RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK

RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Floggings4You -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 10:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Obviously the vanilla world tolerates a lot of risk without considering the individuals "crazy" enough to be stopped. So why is it in bdsm people assume adults are incompetent because there is a risk of death or injury involved? In the case of war correspondents, underwater welders, miners, etc., there is a perceived benefit to offset the risk such folks undertake. In the case of surgery, there is a very real benefit to outweigh the risk. Yes, one risks death anytime one is put under general anesthesia (not to mention the additional risks of whatever surgical procedure is being done), but in many cases not having surgery will result in certain death. The risk to have surgery is thus seen as necessary, unavoidable. In the case of boxing, bullfighting, skydiving, auto racing, etc., there is little (or no) perceived 'societal' or 'individual health' benefit, and there are definitely people who are pushing to outlaw boxing, bullfighting, etc. (Just look at what has happened to smoking.) I think with WIITWD, many average 'vanilla' folks are bothered by both the sexual aspect of BDSM play, and the BDSM aspect of play. There are still many people in the US who (at least profess to believe) that sexual/sensual/pleasurable feelings are sinful in and of themselves, and that sex should only be used for procreation.

RCdc -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:01:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Seniorwolf quote: As long as a BDSM activity is between (or among) fully-informed and consenting people of legal age and with the mental capacity to understand what they are consenting to, and as long as the activity does not physically or mentally harm other living beings I agree with you Poetry but what is in question here is the "mental" capacity of the individual. Do we consider suicidal tendencies to be a fetish? If someone said, "Poetry, could you help me with my suicide play?", "I have a loaded pistol and all you have to do is pull the trigger." Lets flip the script, "I want to become an amputee!" "Please help me cit my legs off at the knee!" Now, do you think this person has thought the whole act through? Did they take into consideration if their medical will cover their life expenses once the act is commited? How about, who will take care of them once they are disabled? This is one of those gray areas where fantasy goes south. It is ok to roleplay, in my book, being an amputee but beyond that, I would have to seriously doubt the person's mental faculties. But this is my opinion and nothing more. Not to be pedantic, but assisting in a suicide would nullify the suicide.[;)]And welcome to the forums! the.dark.

tsatske -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:08:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I would say that anything that risks eye injuries for someone with implants in the eye, or a history of detached retina is something that isn't ever okay. DesFIP, I am really only challenging you to ask how far you want your logic to go. Do you really believe that someone who has an eye implant, or a history of detached retina, is unaware of the risks they are taking if they engage in that kind of play? I am Diabetic. Last November I had a foot infection in which I thought I might lose my foot. It is basically healed, but, I mean, it is six effin months later, and I am still using the word 'basically' in that sentence. [:'(] We play with Bastinado. I wear heels - sometimes very high ones. ect. ect. Is this 'not ever okay'? Do you not believe that I am aware of the risks, or do you simply believe that it is not my place to make a decision on those risks? I have a friend who is Asthmatic, who does breath play with her Master. (see questions above). How long would the list be, or how would you word the restriction, to tell others when you are going to judge the risk to great, and no longer let them be the judge, for themselves?

MadRabbit -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:10:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Seniorwolf This is one of those gray areas where fantasy goes south. It is ok to roleplay, in my book, being an amputee but beyond that, I would have to seriously doubt the person's mental faculties. But this is my opinion and nothing more. Would you doubt the mental faculties or consider someone to be mentally defective if they lived their lives in fear of the spankings of an imaginery parent figure deity for eating pork when a book told them not to? How about someone who fasted himself to death to reach the magical wonderland of Nirvana where everything is peaceful? Is that a sign of mental illness?

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:21:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I think some things are inherently risky to a point that safety precautions just aren't good enough. I would say that anything that risks eye injuries for someone with implants in the eye, or a history of detached retina is something that isn't ever okay. With immediate hospitalization and surgery by a top notch opthalmic surgeon, a detached retina can be successfully repaired. Once. The chances of successful reattachment goes down each time you try it. I'm not sure how you would claim this to be a Kink that is not ok. Sounds more like either an individual did not communicate his/her medical condition or an individual did not take sufficient interest in the consequences of someone having such a condition.

Seniorwolf -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:22:07 AM)
quote: Not to be pedantic, but assisting in a suicide would nullify the suicide.And welcome to the forums! Lol as I reread what I wrote, I noticed my error as well [:-] It went from a suicide to a murder fantasy. I should have worded as an assisted suicide fantasy. Thanks for the welcome. I have been around for a while but didn't have time to participate. :) Now, I have all the time in the world!

MastrVran -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:24:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: madshysoul the entire scene has been discussed ahead of time And what of those where trust takes the place of discussion? What of sub/slaves who do not wish to have a say in what is about to occur, and do not wish to have advance notice, but merely trust that their dom/master loves them and will abide by whatever safety concerns seems appropriate? What you've described may make sense in chance encounters between virtual strangers, but makes no sense within the context of a loving LTR. Consent, ground-rules etc are not re-negotiated scene by scene, but are laid down in the beginning and understood thereafter. Few people really want nor understand that type of relationship. They want specific ground rules. And they have reasons for wanting this. But, almost all of them, are really discussing pick up things, and just meeting someone, and what you should do there vs in a serious commited relationship where the trust has been developed over time. Yet unfortunately many if not most of those people will then apply the just met concept to anything a committed long term relationship has, because you cannot say its ok for some and not others. Got to love Political Correctness at its finest. As for the original OP post, there is realistically nothing that is not, illegal, that is truly wrong period. And some things that are illegal are not really wrong so much as against what most people believe is ok. Such as...Sodomy...how truly horrible. Lol. Oral sex or Anal sex. People doing that should be shot. But the reality is based more on what everyone thinks of as harming someone, and even then, it may be ok...for the people involved. While it definately would not be ok for the people who are complaining about it. I have heard many say breath play is always wrong as an example. I know many who would argue that. Also most people who find someone elses kink improper are just as sure whatever they do is fine. Thats the whole interesting thing about this line of reasoning. If I am doing it, it must be ok or I wouldnt do it. But if I wont, then its wrong. Silly if you actually think about it and apply logic. However, there may be some things that really are wrong, but they almost always are without consent. But then some will say, that there are really things that are always wrong. me personally? I am not so sure. It depends on the needs and desires of the people involved. MV

tsatske -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:29:21 AM)
quote: Would you doubt the mental faculties or consider someone to be mentally defective if they lived their lives in fear of the spankings of an imaginary parent figure deity for eating pork when a book told them not to? according to the DSMV, no. Religion can not be used as a sign of mental illness, in the absence of other symptoms, such as self harm, or the harm of others, or delusional lack of self awareness (such as not being aware that when you kill skin and eat your neighbors cat on their front lawn they are not going to be grateful to you for saving them from the cat's obvious demonic possession and bravely taking upon yourself. It is the delusional view of the world that is symptomatic.) If I tell my Psche that the aliens kidnapped me, that is not sufficient to diagnose me. That belief must be associated with, or be causing, other symptomatic behavior, no matter how sure the psche feels that the aliens did not, in fact, kidnap me. When I told my Pschytrist in Philly that I would not tolerate pschotopic meds which made the trees stop talking to me, he asked me specific questions about the experience of communicating with trees, and then explained to me that thatdid not fit the definition of a hallucination ( a hallucination includes elements of compulsion or delusion, for instance, and is not experienced as a spiritual or religious experience in the absence of those types of symptoms). Not all psches would agree. The last time I required hospitalization, i had an ongoing argument with the idiotic doctor assigned to me by the hospital, who kept trying to stop my auditory hallucination (with trees), which i kept telling him were religious experiences, not hallucination. I finally said, 'I can't help it that the trees chose not to talk to you!' My dear therapist in Philly said she had running arguments with the staff of the center about the state of my 'hallucination'. She said, her co-workers would say to her 'Come on, she believes in fairies!' and she would answer, 'yea, but I belive in Angels.' quote: How about someone who fasted himself to death to reach the magical wonderland of Nirvana where everything is peaceful? Is that a sign of mental illness? This is a harder question. If he did it simply to reach Nirvana, then that probably is symptomatic. If he did it for more reasons than that, well, is every person who ever goes on a political or religious hunger strike crazy? I don't happen to believe so, if their reasons are not delusional. (Delusional does not mean, i disagree, or the psche disagrees, or most people disagree. It means, clearly not in accord with objective reality.)

DaggerDom -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:29:38 AM)
There is only one thing that can be said in favor of the acronym. It is so much fun to see the look on the faces of people who object to something you do when you ignore them, or better yet, ram it down their throats. I remember one time years ago when there was couple who did not approve of cattle prods. So one night when they appeared at the local dungeon I tied up our sub and did scene using nothing but the cattle prod. What the safety sluts do not realize is that they are so despised that anyone they object to automatically becomes welcomed by everyone else.

MadRabbit -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tsatske quote: Would you doubt the mental faculties or consider someone to be mentally defective if they lived their lives in fear of the spankings of an imaginary parent figure deity for eating pork when a book told them not to? according to the DSMV, no. Religion can not be used as a sign of mental illness, in the absence of other symptoms, such as self harm, or the harm of others, or delusional lack of self awareness (such as not being aware that when you kill skin and eat your neighbors cat on their front lawn they are not going to be grateful to you for saving them from the cat's obvious demonic possession and bravely taking upon yourself. It is the delusional view of the world that is symptomatic.) If I tell my Psche that the aliens kidnapped me, that is not sufficient to diagnose me. That belief must be associated with, or be causing, other symptomatic behavior, no matter how sure the psche feels that the aliens did not, in fact, kidnap me. When I told my Pschytrist in Philly that I would not tolerate pschotopic meds which made the trees stop talking to me, he asked me specific questions about the experience of communicating with trees, and then explained to me that thatdid not fit the definition of a hallucination ( a hallucination includes elements of compulsion or delusion, for instance, and is not experienced as a spiritual or religious experience in the absence of those types of symptoms). Not all psches would agree. The last time I required hospitalization, i had an ongoing argument with the idiotic doctor assigned to me by the hospital, who kept trying to stop my auditory hallucination (with trees), which i kept telling him were religious experiences, not hallucination. I finally said, 'I can't help it that the trees chose not to talk to you!' My dear therapist in Philly said she had running arguments with the staff of the center about the state of my 'hallucination'. She said, her co-workers would say to her 'Come on, she believes in fairies!' and she would answer, 'yea, but I belive in Angels.' quote: How about someone who fasted himself to death to reach the magical wonderland of Nirvana where everything is peaceful? Is that a sign of mental illness? This is a harder question. If he did it simply to reach Nirvana, then that probably is symptomatic. If he did it for more reasons than that, well, is every person who ever goes on a political or religious hunger strike crazy? I don't happen to believe so, if their reasons are not delusional. (Delusional does not mean, i disagree, or the psche disagrees, or most people disagree. It means, clearly not in accord with objective reality.) Thanks for the answers. They gave me a lot to think about. Your right. They are tough questions. There is a lot of room to debate them and I didn't post them because I am claiming to have the answers. All I am getting at is irrational behavior in and of itself is not a sign of mental defect or mental insanity. You summed it up beautifully with the last paragraph of your first answer. Beleiving in fairies is wrong, but beleiving in angels is okay. We constantly draw the line as to what irrational fantasies are okay and which aren't

Poetryinpain -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 11:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Seniorwolf quote: As long as a BDSM activity is between (or among) fully-informed and consenting people of legal age and with the mental capacity to understand what they are consenting to, and as long as the activity does not physically or mentally harm other living beings I agree with you Poetry but what is in question here is the "mental" capacity of the individual. Do we consider suicidal tendencies to be a fetish? If someone said, "Poetry, could you help me with my suicide play?", "I have a loaded pistol and all you have to do is pull the trigger." I wouldn't pull the trigger. It goes against my personal beliefs to do anything like that. Suicide-by-another is cowardice, anyway, and asking someone else to pull the trigger makes it not suicide but inflicting murder on someone else. quote: Lets flip the script, "I want to become an amputee!" "Please help me cit my legs off at the knee!" Now, do you think this person has thought the whole act through? Did they take into consideration if their medical will cover their life expenses once the act is commited? How about, who will take care of them once they are disabled? Well, being an amputee myself (although not by my desire), I would first educate the person on what they might expect from being an amputee. I would suggest they find a therapist who understands the various "deviations" surrounding amputations (devotees, pretenders, and wannabes), and thoroughly investigate the ramifications of becoming an amputee - after all, it is permanent. Then, if they still wanted to be amputated, I'd say, "Find somebody else or do it yourself. Doing something like that is a hard limit for me." pip, standing firm, even if only on one foot

Poetryinpain -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tsatske I am Diabetic. Last November I had a foot infection in which I thought I might lose my foot. It is basically healed, but, I mean, it is six effin months later, and I am still using the word 'basically' in that sentence. [:'(] We play with Bastinado. I wear heels - sometimes very high ones. ect. ect. Is this 'not ever okay'? Do you not believe that I am aware of the risks, or do you simply believe that it is not my place to make a decision on those risks? I have a friend who is Asthmatic, who does breath play with her Master. (see questions above). How long would the list be, or how would you word the restriction, to tell others when you are going to judge the risk to great, and no longer let them be the judge, for themselves? If you, as a thinking, capable adult, choose to risk life and limb (having lost a leg to diabetes, I understand the litearlness of that) by doing things that could result in permanent injury or even death - that is your right, much as I might wish you would make other choices. If your Dom chooses to go along with your thinking and risk-taking, well, that's your relationship and your dynamic. For myself, I would rather have a Dom who refused to engage in activities that might result in serious medical situations, even if I begged for them. But, again, it's a case of YKINMK rather than YKINOK. pip, rather fond of the foot I have left

CreativeDominant -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant since I believe ... then they would be examples of YKINOK. Exactly. Personal prejudice dictates YKINOK. It is not an objective judgment, but purely subjective. Hey Bob...if you are going to quote me, then don't take me out of context to prove your point. The full quote was this... This is why I also disagree with the idea of "consenting to be killed". Sorry...in my opinion, anyone consenting to be killed in this sort of play is NOT operating with a full deck and since I believe that murder is wrong and that suicide-by-another is wrong...and they are definitely illegal...then they would be examples of YKINOK. Please take note of the portion I have put into bold. That is an OBJECTIVE statement, not subjective and it is that portion of the statement, more than my subjective feelings about it, that would rule it out for me or anyone I am about to observe doing it or anyone I hear of doing it. quote: There isn't even an objective way of determining exactly what the risk is for any potential outcome, as accidents, if any, are vastly under-reported. So we are imagining what the odds are of any given risk actually occurring, not taking into account the individuals who are actively involved and their awareness/ability in managing those risks. Sorry Bob, but you are wrong again. Every product that comes out is product-tested and adjusted and reconfigured before it ever hits the market. The manufacturers have done everything they can to avoid having their product be the source of the initiating factor of injury. If you care to disagree, I would suggest you first go to a lawnmower manufacturer, go to a fireworks manufacturer, go to a manufacturer of sports parachutes and ask them if they have any data on the likelihood of their equipment itself malfunctioning when there is NO owner-operated error involved. Now...for most activities in BDSM, I will say this...you are right in stating that I have absolutely no idea what you are capable of given that there is no licensing board for dominants or submissives. None whatsoever. I have only your word that you are good at what you do or even expert at what you do. That still does not stop me from stating this: when it comes down to killing someone, whether it be murder or death-by-another as some sort of BDSM play...whether or not the one asking it to be done or wanting to do it is in full possession of their mental faculties...it is still illegal. Now, if a submissive wants to trust you to tie them up, shit on them, leave them staked to the ground until fire ants come to clean up the defecation and bite the submissive until she is sick...then hey, not MY thing but if the odds are in her favor (she won't die due to exposure or some unknown allergy to fire ant bites or whatever), then go for it. quote: Regarding your example of assisted-suicide, I will point out that the state of Oregon approved this, last I recall (tho' I stipulate the conditions for approval are quite stringent and would exclude anything conjured by Leatherist's example). Yeah...quite stringent. The reason for the suicide have to be proven and deemed to be medically viable reasons and it has to be done at the direction of a doctor. Hardly fits most BDSM play scenes, does it? quote: While I personally would not participate, what if someone with terminal cancer wanted to go out in a blaze of glory instead of slowly suffering in a hospital bed till the end? Then, quite frankly, they should have the balls to do it without involving someone else in it that will be left to face the consequences of either having to defend themselves against, at best assisted suicide and at worst, murder. quote: Assuming, as dictated by the OP, that the individual was competent and consenting, what would be the legitimate objection by outsiders? The legitimate objection would be the law. Like it or not, Bob...we are governed by them. And until they change the laws, the legitimate objections remain. Scientifically, the objection would be that we do not have the legitimacy to determine whether or not this is something the person wants in the long term or is seeking in a moment of desperation. That is why Oregon has panels of medical ethics experts to determine this. Some, perhaps fuzzier in terms of legitimacy, objection would be the fact that, morally, we have no right to strip another of life...whether they ask us to or not. NOTE: I in no way advocate anyone end their life, or the life of another. I raise this as a matter of intellectual honesty only.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:10:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Poetryinpain Suicide-by-another is cowardice The problem with comments like that is it is hard to argue the other side without coming across as advocating suicide to someone. There are people who fear death and people who fear life, people who are resolved to live their life under any conditions and those who will end their lives under certain conditions. Before my wife died of cancer, we'd discussed what was to happen should she slip into a coma and be unable to recover. I was to do all in my power to help her die. She had made her peace with death and if there was a coward in the mix, it would have been me for not wanting her to die. Fortunately (?) I was not called upon to face this decision. Consider what happens in the military when recruits run from danger so as to preserve their lives. They are called "deserters", "cowards", and under certain conditions could find themselves shot by their own people. There, to face certain death (ie suicide-by-others, a la Alamo) it is considered "courage". Consider the martyred saints who, rather than discard their faith, permitted themselves to be executed in the most heinous fashions. Again, an argument of 'suicide-by-others' can be constructed in the cases of martyrs who need not have been martyred (Paul could have escaped incarceration at any time, most martyrs were condemned for not offering sacrifice (lip-service) to Caesar. In other words, not all who choose death over life do so because they are a coward. Some have faith that whatever lays beyond death has to be better than what awaits them here should they continue living. Between the Black and the White there is a lot of grey.

tsatske -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:18:17 PM)
Just a by and by - assisted suicide is not illegal. Assisted suicide means that you provided assistance, but did not do the final, consummating act. The Hemlock society has information on humane ways to end life, when it becomes necessary. Because of the current state of the law, a person who wants to make an end of life decision must end their life before they would personally find it necessary to do so, because it must be done while they are still physically capable of do so themselves. Why do we push people to give up weeks or months, just out of service to antiquated laws?

colouredin -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:21:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Poetryinpain Suicide-by-another is cowardice, anyway, and asking someone else to pull the trigger makes it not suicide but inflicting murder on someone else. This topic really isnt about this anyways but sometimes people say things that dont half make my mind boggle, this is one of those times. I dont want to hyjack the topic which is what it would be so ill leave it at that. In regards to the op, I guess whats wrong to one is right to another there are things that I personally think are wrong for whatever reason, mostly things thats affect other people and dont involve choice. Its why freedom is always a problematic term, we cant ever have freedom because one persons freedom would not be anothers and if anything crosses over then we are taking away their freedom.

Seniorwolf -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:30:59 PM)
My last post got pulled, I will rewrite it to fit the TOS later on today

kc692 -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:32:45 PM)
Bet you're glad to let everyone know that tidbit.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:34:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant since I believe ... then they would be examples of YKINOK. Exactly. Personal prejudice dictates YKINOK. It is not an objective judgment, but purely subjective. Hey Bob...if you are going to quote me, then don't take me out of context to prove your point. The full quote was this... This is why I also disagree with the idea of "consenting to be killed". Sorry...in my opinion, anyone consenting to be killed in this sort of play is NOT operating with a full deck and since I believe that murder is wrong and that suicide-by-another is wrong...and they are definitely illegal...then they would be examples of YKINOK. Please take note of the portion I have put into bold. That is an OBJECTIVE statement, not subjective and it is that portion of the statement, more than my subjective feelings about it, that would rule it out for me or anyone I am about to observe doing it or anyone I hear of doing it. The premise for your statements was your belief. The legality of the actions was pulled in as support for your prejudice. Not many years ago sodomy was "illegal". Did that make sodomists bad, or was the law stupid to begin with? Oregon has made assisted suicide "legal". Does that change your position in any way? Is it your position that people should be kept alive by all medical methods available even if every moment of their life is filled with excrutiating agony and all they want to do is die? Who would you have to be to condemn another person to a fate worse than death? quote: quote: There isn't even an objective way of determining exactly what the risk is for any potential outcome, as accidents, if any, are vastly under-reported. So we are imagining what the odds are of any given risk actually occurring, not taking into account the individuals who are actively involved and their awareness/ability in managing those risks. Sorry Bob, but you are wrong again. Every product that comes out is product-tested and adjusted and reconfigured before it ever hits the market. non sequitor, totally off the topic. quote: Now...for most activities in BDSM, I will say this...you are right in stating that I have absolutely no idea what you are capable of given that there is no licensing board for dominants or submissives. None whatsoever. I have only your word that you are good at what you do or even expert at what you do. That still does not stop me from stating this: when it comes down to killing someone, whether it be murder or death-by-another as some sort of BDSM play...whether or not the one asking it to be done or wanting to do it is in full possession of their mental faculties...it is still illegal. Now, if a submissive wants to trust you to tie them up, shit on them, leave them staked to the ground until fire ants come to clean up the defecation and bite the submissive until she is sick...then hey, not MY thing but if the odds are in her favor (she won't die due to exposure or some unknown allergy to fire ant bites or whatever), then go for it. And where did you get the idea you were required/expected to judge what anyone else does? In what way do you think your opinion will sway the outcome? quote: quote: Regarding your example of assisted-suicide, I will point out that the state of Oregon approved this, last I recall (tho' I stipulate the conditions for approval are quite stringent and would exclude anything conjured by Leatherist's example). Yeah...quite stringent. The reason for the suicide have to be proven and deemed to be medically viable reasons and it has to be done at the direction of a doctor. Hardly fits most BDSM play scenes, does it? quote: While I personally would not participate, what if someone with terminal cancer wanted to go out in a blaze of glory instead of slowly suffering in a hospital bed till the end? Then, quite frankly, they should have the balls to do it without involving someone else in it that will be left to face the consequences of either having to defend themselves against, at best assisted suicide and at worst, murder. So any compassionate individual who helped a loved one terminate his/her life is helping someone be a coward? As if this should be their paramount concern under these conditions? quote: quote: Assuming, as dictated by the OP, that the individual was competent and consenting, what would be the legitimate objection by outsiders? The legitimate objection would be the law. Like it or not, Bob...we are governed by them. And until they change the laws, the legitimate objections remain. Scientifically, the objection would be that we do not have the legitimacy to determine whether or not this is something the person wants in the long term or is seeking in a moment of desperation. That is why Oregon has panels of medical ethics experts to determine this. Some, perhaps fuzzier in terms of legitimacy, objection would be the fact that, morally, we have no right to strip another of life...whether they ask us to or not. And those who disagree on moral grounds? Not so very long ago black people were enslaved, by law, for life with no hope of escape short of their owner's manumission. Did the law make this practice right? If you wish to argue the law is always the final arbiter of morality, that is up to you. But there are far too many cases when the law merely enacted the personal prejudices of the majority, and in no way reflected a morality we would uphold today. Arguments against suicide, and assisted suicide, find their justifications in a religious book. If I do not subscribe to the religion, why should I feel morally bound to laws designed by politicians to placate a religious sect and thus earn their votes in future elections? Is that the model of moral argument to be used to determine right from wrong: religious might makes right?

MadRabbit -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 12:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed And where did you get the idea you were required/expected to judge what anyone else does? In what way do you think your opinion will sway the outcome? Sooooo....what are your views on punishment again, Bob?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02