Sex In Public Places

[lPeregrine]

Why should otherwise innocent people be ticketed/fined for something that has yet to be shown to cause objective harm to anybody?

The same reason you can be ticketed/fined for having a loud party at 3am, leaving trash all over your lawn, etc. Minor fines for being inconsiderate to the rest of society are hardly unprecedented.

The loud party at 3am DOES cause objective harm (neighbours can't sleep), so does leaving trash all over your lawn (attracts raccoons, assorted other vermin et al).
The objective harm caused by public sex is?

Just as one example, having sex in the hypothetical bus stop forces everyone else to either put up with it, or leave and give up their bus trip. It's a minor inconvenience, much like losing a bit of sleep one night. Neither of them should be criminal matters, but a small fine to discourage people from doing it too often isn't unreasonable.

And by the way, you can also be fined for noise violations in the middle of the day. So just like public sex, there's no objective harm besides "unnecessarily annoying the rest of society".

[Batman]

Just as one example, having sex in the hypothetical bus stop forces everyone else to either put up with it, or leave and give up their bus trip.

Bzzt. Wrong. It forces them to go where they no longer can see it. Still close enough to catch their bus.
And I can't recall anybody demanding public sex should be allowed everywhere. The oh-noes crowd wanted public sex to be either banned or at least discouraged, period. I myself have argued there are areas where public sex would almost inevitably interfere with the functioning of society and should be restricted. BY FINING THEM WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO SO.
NOT by fining them for having public sex.

It's a minor inconvenience, much like losing a bit of sleep one night.

There's a difference between having to step away a few feet and not being able to sleep all night.

Neither of them should be criminal matters, but a small fine to discourage people from doing it too often isn't unreasonable.

It is when no verifiable harm can be associated with them doing it. What's the harm done by a couple fucking somewhere on the grass in, say, Central Park?

And by the way, you can also be fined for noise violations in the middle of the day. So just like public sex, there's no objective harm besides "unnecessarily annoying the rest of society".

Noise violations DO cause objective harm you imbecile. Exposure to public sex does NOT.

[lPeregrine]

Just as one example, having sex in the hypothetical bus stop forces everyone else to either put up with it, or leave and give up their bus trip.

Bzzt. Wrong. It forces them to go where they no longer can see it. Still close enough to catch their bus.

Assuming they can. Which isn't all that easy if you've got a couple having loud screaming sex out in the open.

And I can't recall anybody demanding public sex should be allowed everywhere. The oh-noes crowd wanted public sex to be either banned or at least discouraged, period. I myself have argued there are areas where public sex would almost inevitably interfere with the functioning of society and should be restricted. BY FINING THEM WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO SO.

Good, so we agree then. Fines for public sex are not unreasonable.

Just because there's a fine for something doesn't mean the police have to make a massive effort to hunt everyone down and punish them. If a fine exists, the most obnoxious people will be fined, and everyone else will make an effort to avoid bothering anyone and attracting attention.

It's a minor inconvenience, much like losing a bit of sleep one night.

There's a difference between having to step away a few feet and not being able to sleep all night.

Besides the fact that it isn't just a matter of stepping a few feet away, you can be fined for that loud party whether it's 3am, or the middle of the afternoon.

Neither of them should be criminal matters, but a small fine to discourage people from doing it too often isn't unreasonable.

It is when no verifiable harm can be associated with them doing it. What's the harm done by a couple fucking somewhere on the grass in, say, Central Park?

And by the way, you can also be fined for noise violations in the middle of the day. So just like public sex, there's no objective harm besides "unnecessarily annoying the rest of society".

Noise violations DO cause objective harm you imbecile. Exposure to public sex does NOT.

Please, name the objective harm caused by having to listen to my neighbor's loud music (at a level that is safely below any danger of hearing loss for me) in the middle of the day. The answer is "no more than public sex"... there is no harm caused beyond annoying the rest of society, and possibly disrupting someone's activities.

[Batman]

Just as one example, having sex in the hypothetical bus stop forces everyone else to either put up with it, or leave and give up their bus trip.

Bzzt. Wrong. It forces them to go where they no longer can see it. Still close enough to catch their bus.

Assuming they can. Which isn't all that easy if you've got a couple having loud screaming sex out in the open.

Which STILL does no objective harm to them. The number of people physically hurt by being exposed to the aufio of sex is? They're being hurt by they're on prejudices and nothing else.

And I can't recall anybody demanding public sex should be allowed everywhere. The oh-noes crowd wanted public sex to be either banned or at least discouraged, period. I myself have argued there are areas where public sex would almost inevitably interfere with the functioning of society and should be restricted. BY FINING THEM WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO SO.

Good, so we agree then. Fines for public sex are not unreasonable.

Yes they are. You apparently have a reading comprehensing problem.
FINES FOR INTERFERING WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF SOCIETY ARE.
Your evidence for public sex inevitably doing so is?

It's a minor inconvenience, much like losing a bit of sleep one night.

There's a difference between having to step away a few feet and not being able to sleep all night.

Besides the fact that it isn't just a matter of stepping a few feet away, you can be fined for that loud party whether it's 3am, or the middle of the afternoon.

Happily ignoring the fact that you CAN step away and no longer see the fucking couple and are NOT entitled to not being exposed to offensive noises in a public space while you ARE to a degree in your own home.

Neither of them should be criminal matters, but a small fine to discourage people from doing it too often isn't unreasonable.

It is when no verifiable harm can be associated with them doing it. What's the harm done by a couple fucking somewhere on the grass in, say, Central Park?

I notice you failed to answer this.

And by the way, you can also be fined for noise violations in the middle of the day. So just like public sex, there's no objective harm besides "unnecessarily annoying the rest of society".

Noise violations DO cause objective harm you imbecile. Exposure to public sex does NOT.

Please, name the objective harm caused by having to listen to my neighbor's loud music (at a level that is safely below any danger of hearing loss for me) in the middle of the day.[/quote]
This is a trick question, right?

The answer is "no more than public sex"... there is no harm caused beyond annoying the rest of society, and possibly disrupting someone's activities.

Bzzt. Wrong again. The difference is that you don't even have to ignore public sex as it happens in, guess what, public spaces.
Your neighbour playing loud music affects you in your own home, and ignoring loud noises isn't exactly easy.

[SVPD]

Not to re-open the debate, but I was never thinking in terms of jail. I was thinking in terms of a ticket and a fine.

Why should otherwise innocent people be ticketed/fined for something that has yet to be shown to cause objective harm to anybody?

I believe I already clearly stated that I changed my mind. I was merely pointing out that I never had jail in mind in the first place.

[Batman]

Not to re-open the debate, but I was never thinking in terms of jail. I was thinking in terms of a ticket and a fine.

Why should otherwise innocent people be ticketed/fined for something that has yet to be shown to cause objective harm to anybody?

I believe I already clearly stated that I changed my mind. I was merely pointing out that I never had jail in mind in the first place.

No, you would just ticket/fine them for something that you have yet to prove causes any objective harm.

[lPeregrine]

Bzzt. Wrong. It forces them to go where they no longer can see it. Still close enough to catch their bus.

Assuming they can. Which isn't all that easy if you've got a couple having loud screaming sex out in the open.

Which STILL does no objective harm to them. The number of people physically hurt by being exposed to the aufio of sex is? They're being hurt by they're on prejudices and nothing else.

The number of people physically hurt by being exposed to the audio of loud music is? You can still be fined for noise violations even if you aren't loud enough to cause hearing damage. Nobody's saying it's causing physical injury... the entire principle is that being enough of an obnoxious moron in public can result in MINOR fines.

And I can't recall anybody demanding public sex should be allowed everywhere. The oh-noes crowd wanted public sex to be either banned or at least discouraged, period. I myself have argued there are areas where public sex would almost inevitably interfere with the functioning of society and should be restricted. BY FINING THEM WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO SO.

Good, so we agree then. Fines for public sex are not unreasonable.

Yes they are. You apparently have a reading comprehensing problem.
FINES FOR INTERFERING WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF SOCIETY ARE.
Your evidence for public sex inevitably doing so is?

What is so hard to understand about this? If you're having public sex and not bothering anyone, nobody is going to fine you. Are you honestly too stupid to see the difference between "fines are not unreasonable" and "the police should make every effort to hunt down and fine everyone for doing it"?

If a minor fine (comparable to other annoyance offenses like noise violations) exists for public sex, the only people who are going to be hurt by it are the ones who make enough of an annoyance out of it that people complain. In other words, "interefering with the function of society". The couple having sex under a blanket in a quiet corner of the park won't be fined.

There's a difference between having to step away a few feet and not being able to sleep all night.

Besides the fact that it isn't just a matter of stepping a few feet away, you can be fined for that loud party whether it's 3am, or the middle of the afternoon.

Happily ignoring the fact that you CAN step away and no longer see the fucking couple and are NOT entitled to not being exposed to offensive noises in a public space while you ARE to a degree in your own home.

Again, it depends on where they're doing it. If they're so easy to avoid, nobody is going to bother reporting them for a fine.

It is when no verifiable harm can be associated with them doing it. What's the harm done by a couple fucking somewhere on the grass in, say, Central Park?

I notice you failed to answer this.

Noise violations DO cause objective harm you imbecile. Exposure to public sex does NOT.

Please, name the objective harm caused by having to listen to my neighbor's loud music (at a level that is safely below any danger of hearing loss for me) in the middle of the day.

This is a trick question, right?

No, entirely serious. I want to know exactly what objective harm being annoyed by a loud party causes that somehow isn't caused by being annoyed by public sex.

The answer is "no more than public sex"... there is no harm caused beyond annoying the rest of society, and possibly disrupting someone's activities.

Bzzt. Wrong again. The difference is that you don't even have to ignore public sex as it happens in, guess what, public spaces.
Your neighbour playing loud music affects you in your own home, and ignoring loud noises isn't exactly easy.

So it's reasonable to disrupt peoples lives with public sex and make them avoid places they want to go? Depending on the location, ignoring sex isn't exactly easy.

[Surlethe]

I believe I already clearly stated that I changed my mind. I was merely pointing out that I never had jail in mind in the first place.

No, you would just ticket/fine them for something that you have yet to prove causes any objective harm.

Could that possibly be the reason he changed his mind to not support ticketing and fining them? Christ, did you even read his post?

[Batman]

I believe I already clearly stated that I changed my mind. I was merely pointing out that I never had jail in mind in the first place.

No, you would just ticket/fine them for something that you have yet to prove causes any objective harm.

Could that possibly be the reason he changed his mind to not support ticketing and fining them? Christ, did you even read his post?

Apparently not.
My apologies, SVPD.

[SVPD]

No, you would just ticket/fine them for something that you have yet to prove causes any objective harm.

Are you missing totally the part where I changed my mind about whether it should be illegal?

I was clarifying something for the record, not continuing the argument.

[SVPD]

No, you would just ticket/fine them for something that you have yet to prove causes any objective harm.

Are you missing totally the part where I changed my mind about whether it should be illegal?

I was clarifying something for the record, not continuing the argument.

Oops, I didn't read your last post

My apologies too.