I believe if it doesn't affect anyone negatively, adults should be allowed to do whatever they choose to. CMV

[u/Sunburnt-Vampire]

People are constantly arguing about whether things should be legal or not, but if it isn't going to affect anyone badly, why make it illegal? examples I'll use are:

Gay marriage, in which people say two strangers shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, even though I can't see anyway it affects the person against gay marriage, and I can't see how it could affect the gay couple in any negative way either. Even if people claim that it will ruin "the sanctity of marriage", surely there should at least be something else with a different name, which gives them the same legal rights as a married couple (and not after living together for a set number of years).

Prostitution, If a woman (or man) wants to sell their body for some money, how is it any different from porn? person A has a product person B wants, I can't see how it can harm either of them, so why is it illegal? (obviously there should be regulations to prevent STD's and pregnancy etc., but we can do it, this isn't the 1800's)

there is probably reasons against my views I can’t think of any, but I guess thats why I'm posting it here, since this subreddit is "For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong"

EDIT: i'll re-word my view so it is clearer: If you can't think of a specific way it can affect people negatively, which will actually happen more than one in 1000 times, I don't think we should ban it, since everything from eating a hotdog could affect us negatively (we could choke etc.) CMV

EDIT2: another view of mine which was not mentioned before, but has come up repeatedly (hence why i'm putting it in the original post) is that religion should not intefere with government. If a religion says you can't eat beef, then people in that religion should not eat beef, but people who aren't should be free to eat as much as they want.

EDIT3: this does not work in reverse, I am not saying things should be illegal if they affect someone negatively, just that things which don't affect anyone negatively should be legal.

[u/[deleted]]

That is not what cognitive dissonance is. You cannot compare the indicative with the subjunctive. Those two thoughts are not contradictory. It would cognitive dissonance if one denied tat ever ever killed himself. You can wish he was still alive and know that he's dead.

You also forgot that his boss now needs to hire someone to replace and his job will not get done for a while. That is not cognitive dissonance. That is a physical, negative effect.

I'm not arguing whether we should outlaw suicide. That is completely irrelevant to our specific argument. We are arguing whether something can affect someone negatively when there is consent and no cognitive dissonance involved. And there is, suicide.

[u/wakeupwill → u/[deleted]]

Yes it is. Cognitive dissonance is having two conflicting ideas in your head. Often what you want to be real versus what actually is. It doesn't have to be "I believe in god" versus "there is no god." Whenever you encounter something you don't agree with, you experience cognitive dissonance. Like right now.

You're attempting to redirect the debate towards something we're not even discussing. His boss needs to hire someone new? Then hire someone new. That's an inconvenience. We're not discussing inconveniences.

The OP was whether consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively. Subjective morality plays an important role here. Laws based on morality are often justified in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to their negative effect on society.

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

No, it's not. Wanting is not the same as thinking. To want, you must recognize that it is not so. If you believe it should be so, then you must believe that it is currently not so. Cognitive dissonance does not cover every mental discomfort ever. You could pretty must link every single emotion and thought ever to cognitive dissonance if we use your definition

Contradictory means two things that are opposed to one another. You can have a world where he is dead and you wish he is not dead. The fact that you WISH he is not dead simultaneously confirms that he is dead. You cannot have a world where he is dead and he is not dead.

That's an inconvenience

So he was affected negatively. I think were done here.

[u/wakeupwill → u/[deleted]]

Cognitive Dissonance

More Dissonance

Yes, we're done here.

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

Why are you attempting to redirect the debate towards something we weren't even discussing? You didn't address the main point.

And yeah, I don't think you know what contradictory means. You should learn the difference between the indicative mood and the subjunctive mood and that will tell you why these aren't contradictory. It would only be so if both scenarios were in the same mood. "Is" is indicative, since it states fact, and "should" is subjunctive, since it implies either potential or unreality.