution" would be to take the murders and rapists, and child abusers, etc. and tell them that you love them and that you hope they change... even though telling them that you hope they change is in a sense a disagreement. Even if you look at someone like "I'm mad at you for raping my child" you're causing conflict.
What you want is a hippies paradise, and those don't exist because peace is something that we cannot share.
I understand where you're coming from, but what you're saying is simply not true. We don't need laws and coercion to stop people from doing things- first of all, you need to look at the facts and see if these laws that try and prohibit behaviour are actually working.
You say that the law prohibits acts like murder. More people have been murdered by democide (mass murder caused or ordered by governments) than anything else. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, George W. Bush; they are all responsible for genocide. States have caused many more murders than they have prevented.
I have no problem with voluntary prohibition. For example, you come over to my house. I allow you to come in, but I prohibit smoking in my house. If you agree to the terms you can come in, if you don't then you cannot come in. Most people understand and respect the value of adhering to these kind of preferences; and people who don't will either ignore the laws or seek a position of power to be above them.
I strongly disagree that a "peaceful solution" would be to take murderers, rapists, child abusers, etc. and tell them that they are loved (why would lying help?) and hope that they change. By "peaceful solution" I meant forming a society with like-minded people, and voluntarily agreeing to laws and punishments. For those who disagree, instead of using coercion, let them form their own society. Don't do business with those people. Ostracism works quite well, and is a peaceful solution.
Peace is definitely something we can share! If it isn't, though, I'm not sure why you think inflicted prohibition is so wonderful. If you believe that prohibition is the way to go, than why are you on a debating site? Why are you using persuasion? If you truly believe prohibition is the only effective solution, then you should be trying to outlaw opposing viewpoints instead of peacefully arguing against them.
Side: Inflicted Prohibition