Bodily integrity vs moral responsibility

(Sep 9, 2016 12:14 AM)Syne Wrote: Where is the science to refute her assertions? If just being an activist is enough to dismiss someone, we can forget all about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. And how are you defining sexual dysfunction? How is a responsive, instead of impulsive, sexual desire dysfunctional? Or are you only speaking from your own impulsivity?

http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/sexual-...on-women#1

Who are you hoping to impregnate when you’re rubbing one out?  When you see an attractive female, do you think to yourself...damn, I'd like to conceive a child with that woman?

Syne Wrote:And if you rely on the "it's her body" argument then you should have equal minimum requirements for abortion as GRS. It's not a personal choice to kill an innocent and unconsensual human life (which in any other circumstance is murder). It's ethically unjustified by personal choice. Yes, you are not responsible to save others, but you are responsible for the life you chose to create, knowing the possible results of sex. It's not that life's fault that you made the choice to take that risk. But instead of taking responsibility for your own choice, you'd rather kill. How can you justify that ethically?

Is it ethical to force a woman to be an incubator?  Is it ethical to force a woman to give birth to a baby that she doesn’t want?

Syne Wrote:"Nod and handshake"?! So you're fine with being raped or killed...so long as some person's arbitrary morality justifies it?

That doesn't even deserve a response.  

You now have my "subjective" view.

Good day to you, Syne.

(Sep 9, 2016 01:15 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Sep 9, 2016 12:14 AM)Syne Wrote: Where is the science to refute her assertions? If just being an activist is enough to dismiss someone, we can forget all about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. And how are you defining sexual dysfunction? How is a responsive, instead of impulsive, sexual desire dysfunctional? Or are you only speaking from your own impulsivity?

http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/sexual-...on-women#1

Where does that say anything about responsive versus spontaneous desire? And where did the article I link say anything about any lack of satisfaction? Seems you've failed to make any point about dysfunction.

Quote:Who are you hoping to impregnate when you’re rubbing one out?  When you see an attractive female, do you think to yourself...damn, I'd like to conceive a child with that woman?

What on earth are you talking about now? Is this a delayed response to my earlier statement that reproduction is an innate drive? Sex can be pleasurable enough to be its own motivation, without the desire itself being an innate drive. Like we were talking earlier, reproduction would be an intrinsic drive, while the desire for sex is only instrumental to the reproductive drive. Evolution doesn't care about pleasure, except as a means to ensure genetic survival.

But yes, the final act of impregnating is very often the most titillating, because it is most closely aligned to our innate drive to reproduce (whether we take prophylactic precautions or not).  

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And if you rely on the "it's her body" argument then you should have equal minimum requirements for abortion as GRS. It's not a personal choice to kill an innocent and unconsensual human life (which in any other circumstance is murder). It's ethically unjustified by personal choice. Yes, you are not responsible to save others, but you are responsible for the life you chose to create, knowing the possible results of sex. It's not that life's fault that you made the choice to take that risk. But instead of taking responsibility for your own choice, you'd rather kill. How can you justify that ethically?

Is it ethical to force a woman to be an incubator?  Is it ethical to force a woman to give birth to a baby that she doesn’t want?

It is ethical to hold people accountable for their own free choices. Aside from rape, pregnancy is a result of a consensual choice.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/wse_hgca220

Quote:

Syne Wrote:"Nod and handshake"?! So you're fine with being raped or killed...so long as some person's arbitrary morality justifies it?

That doesn't even deserve a response.

Hey, if "nod and handshake" means something else, you'd have to enlighten me.

---

If you really want to understand the left/right moral disconnect:
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1u-ahvx3pkc

(Sep 9, 2016 04:37 AM)Syne Wrote: What on earth are you talking about now? Is this a delayed response to my earlier statement that reproduction is an innate drive? Sex can be pleasurable enough to be its own motivation, without the desire itself being an innate drive. Like we were talking earlier, reproduction would be an intrinsic drive, while the desire for sex is only instrumental to the reproductive drive. Evolution doesn't care about pleasure, except as a means to ensure genetic survival.

But yes, the final act of impregnating is very often the most titillating, because it is most closely aligned to our innate drive to reproduce (whether we take prophylactic precautions or not).  

I find that very hard to believe.  I’m not man, though.  I’ll ask around.

Syne Wrote:"Nod and handshake"?! So you're fine with being raped or killed...so long as some person's arbitrary morality justifies it?

Hey, if "nod and handshake" means something else, you'd have to enlighten me.

In a social setting, punishment and laws seeks to restore balance.  Laws are moral handshakes.  In the wild, revenge seeks to restore balance.  When alone in the woods, I encounter many strangers.  I nod, they nod.  I will not harm you, if you don’t harm me.  If they attempt to, well, self-defense is justifiable homicide.

Syne Wrote:And if you rely on the "it's her body" argument then you should have equal minimum requirements for abortion as GRS. It's not a personal choice to kill an innocent and unconsensual human life (which in any other circumstance is murder). It's ethically unjustified by personal choice. Yes, you are not responsible to save others, but you are responsible for the life you chose to create, knowing the possible results of sex. It's not that life's fault that you made the choice to take that risk. But instead of taking responsibility for your own choice, you'd rather kill. How can you justify that ethically?

It is ethical to hold people accountable for their own free choices. Aside from rape, pregnancy is a result of a consensual choice.

Did you finish watching the video that you posted?

Let’s pretend for a moment that you represent your gender and I, mine.  Let’s imagine for a moment that I hold the keys to the gate.

If you want your genes to enter the through the gates then I would suggest that you stop condemning my gender.  Stop acting as though my gender is betraying the family structure and avoiding responsibilities.  Stop acting as though we are the evil traitors.  When you portray us as bad people and having violated moral rules then you’re less likely to empathize with us, and this especially true for men.

Convince your gender that it is inappropriate to have sexual intercourse without love and without an exclusive permanent commitment.  Tell them that they must provide, not only monetary means of support for our offspring, but love and nurture, as well.  Tell them to stop pressuring us into having abortions.  Tell them that we want the same rights as them, not just here, but throughout the world. Tell them to stop raping us.  Tell them to stop projected their shame onto us.  Tell them how it will affect their reputation if they fail to do so.  My gender has the same expectations of freedom and happiness as yours. Don’t try to change us, change the path.  Set things up to allow our moral emotions to work as they were originally designed to.

You see, when I think of a man, I take away emotions, reason, and accountability.

Why do women have periods?

(Sep 9, 2016 04:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

Syne Wrote:And if you rely on the "it's her body" argument then you should have equal minimum requirements for abortion as GRS. It's not a personal choice to kill an innocent and unconsensual human life (which in any other circumstance is murder). It's ethically unjustified by personal choice. Yes, you are not responsible to save others, but you are responsible for the life you chose to create, knowing the possible results of sex. It's not that life's fault that you made the choice to take that risk. But instead of taking responsibility for your own choice, you'd rather kill. How can you justify that ethically?

It is ethical to hold people accountable for their own free choices. Aside from rape, pregnancy is a result of a consensual choice.

Did you finish watching the video that you posted?

The Jonathan Haidt video? Yes.

Quote:Let’s pretend for a moment that you represent your gender and I, mine.  Let’s imagine for a moment that I hold the keys to the gate.

If you want your genes to enter the through the gates then I would suggest that you stop condemning my gender.  Stop acting as though my gender is betraying the family structure and avoiding responsibilities.  Stop acting as though we are the evil traitors.  When you portray us as bad people and having violated moral rules then you’re less likely to empathize with us, and this especially true for men.

Convince your gender that it is inappropriate to have sexual intercourse without love and without an exclusive permanent commitment.  Tell them that they must provide, not only monetary means of support for our offspring, but love and nurture, as well.  Tell them to stop pressuring us into having abortions.  Tell them that we want the same rights as them, not just here, but throughout the world. Tell them to stop raping us.  Tell them to stop projected their shame onto us.  Tell them how it will affect their reputation if they fail to do so.  My gender has the same expectations of freedom and happiness as yours. Don’t try to change us, change the path.  Set things up to allow our moral emotions to work as they were originally designed to.

Luckily, I don't consider you a desirable mate. And you seem to have missed where I wasn't condemning your gender...just your ideology (hopefully you don't think all women are liberal). Conservative women tend to take much more responsibility for their own choices. You do seem to have taken the points about loyalty and care of the innocent somewhat personally. Neither Haidt nor I have said you are bad people...only that you have bad priorities which lead to bad motivations. The basic, universal (found naturally in all cultures) foundations of morality are all equally important, rather than myopically focusing on one to the large exclusion of the others.

This seems to be why you have trouble reconciling when two ethical considerations come into conflict. Your considerations are heavily weighted toward care/harm of victims, with little regard for proportionality, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty.

Um...women have sex without love too. And abortion has made that choice much more consequence-free. I would be ecstatic to condemn men who pressure a woman to have an abortion if abortion laws were not so misandrist. If, like a woman, a man could opt out of responsibility for a child after sex, then no man would have reason to pressure any women to have an abortion. But as it stands, a woman can opt out after sex, but the man is legally and financially responsible to abide by the woman's choice...with no recourse, input, or even parental rights in some cases.

Women have the same rights as men here, and seem unwilling to seriously fight for women worldwide. What we hear most from feminists are proven false rape allegations and wage gaps, while we hear little to nothing about fighting how Sharia law denigrates women elsewhere. Get women to fight for egalitarianism throughout the world (including supporting war, when needed), and then come tell me what the men (who fight and die in those wars) need to do. Conservatives do have strong taboos against rape. Notice that even if rape culture does exist, it is supposedly strongest on college campuses, where students overwhelmingly identify as liberal.

College freshmen are more liberal

The problem with changing the path of a liberal is that liberal reputation is a facade. You don't need to actually do something to earn the esteem of fellow liberals. You only need to virtue-signal and "spread awareness" (which only proselytizes others into virtue-signalling), rather than actually doing something that makes a tangible difference in the real world. Gestures divorced from results are, at best, pointless and, at worst, detrimental. Liberal reputation has cocooned itself in an exclusive echo chamber, where it is immune to the sort of shaming that could hope to right its path.

Syne Wrote:Luckily, I don't consider you a desirable mate.

Why on earth would you say such a thing?  Did I somehow imply that?  If so, where?

Syne Wrote:And you seem to have missed where I wasn't condemning your gender...just your ideology (hopefully you don't think all women are liberal).

The problem with changing the path of a liberal is that liberal reputation is a facade. You don't need to actually do something to earn the esteem of fellow liberals. You only need to virtue-signal and "spread awareness" (which only proselytizes others into virtue-signalling), rather than actually doing something that makes a tangible difference in the real world. Gestures divorced from results are, at best, pointless and, at worst, detrimental. Liberal reputation has cocooned itself in an exclusive echo chamber, where it is immune to the sort of shaming that could hope to right its path.

You think I'm a liberal?  What exactly are my political views?  How do I feel about victim and rape culture?  Do you even know?

You’re aligning yourself with Jonathan Haidt? That’s fucking hilarious. Did you even know who he was before I linked his video?  Have you ever read any of his books?  Probably not.

Groups themselves are a purely subjective human concepts.  Get over yourself and your objective morality.  

I find you to be highly illogical.


"Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun."—Max Weber

(Sep 9, 2016 10:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

Syne Wrote:Luckily, I don't consider you a desirable mate.

Why on earth would you say such a thing?  Did I somehow imply that?  If so, where?

The only way I wouldn't get my "genes to enter the through the gates" is if all women are enough like you to think that criticizing the irresponsible is equivalent to condemning a whole gender. I wouldn't consider any women who shares your opinions to be a desirable mate, but luckily, women are not so monolithic.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And you seem to have missed where I wasn't condemning your gender...just your ideology (hopefully you don't think all women are liberal).

The problem with changing the path of a liberal is that liberal reputation is a facade. You don't need to actually do something to earn the esteem of fellow liberals. You only need to virtue-signal and "spread awareness" (which only proselytizes others into virtue-signalling), rather than actually doing something that makes a tangible difference in the real world. Gestures divorced from results are, at best, pointless and, at worst, detrimental. Liberal reputation has cocooned itself in an exclusive echo chamber, where it is immune to the sort of shaming that could hope to right its path.

You think I'm a liberal?  What exactly are my political views?  How do I feel about victim and rape culture?  Do you even know?

You’re aligning yourself with Jonathan Haidt? That’s fucking hilarious. Did you even know who he was before I linked his video?  Have you ever read any of his books?  Probably not.

Groups themselves are a purely subjective human concepts.  Get over yourself and your objective morality.  

I find you to be highly illogical.

Did I say you were a liberal? Where? I was talking about changing the path of those who believe in abortion without ethical justification. So who is this "us" you are talking about here:
"Don’t try to change us, change the path. Set things up to allow our moral emotions to work as they were originally designed to."
All women? Do you really think all women are similar enough to you that they need their path changed, instead of simply being informed by reason and a balanced moral intuition?

Exactly how long does it take you to know when someone is talking good reason? I recognize it pretty quick. Maybe it takes you longer to figure out if someone expresses sound reason or sensible ideology. Groups are subjective? Can you give me any source on that, or are you just talking out of your hat? Groups can be objectively identified by their members. Or do you also think that animals share this "purely subjective human concept"? Packs aren't groups?

Seems self-evident who is being illogical here. Groups are human concepts, but animals have packs and herds...it's somehow hilarious that someone could recognize sound reasoning when they hear it...etc, etc..

Classification is cultural, not scientific.

Do you value all life or just human life? 

Lay down your laws then, Syne.  If you want to be the moral police then spell it out.  We already know that you think homosexuality is immoral.

1.      No anal sex.
2.      No gender reassignment surgery
3.      No assisted suicide.
4.      No abortions?

What else?


Are there any exceptions to your rules?  If so, what are they?

Really? Taxonomy: the branch of science concerned with classification, especially of organisms
"In the social sciences a social group has been defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity." - wiki

So are you planning to stop talking out of your hat any time soon?

I value all life, but prioritize human life, as in-group preference warrants. When did I say homosexuality was immoral?! I couldn't care less who may be having anal sex. And who said anything about outlawing anything?

That's a lot of strawman arguments there.

Don’t lie, Syne. We’ve had the discussion before. You clearly stated that you do not think that homosexuality is right.

We’re Homo sapiens. Classifying us into any other group is a subjective process.

Ethics begin where the law ends. Abortion is legal. If you feel that the ruling is socially undesirable, you’ll have to appeal the ruling.

The decisions of the Supreme Court is a human institution that not only shapes social order but is shaped by it, as well. It attempts to apply logic, empathy, and equal justice.

Disgust is an emotion that plays a vital role in negative social values. Empathy is an emotion that plays a vital role in positive social values.

Cuteness stimulates empathy. Are fetuses cute? Not so much. Personally, I start to get uncomfortable with it at about 14 weeks.

How about you? Are you uncomfortable with it at the time of conception?

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gsherma...motion.pdf

https://peezer6.squarespace.com/s/Pizarr...hapter.pdf

Not right (as in correct or rational) is very far from immoral. People can have a great many mental issues without that making them immoral. And actually, mental illness very often makes a person morally inculpable.

Social groups are only considered subjective under the social identification approach, but the social cohesion approach does use objective criteria. The problems I see with the social identification approach is that any group can negate your self-classification as "no true Scotsman", it lacks predictive power, and its emphasis on stereotypes. (But even then"...the explicit importance that the authors of social identity theory placed on the role of "objective" factors..." - wiki) OTOH, the social cohesion approach is widely accepted and practically useful in actually bettering inter and intra group dynamics. I side with what has been shown to work.

I am completely unsurprised that you seem to favor social identification (which political side favors identity politics?).

Again, who said anything about making things illegal? I've already said that legal does not define moral, and that moral does not define ethical. Ethics can assess morals and morals do inform law, but morals are never wholly informed by ethics.

So if it's not cute it's okay to kill it? Wow, just wow. Again, completely unjustified ethically. You seem like a very bad person.

I'm not comfortable with the very old, but that doesn't justify euthanasia.