Ishtarr
Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leadership527 If this is a true statement then I'd be in agreement with you. But I almost feel like I would've needed to be in the courtroom to know if it's true or not. This has ALL the earmarks of one of those highly complicated, fuzzy, and nuanced situations. In my mind, this particular case could go either way but I'd need to know A LOT more about it to decide. In the absence of such information, I choose to assume that those involved did a professional and humane job. Maybe I should have clarified Jeff, but I thought that what I was trying to say was clear from the entire statement: quote:
In the case of Alan, there is no demonstrated harm that's coming to anybody, only the potential of harm, yet most of the people on this tread seem to regard it as a given that Alan should be protected against all potential harm that could come to him, at the cost of his freedom as an individual. I'm not saying that it's impossible that there was actually demonstrated harm provided to the court... But based on the information the people on this thread have to go on... there was no actual harm demonstrated to the court, and the decision of the judge was based on the fact that Alan didn't understand the implications sex could possible have. And yet, with that information in mind, with the statement of the judge indicating that Alan was not protected from actual, but only from potential harm... the public opinion on this tread STILL tends to lean towards deeming it perfectly moral to protect Alan from himself... It's THAT which I find disturbing... the ease at which most people seem to justify using force to "protect" other people from themselves, or from the "potential" of future harm. The ease at which society justifies the use of force to take away people's rights "for their own good". The outcome in this particular case is of less relevance to me, and it's merely what created the line of questioning in my mind. I deeply regret even posting the link on this topic, instead of making the question based on a hypothetical situation, because it causes the debate to go to a debate about what specifics involve this particular case, instead of creating a debate about the morality of "protecting people from acts that cause no harm, for their own good" like I had hoped for.
< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 2/6/2011 4:53:04 PM >
_____________________________
Du blutest für mein Seelenheil Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt Ich tu' dir weh. Tut mir nicht Leid! Das tut dir gut. Hör wie es schreit!
|