|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:40:16 GMT
Right, other people decide at least to some extent. And all of those laws are about what you can and can't do with your body and what can and can't be done to your body, no? Of course, that was never at issue. The objection she issued is "Who are you to decide (what I can choose to do with my body or what I must tolerate)." That's what I've been addressing. So see my comment above and your answer above. So in those cases, who are those people to decide? It's the same thing. She's not constantly asking "Who are you to decide" is she? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:42:04 GMT
Other people decided what you can do with your body, and also decided that they can pat you down, when you're in an airport, right? Who cares? I agreed to the possibility of that happening when I bought the ticket and came to the airport. Presumably you would care given the objection you made above. Who are they to decide such things? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 11:42:19 GMT
Of course, that was never at issue. The objection she issued is "Who are you to decide (what I can choose to do with my body or what I must tolerate)." That's what I've been addressing. So see my comment above and your answer above. So in those cases, who are those people to decide? It's the same thing. She's not constantly asking "Who are you to decide" is she? If you're talking about me (the she) who if not me is to decide what I will tolerate when it comes to my body? You can also decide for yourself. I have no clue what your point even is. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:45:37 GMT
Other people decided what you can do with your body, and also decided that they can pat you down, when you're in an airport, right? Yes, but you have the right NOT to consent, and possibly not to travel. You don't have the right to not consent to being arrested when you say, "I'm sorry, I'm not going through security today, I'm just going to my plane." Who are they to decide that they can do that to your body? (I'm not saying that's my argument, by the way. I'm saying it should be the argument of kls given her comments above. It's a critique of (the reasoning behind) her argument.) |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 11:45:38 GMT
Who cares? I agreed to the possibility of that happening when I bought the ticket and came to the airport. Presumably you would care given the objection you made above. Who are they to decide such things? I honestly don't even know what you're getting at. The post you quoted was quite clear. If I make the decision what's the issue? It has nothing to do with people touching or hitting me without my consent. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:47:13 GMT
The objection she issued is "Who are you to decide (what I can choose to do with my body or what I must tolerate)." That's what I've been addressing. So see my comment above and your answer above. So in those cases, who are those people to decide? It's the same thing. She's not constantly asking "Who are you to decide" is she? If you're talking about me (the she) who if not me is to decide what I will tolerate when it comes to my body? You can also decide for yourself. I have no clue what your point even is. Other people decide this all the time. You don't have a problem with it in most situations. You don't say, "Who are they do decide that I can't take my cell phone in to work/that I can't just ignore this red light/that I can't just bypass security and go to my plane, etc." |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:48:23 GMT
Presumably you would care given the objection you made above. Who are they to decide such things? I honestly don't even know what you're getting at. The post you quoted was quite clear. If I make the decision what's the issue? It has nothing to do with people touching or hitting me without my consent. You don't suppose that everyone getting arrested has given consent to do that to their body, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 11:50:18 GMT
I honestly don't even know what you're getting at. The post you quoted was quite clear. If I make the decision what's the issue? It has nothing to do with people touching or hitting me without my consent. You don't suppose that everyone getting arrested has given consent to do that to their body, do you? Why should I care if someone arrested for doing something to me is restricted as to where he can go or incarcerated? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:51:58 GMT
You don't suppose that everyone getting arrested has given consent to do that to their body, do you? Why should I care if someone arrested for doing something to me is restricted as to where he can go or incarcerated? I'm not talking (exclusively) about someone being arrested for doing something to you. I'm talking about someone being arrested for anything. Other people decided what they have to tolerate re people doing something to their body nonconsensually, right? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 11:54:52 GMT
If you're talking about me (the she) who if not me is to decide what I will tolerate when it comes to my body? You can also decide for yourself. I have no clue what your point even is. Other people decide this all the time. You don't have a problem with it in most situations. You don't say, "Who are they do decide that I can't take my cell phone in to work/that I can't just ignore this red light/that I can't just bypass security and go to my plane, etc." I still don't even have a clue what you are trying to prove or what point you're trying to make. We're not talking about the same things. I took the job knowing I couldn't bring in my cell phone. I drive on roads knowing I can't ignore the red light (good thing to since I hope we all abide by that. I don't need to bypass security to go to my plane. I'm not special, I'll leave early enough so I can wait in the line and make the plane on time so there is a better chance all of us in the air or safer. I don't see these things as problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:56:47 GMT
Other people decide this all the time. You don't have a problem with it in most situations. You don't say, "Who are they do decide that I can't take my cell phone in to work/that I can't just ignore this red light/that I can't just bypass security and go to my plane, etc." I still don't even have a clue what you are trying to prove or what point you're trying to make. We're not talking about the same things. I took the job knowing I couldn't bring in my cell phone. I drive on roads knowing I can't ignore the red light (good thing to since I hope we all abide by that. I don't need to bypass security to go to my plane. I'm not special, I'll leave early enough so I can wait in the line and make the plane on time so there is a better chance all of us in the air or safer. I don't see these things as problems. "I don't see these things as problems." Yes. That's a large part of my point. Yet other people are deciding what you can and can't do with your body, what you have to tolerate, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 11:57:37 GMT
Why should I care if someone arrested for doing something to me is restricted as to where he can go or incarcerated? I'm not talking (exclusively) about someone being arrested for doing something to you. I'm talking about someone being arrested for anything. Other people decided what they have to tolerate re people doing something to their body nonconsensually, right? And? Again, why do I care (unless something cruel or unusual is being done to them)? What things are you seeing as out of line? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 11:59:51 GMT
I'm not talking (exclusively) about someone being arrested for doing something to you. I'm talking about someone being arrested for anything. Other people decided what they have to tolerate re people doing something to their body nonconsensually, right? And? Again, why do I care (unless something cruel or unusual is being done to them)? What things are you seeing as out of line? The reason you'd presumably care is that the reasoning you presented is that insofar as anyone is doing anything to anyone else's body, restricting it, or subjecting it to anything, etc., you said, "Who are they to decide?" |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 12:00:45 GMT
I still don't even have a clue what you are trying to prove or what point you're trying to make. We're not talking about the same things. I took the job knowing I couldn't bring in my cell phone. I drive on roads knowing I can't ignore the red light (good thing to since I hope we all abide by that. I don't need to bypass security to go to my plane. I'm not special, I'll leave early enough so I can wait in the line and make the plane on time so there is a better chance all of us in the air or safer. I don't see these things as problems. "I don't see these things as problems." Yes. That's a large part of my point. Yet other people are deciding what you can and can't do with your body, what you have to tolerate, etc. When it's a situation I can opt out it's not the same thing. I'm not even sure what you mean by tolerate. Most the things you mention I wouldn't have another way. I wouldn't want to be on a road without rules to keep drivers safe or on a plane without security checkpoints before boarding. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 12:03:33 GMT
And? Again, why do I care (unless something cruel or unusual is being done to them)? What things are you seeing as out of line? The reason you'd presumably care is that the reasoning you presented is that insofar as anyone is doing anything to anyone else's body, restricting it, or subjecting it to anything, etc., you said, "Who are they to decide?" No, I said who are they to decide in the context of touching me or striking me. Not in the context of consequences for doing something to someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 12:04:58 GMT
"I don't see these things as problems." Yes. That's a large part of my point. Yet other people are deciding what you can and can't do with your body, what you have to tolerate, etc. When it's a situation I can opt out it's not the same thing. I'm not even sure what you mean by tolerate. Most the things you mention I wouldn't have another way. I wouldn't want to be on a road without rules to keep drivers safe or on a plane without security checkpoints before boarding. You can't opt out of traffic laws, pedestrian laws (jaywalking, etc.) if you want to go anywhere, and most people can't survive without going anywhere. Even if you don't go anywhere, you can't opt out of laws re what you can do in your own home. Or at least if you try to opt of them you'll be arrested, fined, etc., and you can't opt out of those things either. That's other people controlling what you can do with your body. Who are they to decide? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2018 12:07:59 GMT
The reason you'd presumably care is that the reasoning you presented is that insofar as anyone is doing anything to anyone else's body, restricting it, or subjecting it to anything, etc., you said, "Who are they to decide?" No, I said who are they to decide in the context of touching me or striking me. Not in the context of consequences for doing something to someone else. Again, I'm not talking about anyone doing anything to you. People get arrested for all sorts of things. If you say "I'm not going through security today, I'm just getting on my plane" you'll be arrested (and most people won't be consensually arrested for that). I'm not talking about YOU doing that. I'm saying that's something that people are arrested for. And that person didn't do anything physically to anyone else. They just said something and started walking. The reasoning you presented is that insofar as anyone is doing anything to anyone else's body, restricting it, or subjecting it to anything, etc., you said, "Who are they to decide?" Arresting someone for skipping the security line is doing something to their body that they didn't consent to. Well, who were those people to decide that they could do that (place them under arrest) to the security-line skipper's body? That should be your argument if you're consistent and articulate in what your argument actually is. That that is not your argument is my point. Your objection isn't actually "Who are you/who are they to decide," because you're fine with other people deciding such things in countless situations. (And that's pretty much the case for everyone unless they're fairly irrational, because society couldn't really work otherwise.) |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 12:31:37 GMT
If it's for a purpose. Like a pap smear or something. Not a fan of it, but it's necessary. Letting random people assault or touch me for no reason other than for them to get their jollies is another thing entirely. How do we determine whether something is for a purpose or not? Great points Terrapin. It's about us being forced to live our lives based on someone else's ideals. What are these ideals, whose are they and where do they reside? Why do they know better? Who is the they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 17, 2018 12:34:54 GMT
[The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law] because what a piece of paper says is completely irrelevant. Is this a special rule, or 'law' of your own that I see written down here? By your own yardstick then it might be irrelevant. In any case, it still begs the question. You did not specify religious law, just 'the law' my friend, if this is what you mean. So enlighten this atheist: are you here really saying that even secular law is irrelevant enough to be ignored, or is it just religious 'do's and don'ts', as in the commandments? Is it any law which has a mirror in religious writing? Or is it just any written laws per se? And what, then, ought laws be replaced with? Chinese Whispers? A peculiar example, and I don't see what this has to do with the notion that laws can be ignored generally without moral penalty, which ultimately is what you are suggesting - and without due logical reason, so far. (This of course does not mean that every law is to be obeyed no matter what, of course, as the Founding Fathers and others demonstrated, but even then they eventually came up with one of the best known and greatest legal codes we have.) But if you really say all laws are irrelevant, presumably this means for you child abuse, murder, and rape etc are not to be considered crimes at all, as their legal proscription is meaningless. So what are they then? Just ... hobbies? No law, whether religious are secular is to be taken into account, no matter the decision. If you're allowed to break the law in certain circumstances why not others? It's just funny that you criticise Christians for looking to the bible for moral guidance, when you do the same, just with the legal system. Another amusing thing is that just like Christians, you pick and choose from the bible, you conveniently ignore the bible when it suits you. The sole difference being your bible is legal system. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 12:35:45 GMT
Is it wrong to judge the behaviour of people in non-modern western societies by standards of modern western societies? My opinion: It's ok to judge them, if their country signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if their society violates them. However, in the past, there was no Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So judging them is more difficult. But some people did it anyway. Nuremberg trials anyone? who cares about the law? The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law. Exactly! The law is irrelevant if one isn't breaking it, because it is of no concern or consequence at that moment. If we are informed that a law is broken by an action that opposes the ideal of law, then the law is then again irrelevant because it wasn't heeded, regardless of one being aware of unaware it was law. The ideal is born out of a moral and the moral is abstract and intangible, hence is the law.
|
|
