Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lorb]

What has happened to "all men are created equal"? (as written in the declaration of independence) 

Edit: and how can you talk of "equal rights" when you use "not equal worth" as justification to violate article 5 of the declaration of human rights? (No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)

[Criptfeind]

1: It's wrong.

Or two.

2: If you don't have at least a basis of "Humans all have worth" then it is too easy to slide away from equal rights.

[Leafsnail]

Just kill them all and let god sort them out.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah. Well. I think that would be a good idea. But I am a asshole, so who knows?

[GlyphGryph]

The declaration of independence is a propaganda piece, no more, no less. It didn't really have anything to do with anything other than rousing the masses.

Now, don't get me wrong, all people ARE create roughly equal (meaning worth not a whole lot). Differences in average value are mostly on a personal level for quite a while afterwards, which is why I have no problem with abortion. The lack of brainpower and lack of desire to keep the baby gives it no real worth.

You generally have to be well into your teens before you get any reasonable value divergence. (generally, plenty of exceptions)

[Criptfeind]

Terrifying statement. I believe people are intrinsically worth quite a lot. But the difference is there.

[GlyphGryph]

I think they're worth quite a lot pretty quickly. I just don't think those worths diverge much until the teens, generally.

Also good to keep in mind:
Value is ALWAYS relative.

[RedKing]

What has happened to "all men are created equal"? (as written in the declaration of independence) 

They are created equal. Meaning that no group of people (such as an ethnic group, religious group, etc.) is inherently worth more or less. It's what they do with themselves after that that adds or subtracts to that worth.

When you make the conscious decision to force yourself on an unwilling partner....you've just devalued yourself considerably.

[GlyphGryph]

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ might be a good read for everyone, I think.

[kaijyuu]

Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

First off, this statement assumes that rape is not as bad as a manged penis.

This has since been corrected, but I'm still curious as to why the hell you'd think I was arguing this direction and not the other.



Re: Worth of people.

IMO everyone, absolutely everyone, has some intrinsic worth. Doesn't matter what they do. This worth entitles them to basic moral considerations, such as not wanting to hurt them if possible without something worse happening.

People then have worth on top of that based on how good a person they are. This is where choice and actions and all that mumbo jumbo comes in. However, I'd argue this is pretty irrelevant when it comes to considering them in your preferred moral system: If you're a deontologist, doing Bad Things to them is no different than doing Bad Things to anyone else. A utilitarian, their happiness isn't worth less than other's. In my view as a virtue ethicist, compassion is a very respectable virtue and even more so when directed at someone you loathe.

[Criptfeind]

This has since been corrected, but I'm still curious as to why the hell you'd think I was arguing this direction and not the other.

Because you were saying the penis mangler goes too far. You said that. You called it overkill.

Then later you said something "I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen. "

So what the fuck is it? Overkill? Or just bad thing A?

[Reelya]

By that logic you could justify any torture for almost any crime.

If the rapex is acceptable during the rape, then it's also acceptable to mutilate genitals after the event, as a corporal punishment. How about we cut one of the rapist eyes out instead of mutilating his genitals? The rapist might actually choose to lose an eye than likely get an infected penis.

But why stop at rapists? We could reinstate corporal punishment and mutilation for a number of crimes. Guillotines place near stealable stuff which chops your hand off if you try and pilfer it, that'd be just as much within rights, after all, the person made the decision to steal from you, you didn't force them. And of course, if that was justified, the government chopping you hand off for stealing would be equally justified. After all, not everyone can afford the hand-guillotine to protect their property.

[Criptfeind]

Yeeaaah. Except not. If you were reading my posts you would already know what my response to what you just said is:

That is retribution. I don't advocate excessive retribution.

The penis mangling is to stop the action. Not as punishment for doing it.

[Reelya]

I have to take it that you're arguing with Kaiyuu entirely for lulz then, because that's exactly his point.

Chopping your hand off prevents stealing. Chopping the dick off prevents further rapes.

Anyway, as Scriver correctly noted they'll just rape girls asses if the rapex becomes common.

[Nadaka]

By that logic you could justify any torture for almost any crime.

How about we cut one of the rapist eyes out instead of mutilating his genitals? The rapist might actually choose to lose an eye than likely get an infected penis.

But why stop at rapists? We could reinstate corporal punishment and mutilation for a number of crimes.

.

The rapist mangles himself, and the victims act was in self defense.

That is an entirely different category than maiming as a punishment.

If you think its horrible that the victim would allow her attacker to be mangled by his own action in the course of her assault., how much more horrible do you find it when a victim fights back and physically resisters her rapist?