Bodily integrity vs moral responsibility

[RainbowUnicorn]

Usually humans who cannot physically/mentally provide consent are assumed not to give it, like the passed out drunk girl at the frat party.

skip reading through here. quite interested in the topic generically speaking.
just wondering with this as it struck me, the "consent" concept is the opposite when a police officer is doing the asking.
i only make this point in reference to a frame work of legal republicanism.
why should a police officer not require consent and the absence of refusal of consent be deemed consent by lack of objection ?
Thus in the ethos of american liberalism should not the burdon of proof be on the state to prove that the rights can be removed prior to, the rights being removed ?


it seems the law flip-flops to serve whom ever is the most powerful(almost, i am thespianising a little).
specifically in regard to suicide and gun laws.
what difference is a gun sale to a suicide drug sale ?

i should suggest there is no difference in implied terms by definition of the nature of the product sought.
or, does moral judgment come in to define defense of self by killing another perosn is morally superior to a gun for comitting suicide ?
if soo why is there not compulsory warnings with all firearms sold declaring the danger to suicide and death ?

[Syne]

The difference would seem to be either that the person has already violated the law (thus surrendering some rights) or that they are perfectly capable of giving consent, so lack of objection is tacit consent. A child or passed out person is not capable of giving consent. So how is that "opposite"?

No legal system can "prove" guilt prior to the necessity of detaining suspected criminals. But as long as a stable legal system exists, they are guaranteed due process before any permanent loss of rights.

What do you mean by, "what difference is a gun sale to a suicide drug sale?" And how do you think suicide is related to gun laws?
How would suicide be morally superior to self-defense? All new firearms come with a user manual that does warn about possible injury or death.

[Secular Sanity]

Considering she supports her argument, and you have not supported your criticism beyond a mere statement of opinion, she has given more reason to take her seriously.

First of all, stop conflating gender dysphoria with body dysmorphic disorder.

Secondly, where exactly does she address all the medical and scientific literature on gender dysphoria?

Paglia wrote that she "nearly came to blows with the founding members of the women's studies program at the State University of New York at Albany, when they categorically denied that hormones influence human experience or behavior".

What a hypocrite.  She's doing the exact same thing.

Paglia: 'Transgender Mania' is a Symptom of West's Cultural Collapse

"And I found in my study that history is cyclic, and everywhere in the world you find this pattern in ancient times: that as a culture begins to decline, you have an efflorescence of transgender phenomena. That is a symptom of cultural collapse.

So rather than people singing the praises of humanitarian liberalism that allows all of these transgender possibilities to appear and to be encouraged, I would be concerned about how Western culture is defining itself to the world.

Because in fact these phenomena are inflaming the irrational, indeed borderline psychotic opponents of Western culture in the form of ISIS and other jihadists, etcetera, Paglia said.

Nothing... better defines the deadence of the West to the jihadists than our toleration of open homosexuality and this transgender mania now."

Come on, Syne.  She’s nothing but fucking shock jock.

[Syne]

Considering she supports her argument, and you have not supported your criticism beyond a mere statement of opinion, she has given more reason to take her seriously.

First of all, stop conflating gender dysphoria with body dysmorphic disorder.

Secondly, where exactly does she address all the medical and scientific literature on gender dysphoria?

Paglia wrote that she "nearly came to blows with the founding members of the women's studies program at the State University of New York at Albany, when they categorically denied that hormones influence human experience or behavior".

What a hypocrite.  She's doing the exact same thing.

Paglia: 'Transgender Mania' is a Symptom of West's Cultural Collapse

"And I found in my study that history is cyclic, and everywhere in the world you find this pattern in ancient times: that as a culture begins to decline, you have an efflorescence of transgender phenomena. That is a symptom of cultural collapse.

So rather than people singing the praises of humanitarian liberalism that allows all of these transgender possibilities to appear and to be encouraged, I would be concerned about how Western culture is defining itself to the world.

Because in fact these phenomena are inflaming the irrational, indeed borderline psychotic opponents of Western culture in the form of ISIS and other jihadists, etcetera, Paglia said.

Nothing... better defines the deadence of the West to the jihadists than our toleration of open homosexuality and this transgender mania now."

Come on, Syne.  She’s nothing but fucking shock jock.

First, where do you imagine I've conflated gender dysphoria with body dysmorphic disorder? Show me, so we can have an adult discussion. Otherwise, you're just trying to preemptively poison the well with a bunch of arm waving.

Second, who claimed she addresses "all the medical and scientific literature on gender dysphoria"? This is an obvious straw man unless you can show I've asserted it.

Third, where has she specifically "denied that hormones influence human experience or behavior". The criticism without support is a straw man.

Since you've made nothing but fallacious attempts at argument (if we can even call them that), I see nothing worth any real rebut at all. Thanks for playing.

[Secular Sanity]

She's all over the place.  She refers to her book "Sexual Personae".  Did you read it?  If you want to post something of substance, I'd be happy to respond.

[RainbowUnicorn]

The difference would seem to be either that the person has already violated the law (thus surrendering some rights) or that they are perfectly capable of giving consent, so lack of objection is tacit consent. A child or passed out person is not capable of giving consent. So how is that "opposite"?

i understand your perspective to a point, however if you define someon as being already guilty and thus the removal of rights then there is no due process and no burdon of guilt.(obvious things im sure your well versed in)
thus
forced compliance is the removal of rights.
the act of demanding someone obey you is the removal of thier right to be free.

i have been trying to thin of someone else that gives a good example without having to fall back to the police shooting somene example but there seems to be the critical deadly force reality.
i am specifically referring to USA police who shoot 'dead' 3 civilians every single day of the year.
the video of the man being shot by the police officer that we previousely discussed is one example of many shootings that happen every day in the usa.
no consent was given.

now if you subscribe to the police officers instructions being not followed...
assuming you think there was any given which it appears there was not.
the civilian was shot because he looked like he was carrying a firearm.. which is legal to do so in most US states.
for example if the police HAD of given instructions or simply asked his name or what he was doing...
simply replying or continuing to walk is surely not
surrendering right to life(act of assisted suicide?)

this is where the act of the officer simply saying something to a civilian removes the right to life of the civilian.


explicitly...
1 police officer says who are you to person walking
person walking has shiny cigarette box in their hand which looks like a firearm
2 person walking turns around to look at police officer.
3 police officer shoots person

at what point has the person given consent to have their right to life removed ?
keen to hear your thoughts around this...

No legal system can "prove" guilt prior to the necessity of detaining suspected criminals. But as long as a stable legal system exists, they are guaranteed due process before any permanent loss of rights.

proof of guilt after the fact of removing the rights as a burdon to be unreasonable....
proof or reasonable suspiscion i beleive is the legal frame work, and this is my question where deadly force is used.

What do you mean by, "what difference is a gun sale to a suicide drug sale?" And how do you think suicide is related to gun laws?
How would suicide be morally superior to self-defense? All new firearms come with a user manual that does warn about possible injury or death.

"what do i mean"
selling someone a gun is selling someone a method of killing someone.
that is what firearm sales are all about in the USA generally speaking.
hand guns are nto made for sporting purposes and if they were then compulsory club membership just like compulsory vehicle insurance would be done already.
its about killing
selling a gun is about providing someone with the means to take a life.
pure and simple.
thus
selling a drug that is designed for suicide to a terminally ill person is quite comparible considerng death is certain. the drug simply speeds it up.
probably ethically equvilent to defending yourself with a firearm against an unarmed intruder.
is it classed as "assisted suicide" if the doctor sells the terminally ill patient a drug designed to kill them ?


keeping in mind both using the gun to kill someone and using the drug as self administered are both without the direct involvement of the person providign the means.

i hope that clarifys my question

[Syne]

She's all over the place.  She refers to her book "Sexual Personae".  Did you read it?  If you want to post something of substance, I'd be happy to respond.

Well, do you think parents should medicinally interrupt the normal developmental progress of their minor children?

[Secular Sanity]

Well, do you think parents should medicinally interrupt the normal developmental progress of their minor children?

I don’t know.  I read these articles, but I’ll have to do a little more reading, and give it some more thought.

[1][2][3]

Nite, Syne.

[Syne]

@RainbowUnicorn

There is due process, but no society can let suspected criminals remain free until that determination is made. Criminals, by their nature, would flee and/or commit more crime in the meanwhile. Obedience to some demands is in exchange for privileges, like driving, which are not rights (negative rights). Other demands accord with reasonable suspicion, which is less rigorous than probable cause. You are well within your rights to ask a cop if he is detaining you and suspects you may have committed an crime he can articulate. If he cannot, you are not generally obliged to obey, unless you are doing something that may require you to provide ID or permit, like drive or carry a gun.

No consent need be given if a someone seems to be an immediate threat. That is self-defense.

The police in that case were obviously trying to question the man (unless you believe police make a habit of silently approaching people). It is NOT LEGAL to brandish a firearm at another person unless that person is an immediate threat to life or limb. Since this guy was both unresponsive/uncooperative and appeared to point a weapon, he gave EVERY appearance that he was actively breaking the law and an immediate threat. The man's own actions forfeited his safety.

The guy didn't just turn toward the police...he VERY CLEARLY pointed something at them.

Seems you're mischaracterizing the video to make a false case. In other cases where the officer is not justified, like shooting a fleeing victim in the back, he is prosecuted for the killing, just like any other civilian, because his actions were outside of his duty.

Selling a gun is about protecting life or hunting, depending on the type of gun (although they do get mostly used for practice and sport). If it were about killing, we would not have mandatory background checks for gun sales. The police do not generally prevent crime, they only enforce the penalties for crime...after the fact. The only way to prevent crime (especially violent crime) is for the intended victim to be better prepared than the criminal.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.
...
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
- Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related
Violence, CDC report

Suicide drugs have zero potential to save a life. Abetting a suicide places an ethical quandary on the seller, while killing even an unarmed intruder is wholly the ethical burden of the intruder (the person initiating a violation of another). Doctor hold a special place in society, charged to "do no harm". If they had no responsibility for an assisted suicide, they would be equally blameless for providing prescription drug addicts their fix.

[RainbowUnicorn]

She's all over the place.  She refers to her book "Sexual Personae".  Did you read it?  If you want to post something of substance, I'd be happy to respond.

Well, do you think parents should medicinally interrupt the normal developmental progress of their minor children?

what do you mean by "minor" ?
-Developmental progress, if the girl starts puberty at say age 8. should the parents intervene with drugs ?
should sexual education be a right for a child ?
does the child have a right ?
is denail of opportuunity to give consent to not be taught sex education be something that is positioned for an equalatative rational  ?
(if they have no right to demand sex education as a child then they have no ability to consent and that tends to subjectify the child to become the ideological play ground of the parent. though this already exists with things like religous education and religious schooling which has pervasive manipulation of the childs sexual development)