EPT(it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for)
Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
(it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) | ||
|
17Sphynx17
580 Posts
On June 21 2013 18:47 xM(Z wrote: hypotethical question: if someone (a human/person) genetically and evolutionary adapted/tailored for/to slavery were to exist, you'd argue that is wrong for him to be a slave?. (it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) Hmm... I thought about this a bit but would it be a fact that if that "thing" were created, it wouldn't be human or an "it". To elaborate. To create such a being would be like say breeding a dog where in, for all intents and purposes, domesticating/making "it" trainable. Kind of like a "humanoid" pet/work horse basically. Would that be human? I know it's already outside the discussion though but I think this is an interesting thought as well. As for abortion, for rape, the option should exist. For incest (well it's consensual) so not really. But there is a third, medical emergencies though. That should also keep abortion as an option and let the mother/parents of the unborn fetus decide how to go about it. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 21 2013 18:47 xM(Z wrote: hypotethical question: if someone (a human/person) genetically and evolutionary adapted/tailored for/to slavery were to exist, you'd argue that is wrong for him to be a slave?. (it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) A more relevant question for real life: Are BDSM submissives oppressed? When you can figure out why the answer is "no", then you will understand why "burdensome, cruel, or unjust" is essential to the definition of "oppressed". | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 21 2013 18:47 xM(Z wrote: hypotethical question: if someone (a human/person) genetically and evolutionary adapted/tailored for/to slavery were to exist, you'd argue that is wrong for him to be a slave?. (it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) The purpose of a slave is to be of service to its owners. The only way one can "genetically adapt" to being a slave is to somehow physically lose (or be stripped of) his free will. If this isn't the case, then the slave merely chose to accept their predicament because resistance or freedom would be too difficult to obtain or come at too high a price. In this case, the slave is wrong to accept it. The whole debate (like so many debates nowadays) has its roots in the idea of moral relativism where it is never acceptable for human beings to tell one another what is right and what is wrong, no matter what. It is one of the most impractical and destructive philosophical directions ever conceived. On June 21 2013 19:24 sunprince wrote: A more relevant question for real life: Are BDSM submissives oppressed? When you can figure out why the answer is "no", then you will understand why "burdensome, cruel, or unjust" is essential to the definition of "oppressed". In the majority of cases, BDSM is merely fantasy roleplay and completely irrelevant to this discussion. In cases where some people have adopt it as a permanent lifestyle (which is quite rare), it might be indicative of some sort of disorder or issues with the person in question. Regardless, even that doesn't work as an analogy to your point about the treatment of women. Out of "burdensome, cruel or unjust", at least "unjust" almost universally applies to the way many societies treated women (and some still do). Many of these societies are/were built on the principle that all people were created or born as equals. Burdensome applies in many cases, as the woman has often been reduced to working in the household and getting paid nothing. Working for no wage and merely to please the head of the household is burdensome by definition. Cruel is more of a case-by-case thing, and possibly the smallest subset of cases of the three, but still very common in societies where women are being oppressed. Many of these societies do not recognize or penalize things such as domestic abuse (which doesn't necessarily need to be physical) or marital rape. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On June 21 2013 18:47 xM(Z wrote: hypotethical question: if someone (a human/person) genetically and evolutionary adapted/tailored for/to slavery were to exist, you'd argue that is wrong for him to be a slave?. (it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) That's not what they are arguing though but hey. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
people would change/doubt the hypothesis, even when/after it's proven, just so they could end up to the conclusion their morality/logic gives validation to. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Atheists too! They've lived lives all throughout the class spectrum, and had to deal with all sorts of problems, but prominent atheists have always been upper class and such. And I've never heard of an "atheist uprising" or anything. So I guess atheists haven't been oppressed. Gee, I wonder if you'd say blacks in the Jim Crow South were oppressed. I mean, it wasn't slavery, but they obviously had no right to vote or anything. Plus they could always move north to get some rights. And they didn't really achieve borg hivemind status until the sixties, alongside women. So I think there's a fair argument here that blacks in the Jim Crow South weren't oppressed either. Gosh, why do these groups keep complaining? On June 21 2013 19:24 sunprince wrote: A more relevant question for real life: Are BDSM submissives oppressed? When you can figure out why the answer is "no", then you will understand why "burdensome, cruel, or unjust" is essential to the definition of "oppressed". Individuals consenting is not equivalent to entire groups consenting. There is no such thing as "group consent." | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 21 2013 19:31 Talin wrote: In the majority of cases, BDSM is merely fantasy roleplay and completely irrelevant to this discussion. In cases where some people have adopt it as a permanent lifestyle (which is quite rare), it might be indicative of some sort of disorder or issues with the person in question. Regardless, even that doesn't work as an analogy to your point about the treatment of women. Out of "burdensome, cruel or unjust", at least "unjust" almost universally applies to the way many societies treated women (and some still do). Many of these societies are/were built on the principle that all people were created or born as equals. You have not supported the assertion that women were treated "unjustly". The fact that women had a different set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations does not automatically mean these were unjust. To show this, you would have to explain how and why the differing set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations were unjust. On June 21 2013 19:31 Talin wrote: Burdensome applies in many cases, as the woman has often been reduced to working in the household and getting paid nothing. Working for no wage and merely to please the head of the household is burdensome by definition. Women did not work merely to please men. The work they did was in return for the work done by men. Men risked and shortened their lives in order to provide provisioning and protection for the household. Further, we find that in virtually all societies, women as a class outperformed men as a class on virtually all metrics for quality of life, such as life expectancy, likelihood of successfully reproducing, treatment by legal systems, violent crime victimization rate, workplace death rate, suicide rate, homelessness rate, level of government/charitable aid, conscription, etc. If anything, the objective metrics show that gender roles have historically placed a greater burden on men. On June 21 2013 19:31 Talin wrote: Cruel is more of a case-by-case thing, and possibly the smallest subset of cases of the three, but still very common in societies where women are being oppressed. Many of these societies do not recognize or penalize things such as domestic abuse (which doesn't necessarily need to be physical) or marital rape. Domestic abuse of men also wasn't recognized or penalized. Historically, domestic disputes were considered a private affair rather than a legal issue. That means that a husband stabbed by his wife would similarly lack any legal recourse. That does not equate to cruel treatment, but merely a different paradigm that applied equally to both men and women. The same applies to marital rape. Historically, marriage was viewed as a form of implied consent by both parties to each other, which means neither party could rape each other. Further, both parties (and/or the parties arranging the marriage) were well aware of this and this was a normal social expectation, alongside the expectation of children. Simply put, you cannot use something that applies equally to both men and women as an example of systematic cruelty to women as a class. Further, you're equating a different understanding of marriage to cruelty; by your logic, all marriage would be considered cruel and oppressive to both parties. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote: Wait, so sunprince, would you say that homosexuals have been oppressed? Because homosexuals' lives have also fluctuated wildly in terms of class struggles, and there was certainly no "homosexual uprising" for the majority of human history. Homosexuals were probably even involved with enforcing homophobic law against other homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals haven't been oppressed. No oppression of homosexuals. Atheists too! They've lived lives all throughout the class spectrum, and had to deal with all sorts of problems, but prominent atheists have always been upper class and such. And I've never heard of an "atheist uprising" or anything. So I guess atheists haven't been oppressed. Gee, I wonder if you'd say blacks in the Jim Crow South were oppressed. I mean, it wasn't slavery, but they obviously had no right to vote or anything. Plus they could always move north to get some rights. And they didn't really achieve borg hivemind status until the sixties, alongside women. So I think there's a fair argument here that blacks in the Jim Crow South weren't oppressed either. Gosh, why do these groups keep complaining? Individuals consenting is not equivalent to entire groups consenting. There is no such thing as "group consent." well if you don't like the word consent then use the 'group determinism' phrase to argue on; use determinism as the drive behind XYZ actions/preferences/predispositions of an entire group. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
Burdensome applies in many cases, as the woman has often been reduced to working in the household and getting paid nothing. Working for no wage and merely to please the head of the household is burdensome by definition. It is only (relatively) recently that society as shifted for women to get a job instead of doing domestic chores all day and this is only because domestic chores have become a lot easier and a lot less time consuming. Women were not doing it "merely to please to head of the household" they were doing it out of necessity, it was a full time job, the man relied on the woman to take care of domestic affairs while the woman relied on the man to essentially bring home the money, neither was more important than the other. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 21 2013 20:43 xM(Z wrote: well if you don't like the word consent then use the 'group determinism' phrase to argue on; use determinism as the drive behind XYZ actions/preferences/predispositions of an entire group. Uhm. People aren't stereotypes. Biological determinism is well known to be bullshit. And consent is a concept that is a lot stronger than a persons preferences anyway. People like sex. People don't like rape. Consent is what is actually being discussed, so you can't remove it from the conversation even if biological determinism wasn't bullshit. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote: I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote: Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. Referring to different groups does not accomplish this, or at least not in the manner in which you have done so. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote: Wait, so sunprince, would you say that homosexuals have been oppressed? Because homosexuals' lives have also fluctuated wildly in terms of class struggles, and there was certainly no "homosexual uprising" for the majority of human history. Homosexuals were probably even involved with enforcing homophobic law against other homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals haven't been oppressed. No oppression of homosexuals. The fact that homosexuals as a class have been treated unjustly and cruelly in a minority of societies is established. Abrahamic societies have historically criminalized and punished sodomy as a crime against nature (and some continue to do so today). Denying homosexuals the right to have sex (and arguably the right to exist) is a clear example of unjust treatment. Additionally, while there is substantially more limited data on quality of life metrics for homosexuals, I doubt you would find them outperforming heterosexuals, as you do with women outperforming men (a huge indicator that women aren't oppressed). I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the history of homosexuality, but yes, I would argue that homosexuals have been systematically oppressed in certain societies, particularly ones influenced by Abrahamic religions. On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote: Atheists too! They've lived lives all throughout the class spectrum, and had to deal with all sorts of problems, but prominent atheists have always been upper class and such. And I've never heard of an "atheist uprising" or anything. So I guess atheists haven't been oppressed. First of all, you're strawmanning my argument. My argument is that women have done better than men of the same class on average. This is not the same as merely claiming that there have been prominent upper class women, as you seem to be implying. To address your actual argument, atheism in its modern sense did not exist before the end of the 17th century, and atheists remained statistically insignificant until the mid-19th century. Given that atheists as a group only started appearing after the rise of constitutional democracies which protect against legal discrimination, atheists are truly systematically oppressed only in Islamic nations. Islamic nations commonly criminalize atheism and punish it with imprisonment and death. This is a pretty self-explanatory example of unjust and cruel treatment. I haven't seen any data on this, but I'm fairly certain that quality of life metrics for atheists are lower than non-atheists in Islamic nations. As for revolting, it's apparent already that there are atheists who are speaking out and clamoring for change (and no atheists speaking in favor of the status quo, which can be contrasted with women's rights movements which were basically women fighting other women), and that they are being brutally suppressed for it, which further reinforces the notion that they are oppressed (unlike women, who faced zero violent resistance). These tiny atheist groups in Islamic countries are fairly new, however, but I would expect that they would eventually gain traction and actually achieve social change , or will simply leave for nations that treat them better. Either way, it's apparent they don't appreciate their treatment. On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote: Gee, I wonder if you'd say blacks in the Jim Crow South were oppressed. I mean, it wasn't slavery, but they obviously had no right to vote or anything. Plus they could always move north to get some rights. And they didn't really achieve borg hivemind status until the sixties, alongside women. So I think there's a fair argument here that blacks in the Jim Crow South weren't oppressed either. The quality of life metrics for blacks as a class in the Jim Crow South are pretty abysmal compared to whites as a class in the Jim Crow South. That alone is a pretty good indicator that they were being treated in a burdensome manner. Again, unlike women there were absolutely no advantages to being black in that society. We can also easily establish that state-sponsored discrimination such as restrictive covenants and barriers to voting were unjust. As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). The fact that blacks did move to the North suggested that they didn't like their treatment, which again contrasts with women, who historically continued playing their part in remaining in society and marrying men. The fact that blacks fought for their civil rights and succeeded in doing so in less than a century stands in stark contrast to women who apparently did not feel oppressed enough to fight for nearly all of human history. Also, the African-American Civil Rights movement was met by fire hoses, police dogs, and lynchings, which stands in stark contrast to the resistance to women's rights movements, which mostly consisted of counter protests by women who liked thing the way they were. On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote: Individuals consenting is not equivalent to entire groups consenting. There is no such thing as "group consent." When we talk about systematic oppression of a group, then we absolutely have to consider them as a group. If an individual woman feels oppressed, that is not an indicator that women as a class are oppressed. Rather, the fact that the vast majority of women (and men) accepted and perpetuated their gender roles throughout most of history suggests that as a group, they did not consider themselves oppressed. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote: I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
When we talk about systematic oppression of a group, then we absolutely have to consider them as a group. If an individual woman feels oppressed, that is not an indicator that women as a class are oppressed. Rather, the fact that the vast majority of women (and men) accepted and perpetuated their gender roles throughout most of history suggests that as a group, they did not consider themselves oppressed. Again, there were black people who defended their slaveowners. Homosexuals sent other homosexuals off to burn at the stake. What number is good enough? What's a vast majority? 60% 80%? As long as we agree it's not oppression, it's not oppression? Consent is at individual level. Bringing it to a group level destroys all forms of it's definition unless it's unanimous. Edit: I would disagree with your premise anyway. If an individual woman is oppressed by the system because she is a woman, that would be systemic oppression against women. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote: You have not supported the assertion that women were treated "unjustly". The fact that women had a different set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations does not automatically mean these were unjust. To show this, you would have to explain how and why the differing set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations were unjust. Yes I have. If the society claims to be built upon the principle of all people being equal under law (or god, higher power, whatever), that implies the same rights regardless of gender. Justice in said society is based on this principle, according to Constitutions of many countries that have until recently overlooked (or still overlook) unequal treatment of women. On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote: Women did not work merely to please men. The work they did was in return for the work done by men. Men risked and shortened their lives in order to provide provisioning and protection for the household. What you describe is exactly the case of women working to please men. Historically, there was no legal contract for this work. There were no laws that specified what a woman does in the household, and what a man must provide in return. Keeping the man happy was the woman's only way to secure said provisioning and protection. Obviously, the man was the ultimate judge on how satisfied he was with the marriage, and had ultimate control over how much the woman would receive in the household, and under which conditions. There was also no opportunity for women to choose a different line of work for themselves. Sometimes not even when it was necessary to do so (ie widows). On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote: Further, we find that in virtually all societies, women as a class outperformed men as a class on virtually all metrics for quality of life, such as life expectancy, likelihood of successfully reproducing, treatment by legal systems, violent crime victimization rate, workplace death rate, suicide rate, homelessness rate, level of government/charitable aid, conscription, etc. If anything, the objective metrics show that gender roles have historically placed a greater burden on men. I can't see how this is relevant, as we're not talking about quality of life. If I thought it were relevant, I would question the premise that it applies in "virtually all societies" anyway. On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote: Domestic abuse of men also wasn't recognized or penalized. Historically, domestic disputes were considered a private affair rather than a legal issue. That means that a husband stabbed by his wife would similarly lack any legal recourse. And that would matter if the case of women being the dominant and abusive party in marriage were common enough to even take into consideration in this debate. As it is, it is merely a strawman, as domestic disputes being considered a private affair serves only to protect men from legal punishment for cruelty or abuse. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Domestic abuse of men also wasn't recognized or penalized. Historically, domestic disputes were considered a private affair rather than a legal issue. That means that a husband stabbed by his wife would similarly lack any legal recourse. That does not equate to cruel treatment, but merely a different paradigm that applied equally to both men and women. This is incorrect. Men had legal power and therefore had several options for controlling their wives using the law that women did not, even if domestic abuse itself wasn't properly recognized. There wasn't anything equal about this arrangement. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On June 21 2013 17:36 Talin wrote: It seems like quite a leap to go from calling fetus a human in the early stages of its development, to calling it a person later in the same sentence. Are these terms interchangeable in your opinion? Yes, I would say "human" and "person" are synonymous, at least in this situation. I use different words for variety in my sentences, lol. | ||
| ||
