I think that's part of the definition of "society", ain't it?
...
More definition of "society"? Yeah, I think so.
No, and I challenge you to find any sort of reference that defines society in this manner.
As has already been explained to you, a society is simply a group of people who live and work together in order to accomplish things that they could no do on their own. "Accomplish things that they could not do on their own" does not have the same meaning as "restrict people's freedom to perform acts that do not harm anyone." I don't know how you keep getting those two mixed up.
In some societies, sure, why not? That's the very definition of "society". You're confusing "freedom" and "society" somehow. Is it "freedom" to be constantly disgusted and offended by the acts of other members of the society?
No, it's not "the very definition of society". That's an artificial definition that you just made up to fit your argument.
No, not take away his freedom, but not permit him to preform those acts in their society. Just like any other crime or misdemeanor in our society. We don't allow people to shit on the sidewalk, do we? We don't allow people to park their cars in the middle of the street, do we? In neither of those two cases is anyone actually "harmed" according to your definition, so...?
As has already been explained to you, society
is justified in prohibiting an act that harms its members. Shitting on the sidewalk is a public health hazard. Parking your car in the middle of he street impedes the flow of traffic and creates a safety hazard. That's why society is justified in prohibiting those actions - because those actions harm people, not because they offend people. "Harm" does not have the same definition as "offend", but you seem to constantly mix them up. You want to prohibit prostitution because it
offends you. But if you want to justify a ban on prostitution, you have to come up with some examples of how it
harms you (or someone else who doesn't deliberately decide to become involved in it). So far you have not done that.
I don't know, I think your idea of freedom isn't the same as mine. And likewise, your idea of a free soceity isn't the same as mine, either. And apparently most societies in the world agree more with me than you, because there are tons of legal rules and laws in most societies about, say, shitting on the sidewalks and parking in the streets.
Again, you are confusing the prohibition of things that harm people with the prohibition of things that merely offend people. The USA agrees with me far more than it agrees with you. Many things that harm other people are prohibited in the USA, like shitting on sidewalks or parking in the street. There is also a strong tradition in the USA that the government can not prohibit something simply because some people (or even almost all people) find it offensive. That's why it's perfectly legal in the USA to create pornography, publish racist hate literature, or declare that you don't think god exists.
You are perfectly correct that there are some countries that ban things simply because the majority finds them offensive, rather than because they harm anyone, but for examples of those you would have to turn to places like Iran or China.
How far should your freedom infringe on the freedom of others not to witness some of your ideas of freedom?
You are perfectly free to not witness anything that you don't want to witness. If you are in a public place and you start to witness something that you don't like, you are free to leave. If you start to witness something that you don't like occurring on your property, you can tell whoever is doing it to stop and call the police if they refuse. What you seem to want is a guarantee that you will never be exposed to anything that you find objectionable, which is not at all the same thing as a “freedom”.
