Re: circular arguments, perhaps
Submitted by 194 on December 17 2000 07:40:56
In reply to circular arguments, perhaps submitted by F.O.D. on December 17 2000 02:25:17
|
"I'm trying to understand what you're saying about the relationship between the seriousness of sex and legal rape. You're saying that if sex were not such a big deal, then rape wouldn't be rape since consent, presence or absence, wouldn't really matter." Not quite, although you do seem to have a general feel for the concept. What I am saying is that the consent would not need to be well-considered. "You're saying that there are reasons that lack of consent can be ignored in certain circumstances." No, that they *are* ignored in certain circumstances. "Just like the lack of consent in other human activities doesn't stop them being forced on people. Am I understanding you correctly?" Not in this instance, I'm afraid. It's the lack of *seriousness* in other human activities that doesn't stop them being forced on other people. "A driver is not allowed to drive through red lights." Absolutely true, because driving is a serious activity - it can result in people's deaths or injury. Actually, in the example you have given here, it is an example of how people are *forced* to behave by the law in a certain way - precisely because the behaviour in question is so serious. "So if sex is such a serious thing, I suggest that you likewise better have very good reasons for ignoring someone who is saying "yes". " Now that is very well said! I've been hoping to hear something like this for a long time, so strong and *affirmative*. It's amazing what can come up when the pressure is really on. "Do you have good reason for reaming over someone else's will?" It's more a question of exploring the matter aggressively, for me. Thanks for the serious interchange, F.O.D. Perhaps the arguments are circular, as you say, but they do actually bear a relation to reality. Regards 194............ |
Follow ups: