RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (Full Version)

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



Message

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:18:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its the law that matters.



You would have done well in Nazi Germany with that kind of attitude.

Especially considering that I've indicated several times in this debate that I'm interested in what people personally MORALLY feel about this issue.
If you feel that examining the morality of a law is not necessary because the law exist, you're basically suggesting that it's not necessary for people to even have a sense of morality because we can just leave decision like that up to the state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Dont like the law, change it.



I'm working on it.



luckydawg -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:58:17 PM)

quote:

I deem it to be immoral for courts to have laws and/or enforce laws that make it illegal for people to engage in behavior that has not been proven to be harmful to anybody else, based on the fact that it could potentially become harmful.



Would this include drunk driving?

Very interesting discussion.

I don't have the facts on this case to judge.


I tend to agree with ishtarr on this, but things I saw while p/t working with Developmentaly disabled adults, when I was younger, makes me believe there is a need for a watchdog of some sort. Inherent flaws in having one, but neccessary. Elders and Children also suffer horrible abuse, at times.


"ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Courts (should) have absolutely no ethical business telling anyone what is in their best interest. They're job should be to protect people from entities that would unethically seek to impose upon them restrictions to their best interests. "

The problem with this, is that it requires the court to define "best interest"( the second time it is used), in order to guide its actions. Which is functionally the same as telling them what thier best interest is. So it really backs up Tazz's view that the court has to act to defend the Retarded Man from those seeking to unethically restrict thier "best interest". Which in this specific case, the court found cause to act.

I like moral anarchy in theory, but it fails in real world.

Working with disabled adults was a real eye opener. It is actually new ground ethically, as almost every other society has killed these types of people from birth, or after they became afflicted.

There is not enough info to make a judgement. and these are very tough issues.






porcelaine -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:15:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Also, the immediate jump to that term, in this discussion, means that you've already appraised what is happening in this man's life without really having the information necessary to suggest we should immediately be discussing "exploitation". What we're discussing are the reasons for the ethical denial of a person's freedom to pursue happiness.


Greetings Nihilus,

I believe you're incorrect since you introduced the notion that exploitation does not occur in your original statement. Please reference your comment below:

quote:

What does that even mean? I'm always kind of baffled with the notion that a disparate balance of certain traits leads immediately to the presumption of someone trying to "take advantage of" someone else.


Nor did I insinuate that I was in possession of the full details of the situation or drew any conclusion. I merely addressed your remarks concerning being taken advantage of which you're retracting or so it appears.

quote:

Which leaves us needing some appropriate system of discerning what is ethically best without resorting to the shock factors related to the 'imbalance' theory.


The emotional undercurrent that you're attempting to sidestep is a fact of life and a reality of most courtrooms. It is an element that a seasoned prosecutor and defense attorney will gauge when selecting a jury and give great consideration to where the judge is concerned. In a perfect world justice is truly blind, but we're flawed creatures with our own biases and opinions that can impact a decision from the bench or by a jury.

quote:

Courts (should) have absolutely no ethical business telling anyone what is in their best interest. They're job should be to protect people from entities that would unethically seek to impose upon them restrictions to their best interests.


Supposition and reality are often world's apart. The divorce you're heralding is not a staple of our culture. Furthermore, the decision (which was within the letter of the law) is a preventative measure that offers safeguards and education. While we can volley this issue back and forth merely for debate's sake, I've been behind the scenes for many years and I'm very familiar with our legal system. And there's a marked difference between idealism and what actually takes place. All the rhetoric in the world won't alter the facts and the unfortunate consequences that may occur if steps weren't taken to alleviate them.

quote:

Then we are proposing a system that, at least, can temporarily remove consent from anyone at any time if certain variables are met (going back to my rebound examples).


No, this hinges on the fact that the individual has developmental challenges that have affected his IQ. Alter the scenario and it's likely the case would have never come about. However, the same mechanisms operate within society. Two people can be guilty of committing the same act. One party gets caught and the other evades the law. Life happens. How we deal with the unforeseen is what really matters. The gentleman still has a choice whether he will utilize the things he'll learn or dismiss them all and return to his previous behavior.

I was rather amused at the snippet about the court's ethical rights. No amount of principal-laden ideology will change their humanity and its imprint on their decision-making.

Namaste,

~porcelaine



Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:48:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

I deem it to be immoral for courts to have laws and/or enforce laws that make it illegal for people to engage in behavior that has not been proven to be harmful to anybody else, based on the fact that it could potentially become harmful.


Would this include drunk driving?



In short, yes... though it's obviously more complicated than that (and I've never claimed that any of these issues are black and white).

To elaborate:

Making drunk driving illegal by itself hasn't stopped people from driving drunk, nor has it (according to the numbers I'm familiar with) even made it less prevalent in society.

Therefore, the law against drunk driving obviously isn't achieving it's stated goal in stopping people from driving drunk.

At the same time, the law is causing damages by costing the taxpayer money to enforce the law, the police time they could have spend on more important things, and innocent private citizens time lost in random alcohol controls.

It thus follows that there is a high cost involved with having a law that makes drunk driving illegal that's actively enforced, while the positive results of said law are lacking, or even non-existing, depending on your point of view seeing that it's never been adequately demonstrated that making drunk driving illegal has had any kind of preventive effect.

Much more effective, and more moral in my point of view, would be to have the law such that people caught doing harm -to property or persons- who are also found to be intoxicated, even in the slightest, are punished more severely.

This way the taxpayers wouldn't have to spend more to harass innocent citizens, who then loose time, while the cops aren't busy doing things that actually help society.

And when somebody DOES actually cause harm, and has found to be irresponsible with their alcohol intake, there is nothing to prevent us from actually punishing that person for the harm they've caused.

What we have now is a with hunt against drivers who potentially get in trouble for eating alcohol filled candy... because they MIGHT end up hurting somebody...
What we'd have then is people who actually hurt somebody being held responsible for doing so, with no unnecessary time, money or effort wasted on those who remained unharmful to others.



MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:52:42 AM)

I have deliberately not read the other responses in order to give my opinion based solely on the issue as presented in the article.  I appologize in advance for spelling errors, I've just added a new KVM switch to my system and sometimes it stutters.  I'll fix it tomorrow.

The article is full of irrelevancies.  IQ is merely an ad-hoc sort of test.  The intentions behind the development of the test and the way in which it has been applied are deplorable.    First off, the test is inaccurate.  If it was than my brother who is considered he least smart of the four siblings I grew up with would not have scored a 205 IQ.

I am not saying he's not intelligent, far from it.  The test however is fundamentally flawed.  It's also based on flawed science, racism, and eugenics.  If you don't believe me you can look up the history of the test.

You can also look up something far simpler to understand: The Constitution of The USA, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.

This judge has no business deciding that the man, over the age of majority, is not capable of deciding his own sexuality.  Some people may be disturbed by the fact that "the stupid people are breeding" but tough luck - it isn't your decision to make.

Now to check all the other posts to see how many people I've torqued off.



subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 2:44:32 AM)

Paragraph..ugh they're pretty many..basically court cases in sexual matters, however they always involve two or more individuals.

What is allowed depends on each case. In my opinion the courts tend to stretch as far as they can, however when it comes to sexual activities they usually need to stretch in the way of allowing violence which obviously is a very difficult thing to do, it's easier to be less lenient than not because otherwise probem might arise as to where to draw the line.

R v. Wilson (UK case from 1996 where the court considered branding with a hot knife to be acceptable...branding your wife with a knife is hardly acceptable by the public opinion)
However the reverse was in Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom before echr... (the judgment from r v. Brown case in the UK was from 1993)
There is also R v Slingsby (UK case from 1995) where person accidentally got killed in the act of receiving vaginal/anal fisting with a signet ring. (the court considered consent to be a valid defense)

In Pretty v. UK (on euthanasia) the court basically states that you can do whatever you want to do to yourself BUT as soon as you drag a second party into the situation things change because then it becomes a matter of what you allow the person to do and then there comes this question of consent which is a never ending debate and at what point is it legal to let another person hurt or even kill yourself.
The law does not allow a person to inflict physical harm upon another and then it does not matter under which circumstances and I suppose that would be due to the risk of slippery slope (similarly to what has happened by permitting euthanasia). However, one might argue that some s&m activities may be acceptable up to some point.

The sentences by the UK Court in the Laskey, Jaggard, Brown case is basically a slap on the wrist as it was taken into consideration that the whole thing seemed to have been with consent. The court basically said that what you're doing is illegal so we can't let you off the hook completely, but hey - whatever floats your boat. - However, the whole case is questionable due to homophobia and it still could be disputed whether the verdict would've been the way it was if there had not been recording and many people involved. Yet it should be noted that the ECHR does in that case, as it says in the Pretty take into consideration that the state's action were not disproportionate, in the brown case the sentence was reduced due to consent and there was an alternative based on consent in the Pretty case.

Also...in the UK Criminal Act from 2003 there is now a consent clause that is supposed to provide people freedom in their sexual lives.

BUT Alan's case is different. There is always going to be a protection for the vulnerable ones that needs to be judged on a case by case basis...and like I've said before BASED on the article about the case I tend to disagree with the verdict and believe there's a chance of it not being proportionate.



RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:28:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

Making drunk driving illegal by itself hasn't stopped people from driving drunk, nor has it (according to the numbers I'm familiar with) even made it less prevalent in society.


Not true at all, at least not true in the UK.

Figures released, year on year, from the 60s (when the drink-driving laws came in - 1967 was when a specific limit was introduced) to the present day, indicate that both the percentage of people failing the test, and the overall number convicted (per mile driven) have fallen dramatically over the last 40 or so years.

In addition it is no longer socially acceptable to drive drunk, therefore the laws on it could be said to be both effective in reducing the actual amount of DD, and in making DD less prevalent as a whole.

What you may be doing is not factoring in the huge increase in the numbers of cars and the number and length of journeys, compared to the 60s.



LoveSlider -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 4:40:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

I deem it to be immoral for courts to have laws and/or enforce laws that make it illegal for people to engage in behavior that has not been proven to be harmful to anybody else, based on the fact that it could potentially become harmful.


Would this include drunk driving?


It thus follows that there is a high cost involved with having a law that makes drunk driving illegal that's actively enforced, while the positive results of said law are lacking, or even non-existing, depending on your point of view seeing that it's never been adequately demonstrated that making drunk driving illegal has had any kind of preventive effect.


In talking to a lot of people who've been driving for 20 years or so, many used to drink drive on a regular basis, many have been caught and banned, others changed their behaviour because they've seen all their mates banned around them.

I reckon that law has reduced the number of drink drivers massively. I'm against reducing the drink driving limit because it would just criminalise more people, better to catch the ones who have had 10 pints than to ban someone for having 1.

But you can expect it to get a lot easier to get home pissed soon, since for example GMP are going to be cut to less than 10 officers per shift for each division. See that will be repeated all over the country too.

I had a fairly big crash a few years ago when some drunken twat ran a red light and I was bounced into a shop window, my bike demolishing some railings which I'd just missed. Very very lucky, it cost him 6 months inside and me a broken ankle and a GSXR1100M :(. It's for cases like that that I think the social cost of getting occasionally pulled over and breath tested is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure how that ties in to one guy who's slow, there's not really a social cost (drunken crashes) to him doing whatever, but I'd see it from the perspective of mental age, if he's got the mental age of a 5 year old, you're not allowed to have sex with 5 year olds for good reason so not him either. If I'm honest I'm not even sure what to think on the matter.

Cheers

LS



osf -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 5:49:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

I deem it to be immoral for courts to have laws and/or enforce laws that make it illegal for people to engage in behavior that has not been proven to be harmful to anybody else, based on the fact that it could potentially become harmful.


Would this include drunk driving?



In short, yes... though it's obviously more complicated than that (and I've never claimed that any of these issues are black and white).

To elaborate:

Making drunk driving illegal by itself hasn't stopped people from driving drunk, nor has it (according to the numbers I'm familiar with) even made it less prevalent in society.

Therefore, the law against drunk driving obviously isn't achieving it's stated goal in stopping people from driving drunk.

At the same time, the law is causing damages by costing the taxpayer money to enforce the law, the police time they could have spend on more important things, and innocent private citizens time lost in random alcohol controls.

It thus follows that there is a high cost involved with having a law that makes drunk driving illegal that's actively enforced, while the positive results of said law are lacking, or even non-existing, depending on your point of view seeing that it's never been adequately demonstrated that making drunk driving illegal has had any kind of preventive effect.

Much more effective, and more moral in my point of view, would be to have the law such that people caught doing harm -to property or persons- who are also found to be intoxicated, even in the slightest, are punished more severely.

This way the taxpayers wouldn't have to spend more to harass innocent citizens, who then loose time, while the cops aren't busy doing things that actually help society.

And when somebody DOES actually cause harm, and has found to be irresponsible with their alcohol intake, there is nothing to prevent us from actually punishing that person for the harm they've caused.

What we have now is a with hunt against drivers who potentially get in trouble for eating alcohol filled candy... because they MIGHT end up hurting somebody...
What we'd have then is people who actually hurt somebody being held responsible for doing so, with no unnecessary time, money or effort wasted on those who remained unharmful to others.


no law will ever totally prevent the action that is outlawed, murder for instance

drunk driving laws do enable the police to aprihind drivers they do catch, before they potentially cause harm

also drunk driving costs you directly as insurance premiums are higher to cover the costs incurred by drunk drivers that do cause harm, so there is a direct social cost to drunk driving

should i be permitted to go out in my backyard and fire a gun up into the air and as long as no one is hit nothing can be done, after all there is less chance of that harming someone than a drunk driver

now i do believe a lot of adult behaviors that are out lawed is counter productive, such as willing prostitution, consensual sex that doesn't lead to permanent impairment, choice of an adult sexual partner and a few others



Elisabella -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 9:15:54 AM)

-FR-

IMO it is wrong for the courts to ban Alan himself from having sex.

They should instead prosecute his partner for rape because Alan isn't able to legally consent.

Of course, if Alan's partner has the same IQ as Alan, they're probably in a bit of a bind.



Elisabella -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 9:18:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

In short, yes... though it's obviously more complicated than that (and I've never claimed that any of these issues are black and white).

To elaborate:

Making drunk driving illegal by itself hasn't stopped people from driving drunk, nor has it (according to the numbers I'm familiar with) even made it less prevalent in society.

Therefore, the law against drunk driving obviously isn't achieving it's stated goal in stopping people from driving drunk.

At the same time, the law is causing damages by costing the taxpayer money to enforce the law, the police time they could have spend on more important things, and innocent private citizens time lost in random alcohol controls.

It thus follows that there is a high cost involved with having a law that makes drunk driving illegal that's actively enforced, while the positive results of said law are lacking, or even non-existing, depending on your point of view seeing that it's never been adequately demonstrated that making drunk driving illegal has had any kind of preventive effect.

Much more effective, and more moral in my point of view, would be to have the law such that people caught doing harm -to property or persons- who are also found to be intoxicated, even in the slightest, are punished more severely.

This way the taxpayers wouldn't have to spend more to harass innocent citizens, who then loose time, while the cops aren't busy doing things that actually help society.

And when somebody DOES actually cause harm, and has found to be irresponsible with their alcohol intake, there is nothing to prevent us from actually punishing that person for the harm they've caused.

What we have now is a with hunt against drivers who potentially get in trouble for eating alcohol filled candy... because they MIGHT end up hurting somebody...
What we'd have then is people who actually hurt somebody being held responsible for doing so, with no unnecessary time, money or effort wasted on those who remained unharmful to others.


Having DUI illegal means that if a drunk person is pulled over for speeding, swerving, running red lights, or any other dangerous behavior, they're taken off the roads.

In comparison, alcohol checkpoints are very rare.



Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 11:33:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

drunk driving laws do enable the police to aprihind drivers they do catch, before they potentially cause harm

also drunk driving costs you directly as insurance premiums are higher to cover the costs incurred by drunk drivers that do cause harm, so there is a direct social cost to drunk driving



And it's that I don't agree with.
If the driver has done no harm, I don't agree that it's okay to punish him for harm he may potentially do.

Insurance shouldn't be mandatory, which means that people would have the choice whether or not to incur the higher cost involved with an insurance company that choses to cover accidents caused by drunk driving.



LoveSlider -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 11:49:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

And it's that I don't agree with.
If the driver has done no harm, I don't agree that it's okay to punish him for harm he may potentially do.

Insurance shouldn't be mandatory, which means that people would have the choice whether or not to incur the higher cost involved with an insurance company that choses to cover accidents caused by drunk driving.


But in driving while incapable, as in, he's had 10 pints and a bottle of scotch, he's placing everyone else on the road at risk.

Insurance not mandatory? What happens to the person who he hits drunk then? 3rd party insurance cannot just decide not to pay out, this would just bugger anyone who has suffered a loss.

Look at my case, my absolutely mint Gixxer was completely totalled. Snapped frame, trashed engine, snapped forks, bent wheels. I only had 3rd party fire and theft cover, therefore I had to claim from the MIB fund* (fund in place to cover uninsured cunts who do stupid things), and I had a right time with it and ended up receiving far less than the bike was worth.

*Said uninsured cunt was drunk, and also banned from a previous offence.


Insurance is mandatory for a reason, accidents happen and are caused by people being at fault in some way. There needs to be that system to make sure people recover their losses.


I know I've picked a hell of a thread (derail) to wade into with my first posts but I really doubt you've thought this through.



Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 11:55:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Having DUI illegal means that if a drunk person is pulled over for speeding, swerving, running red lights, or any other dangerous behavior, they're taken off the roads.

In comparison, alcohol checkpoints are very rare.



Alcohol checkpoints are rather common in the bar districts and towns I'm familiar with.

I've been checked several times while going to, or coming back from bar districts.
I've never been checked while being pulled over for other offenses.

Besides that, I disagree that the above behaviors are necessarily dangerous, whether or not they are depends entirely on the road conditions and the other traffic.
As such, I again disagree that such behaviors should be prosecuted on public roads, unless it can be demonstrated that the person in question has actually done harm.

I feel that the cost in unsuccessfully trying to prevent people from doing harm is much higher on society than the cost of the actual harm that supposedly is prevents, especially when it comes to creating a mindset in which people have become accustom to trade in freedom for a false sense of security.

I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions, not for the potential actions they might engage in.
Because of our continued attempts to hold people accountable for potential actions, society is moving in a direction where personal liberty has to sacrifice ever time for the false cause of "the greater good".
As I don't believe that utilitarianism is a morally sound theory, I don't believe that society's demand that the individual makes sacrifices for the sins of others is ethically sound.



tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:02:17 PM)

quote:

You would have done well in Nazi Germany with that kind of attitude.


That comment is totally laughable coming from you.



Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:06:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoveSlider

Insurance is mandatory for a reason, accidents happen and are caused by people being at fault in some way. There needs to be that system to make sure people recover their losses.



Insurance isn't mandatory in Virginia and New Hampshire.
People manage just fine.

You can insure yourself, if you'd like, for the risk of getting hit by an uninsured driver... or choose to take the risk not to do so.

The important thing to me is that you have the choice.

Life is risky, driving poses risks.
If you're not willing to take that risk, then don't drive.

But don't try to take other people's freedom away by force so that you can create a false sense of security that in the end, never really covers you anyways.

Like you said: even though insurance is mandatory, you ended up getting paid out only a small fraction of what your bike was worth, because you where counting on the other person having insurance.
If insurance hadn't been mandatory, you might have chosen to cover yourself against the risk of meeting with an uninsured driver, and would have been paid out in full...

The system didn't protect you.
You counted that it would, because you where a good citizen... and it ended up screwing you over for having faith in the false protection it promised you.

I feel it's morally wrong to try and create a society in which people are protected from all potential risks.
It never works, and I consider the cost in terms of loss of freedom to be too great, for an end result that never even comes NEAR to what people are promised in return for the freedoms they actually give up.



tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:27:18 PM)

quote:

Insurance isn't mandatory in Virginia and New Hampshire.
People manage just fine.


New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010.

The State of Virginia does not require motorists to carry uninsured/uninsured policies, but they do recommend it in their Consumer Auto Insurance Guide. There are also, non mandatory recommendations on choosing policies, coverage and options for auto insurance.

Rather than getting car insurance, you may instead pay the Uninsured Motor Vehicle fee. The fee does not provide any insurance; you are still personally liable if you get in an accident. However, it does allow you to register your vehicle and drive it without insurance.

The Uninsured Motor Vehicle fee is $500. If you opt for paying it instead of getting insurance, be aware that it expires with your registration. When it is time to renew, you can pay another fee or provide proof of insurance.

If You've Paid The Uninsured Motor Vehicle fee of $500. It expires With Your Registration

If the vehicle is uninsured, the motor vehicle owner is required to pay to DMV a $500 uninsured motor vehicle fee in addition to normal registration fees. Payment of the $500 fee does not provide the motorist with any insurance coverage. If involved in an accident, the uninsured motorist remains personally liable. This fee is valid for twelve months but may be prorated for a shorter amount of time.

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/uninsured_fee.asp

This was all gathered from different sites of the Common Wealth of Virginia.

Essentially, every year, you pay 500 dollars for being uninsured. My policy is cheaper than that.

As far as New Hampshire...

How long am I required to have an SR-22 insurance certificate?

◦3 years from the date of conviction/crash or from the date imposed by a hearings examiner.
◦If convicted of a Driving While Intoxicated Second Offense, 5 years from the date of conviction.
◦If convicted of a major offense in the time frame required to carry an SR-22 insurance certificate, the requirement will be extended for 3 years from the date of the major conviction.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/dmv/financial/faqinsurance.html

So, even though NH doesnt "require" insurance, they certainly can demand you obtain it... especially after the fact.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:27:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

In light of recent debates on the board, in regards to people's ability or inability to consent to certain BDSM related acts, I found this article interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354025/High-Court-bans-man-low-IQ-having-sex.html

The court ruled that a man, Alan, is no longer allowed to have sex with the man he is living with -his partner presumable- because Alan is deemed unable to consent to the act of having sex.

Alan has an IQ of 48, and a learning disability.

Alan himself stated he finds the relationship enjoyable and wants it to continue.

He has been placed under court supervision to prevent him from being able to do so, and to prevent him from being able to engage in sexual relationships with other parties.

Do you feel that the court has any business stating that Alan is unable to consent?
If so, does the same principal apply to BDSM?
And under what circumstances should the courts rule that people are not allowed to consent to legal acts they state they want to consent to?

I agree with Lady Pact. It may not be P.C. to say so but this man has no business engaging in sexual activity of any nature with someone else. If he wants to masturbate until the cows come home...go for it. But the risk of spreading of disease? Hell, if normal people take the risk...which we all do...and some dismiss the risk blithely, what are we to do with someone who has no knowledge of the risk and probably would not care? Teach them how to fuck and then let them go out in the world?

And to be more un-PC...what person of normal intelligence wants to carry on an ongoing sexual relationship with a person of this limited mental intelligence? To Me, it sounds like exploitation of the worst sort. As for Alan's enjoyment? There are plenty of things from which joy can be derived. Sex does not have to be one of them. People can sit and state that while while the normal man is in control of things now, what happens if that normal man wants to walk away?



osf -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 12:28:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoveSlider

Insurance is mandatory for a reason, accidents happen and are caused by people being at fault in some way. There needs to be that system to make sure people recover their losses.



Insurance isn't mandatory in Virginia and New Hampshire.
People manage just fine.

You can insure yourself, if you'd like, for the risk of getting hit by an uninsured driver... or choose to take the risk not to do so.

The important thing to me is that you have the choice.

Life is risky, driving poses risks.
If you're not willing to take that risk, then don't drive.

But don't try to take other people's freedom away by force so that you can create a false sense of security that in the end, never really covers you anyways.

Like you said: even though insurance is mandatory, you ended up getting paid out only a small fraction of what your bike was worth, because you where counting on the other person having insurance.
If insurance hadn't been mandatory, you might have chosen to cover yourself against the risk of meeting with an uninsured driver, and would have been paid out in full...

The system didn't protect you.
You counted that it would, because you where a good citizen... and it ended up screwing you over for having faith in the false protection it promised you.

I feel it's morally wrong to try and create a society in which people are protected from all potential risks.
It never works, and I consider the cost in terms of loss of freedom to be too great, for an end result that never even comes NEAR to what people are promised in return for the freedoms they actually give up.


in what way does having to buy insurance curtail my freedom?

does needing a drivers license curtail freedom?

as for not driving if I don't want to take that risk why not make it a choice to not drive if you don't want to have insurance?

in ethiopia i bet you can have all the freedoms you speak about

so choosing to live in a country you in affect choose to abide by it's laws

don't like the laws, work to change them but if you ignore them you have to expect to suffer the consequences





NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 2:15:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

I believe you're incorrect since you introduced the notion that exploitation does not occur in your original statement. Please reference your comment below:

I've don't recall saying exploitation does not occur. I don't even recall saying it wasn't occurring in the context of this discussion (although it seems pretty clear, from the information, that it's not).

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

Nor did I insinuate that I was in possession of the full details of the situation or drew any conclusion. I merely addressed your remarks concerning being taken advantage of which you're retracting or so it appears.

We're either discussing one of two things: the concept of "being taken advantage of" as a general idea (which, apart from actual abuse, is a pretty flimsy notion, true) or we're talking about the article we're all discussing here as being an example of "being taken advantage of", which would be a weak position to be sitting on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

The emotional undercurrent that you're attempting to sidestep is a fact of life and a reality of most courtrooms.

Actually, the very opposite is what is sought (which is why people pertinent to court cases on an emotional basis, who have some say in the result, recuse themselves from participation in that regard).

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

It is an element that a seasoned prosecutor and defense attorney will gauge when selecting a jury and give great consideration to where the judge is concerned. In a perfect world justice is truly blind, but we're flawed creatures with our own biases and opinions that can impact a decision from the bench or by a jury.

Attorneys will surely use appeals to emotion to win cases. Their job is to win cases. Not to restrict their methodologies to strict logic (or even ethics).

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

Supposition and reality are often world's apart.

This wasn't a "reality" until the court made the decision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

The divorce you're heralding is not a staple of our culture.

I suppose we could argue that every social and political and ethical decision made at any time is appropriate for that time and place just because it was made. Which really only means you need a government installed at a certain location to make things okay. Which is ridiculous.

Gender equality wasn't a "staple" of "our culture" (some would argue it still isn't). Gays serving in the military wasn't a staple of "our culture" (in the US) until recently. You're suggesting that it wasn't ethically viable because if illogic is rampant enough, it makes it okay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

No, this hinges on the fact that the individual has developmental challenges that have affected his IQ. Alter the scenario and it's likely the case would have never come about. However, the same mechanisms operate within society. Two people can be guilty of committing the same act. One party gets caught and the other evades the law. Life happens. How we deal with the unforeseen is what really matters. The gentleman still has a choice whether he will utilize the things he'll learn or dismiss them all and return to his previous behavior.

So it hinges on this man needing to pass additional (psychologically malformed) tests to earn his otherwise inalienable human rights.

And I'm not talking about being able to have sex in a home he is staying that has policies against it. I'm talking about a court-mandated imposition that supersedes that because the idea of protection is overvalued (and misunderstood) when compared to personal freedom and happiness.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875