|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 7, 2018 0:33:12 GMT
What gives you the right to decide any consequences for anyone? Each person has the right to decide for themselves what is acceptable behaviour towards them. Right. So I should be able too say, "Arresting me for x isn't acceptable behavior towards me," right?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 7, 2018 0:33:18 GMT
The answer is very simple. What they perceive as a level of unacceptable violence. So you get to decide what other people are to accept when it involves certain actions that you feel strongly about. Just by fiat, or? Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 7, 2018 0:33:34 GMT
The answer is very simple. What they perceive as a level of unacceptable violence. So you get to decide what other people are to accept when it involves certain actions that you feel strongly about. Just by fiat, or? How about it's my body and if I don't want you touching it you keep hands off? Why would you get to decide if you can slap/hit/horseplay with me?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 7, 2018 0:36:13 GMT
So you get to decide what other people are to accept when it involves certain actions that you feel strongly about. Just by fiat, or? How about it's my body and if I don't want you touching it you keep hands off? Why would you get to decide if you can slap/hit/horseplay with me? Why would you or anyone else get to decide that you can arrest me or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 7, 2018 0:38:48 GMT
Each person has the right to decide for themselves what is acceptable behaviour towards them. Right. So I should be able too say, "Arresting me for x isn't acceptable behavior towards me," right? No, not at all. You don't have a logical position so you are conflating the perpetrator as the victim and vice versa. You can be arrested for either breaking the law, or having a complaint made against you which has some evidence or validity in the eyes of the arresting officer/s. This is totally different to a victim of violence having the right to decide what is unacceptable to them. It is all about consent and personal autonomy.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 7, 2018 0:39:48 GMT
How about it's my body and if I don't want you touching it you keep hands off? Why would you get to decide if you can slap/hit/horseplay with me? Why would you or anyone else get to decide that you can arrest me or whatever? It wouldn't have to go that far if you didn't do anything serious to start with and you cut the crap. Why would you or anyone else get to decide you can lay hands on me and I have to accept it? Doesn't someone have a right to tell you to stop?
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 7, 2018 3:26:46 GMT
gozzy
WHAT AGAIN?
Remember-----> to keep you humble.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jul 7, 2018 4:35:11 GMT
i will forever fail to see where it is racist to comment on what YOU EXPERIENCED.
it is never ok to judge historical figures for 'racist thoughts/actions' based on todays standards and morals.
times were different back then. priorities were different. fears were the same [survival] but with different people as those feared.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 7, 2018 4:41:12 GMT
Yes it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 7, 2018 6:25:58 GMT
Depends on what you mean by 'Christian'. Do you consider yourself a person who follows or belongs to a religion based on the worship of one God and the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible? My belief in any Christian God is in the context of Vedanta Philosophy. So instead of believing in one God I believe in all the Gods. From my perspective belief in only one God is selective atheism.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 7, 2018 10:23:48 GMT
Right. So I should be able too say, "Arresting me for x isn't acceptable behavior towards me," right? No, not at all. You don't have a logical position so you are conflating the perpetrator as the victim and vice versa. You can be arrested for either breaking the law, or having a complaint made against you which has some evidence or validity in the eyes of the arresting officer/s. This is totally different to a victim of violence having the right to decide what is unacceptable to them. It is all about consent and personal autonomy. Then you can't frame it as having a categorical problem with someone else deciding what one can do, or what can be done to one. It's not a categorical objection to that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 7, 2018 10:26:39 GMT
Why would you or anyone else get to decide that you can arrest me or whatever? It wouldn't have to go that far if you didn't do anything serious to start with and you cut the crap. Why would you or anyone else get to decide you can lay hands on me and I have to accept it? Doesn't someone have a right to tell you to stop? Again, why would anyone get to decide who has a right to do anything or what anyone has to accept? <----I'm not suggesting that that's my stance. I'm saying that it's an upshot of your comment.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 7, 2018 11:01:18 GMT
It wouldn't have to go that far if you didn't do anything serious to start with and you cut the crap. Why would you or anyone else get to decide you can lay hands on me and I have to accept it? Doesn't someone have a right to tell you to stop? Again, why would anyone get to decide who has a right to do anything or what anyone has to accept? <----I'm not suggesting that that's my stance. I'm saying that it's an upshot of your comment. Who cares? I have no clue what point you're trying to make other than if I say you can't do something to me then you're having restrictions placed on you. Why is that a problem??
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 7, 2018 11:04:48 GMT
Again, why would anyone get to decide who has a right to do anything or what anyone has to accept? <----I'm not suggesting that that's my stance. I'm saying that it's an upshot of your comment. Who cares? I have no clue what point you're trying to make other than if I say you can't do something to me then you're having restrictions placed on you. Why is that a problem?? The point I'm making is that contra what your comments would suggest, you actually do not have a categorical problem with people being able to decide what other people need to just accept. If we don't have people deciding what others have to accept, we have anarchy, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 7, 2018 11:16:36 GMT
That's besides the point. We don't need to accept walking around being beat upon or physically attacked by someone else just as long as he or she stops before medical care is needed. I think we do. No we don't. We don't need someone causing a problem just because someone stepped on their foot or tapped their arm or whatever. That's for lawmakers to decide. If they say that "small" aggressions are punishable by law, then they are punishable by law. And I believe it's a good thing. To use your example of stealing a drug store pen: If only one person does it once, then one might say that it's not a big deal. But if half the visitors of a drug store decide to do it every day, then the store loses lots of money. Assuming 1000 visitors per day, and a price of 1 € per pen, that means a loss of 500 € per day; which might be the equivalent of the salary of four drug store employees. And therefore, it becomes a matter of preventing people to make a living. It's a matter of using common sense re the degree of "assault." Common sense is another word for prejudice, and prejudice exists where people refuse to think. So when you're telling people to use common sense, you're basically telling them not to think. Maybe you want to live in an anarchy where might makes right and people behave like instinct-driven animals; but I don't. And the existence of laws against even small theft and harassment shows that I'm not alone.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 7, 2018 11:22:13 GMT
No we don't. We don't need someone causing a problem just because someone stepped on their foot or tapped their arm or whatever. That's for lawmakers to decide. If they say that "small" aggressions are punishable by law, then they are punishable by law. And I believe it's a good thing. To use your example of stealing a drug store pen: If only one person does it once, then one might say that it's not a big deal. But if half the visitors of a drug store decide to do it every day, then the store loses lots of money. Assuming 1000 visitors per day, and a price of 1 € per pen, that means a loss of 500 € per day; which might be the equivalent of the salary of four drug store employees. And therefore, it becomes a matter of preventing people to make a living. It's a matter of using common sense re the degree of "assault." Common sense is another word for prejudice, and prejudice exists where people refuse to think. So when you're telling people to use common sense, you're basically telling them not to think. Maybe you want to live in an anarchy where might makes right and people behave like instinct-driven animals; but I don't. And the existence of laws against even small theft and harassment shows that I'm not alone. I'll be your lawmaker.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 7, 2018 13:08:37 GMT
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 7, 2018 21:01:49 GMT
Somewhere along the way, this thread got hijacked ...
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 9, 2018 12:23:16 GMT
How about it's my body and if I don't want you touching it you keep hands off? Why would you get to decide if you can slap/hit/horseplay with me? Why would you or anyone else get to decide that you can arrest me or whatever? You don't think that a society needs basic rules for them to follow, to be able to get along together?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 9, 2018 12:24:07 GMT
That's for lawmakers to decide. If they say that "small" aggressions are punishable by law, then they are punishable by law. And I believe it's a good thing. To use your example of stealing a drug store pen: If only one person does it once, then one might say that it's not a big deal. But if half the visitors of a drug store decide to do it every day, then the store loses lots of money. Assuming 1000 visitors per day, and a price of 1 € per pen, that means a loss of 500 € per day; which might be the equivalent of the salary of four drug store employees. And therefore, it becomes a matter of preventing people to make a living. This discussion seems related to Kant's famous Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical Imperative en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative Which is the idea of an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances (EG: Do not steal!) and is justified as an end in itself - to which several criticisms obtain. This is opposed to those hypothetical imperatives applying if you are arguing that it is to keep people in jobs we must not take the pen (i.e. because it does not maximize good for those involved), Kant would say that it is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Just sayin'.
|
|