Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxon
You're taking the word to the "eskimo" extreme. There as nothing special in choosing the word german except I didn't feel like googling the article and I remembered the story took place in germany and hoped that would be enough for people to know what story I was talking about.
As for the analogy I truly wonder what is so different between thought and action when the topic is whether something is consensual. That's the point I'm making but really, it's not even that.
Both are ACTIONS. This person took the action of broadcasting something possibly hurtful to an audience of millions. Tiger didn't take offense at that ACTION nor did the cannibal victim.
Though I'll give you your objection for the state of argument and ask you to explain why a completely consensual action can be wrong but a completely consensual action can't be?
Then we can talk about the fact that the comment was offensive ( and here I'm giving the other side their argument ) to a race of people, not an individual person and they most certainly haven't given it their ok to the statements so the whole "tigers ok with it" argument was bogus.
And that can be. A person actually can be a racist against their own race. Can we find one of them, publically abuse them with all the worst, most vile and disgusting concepts ever and have them say they're cool with it so no one else should be offended?
I'm really curious about that too. Seems that this would be a good tactic for the klan to take up so the good non racists can accept them again as cool people in hip robes.
|
I see what you mean about the German guy now. I recall reading about that. It is very weird. Also, from reading your post of the article, it sounds like they have some issues with how to proceed based on German law, odd stuff.
I guess the difference in consent for me is when people are consenting to do something that kills or maims another human being, regardless of consent it is harmful to society and threatens the safety of others. Consenting about speach does not kill or maim someone. It is not an action in that regard.
On the canibalism thing, you will likely consider a person willing to be killed and eaten as mentally unstable. The predator is taking advantage of someone who is not mentally stable. Also, in that specific case, the consumed one is dead.
How do we know he really consented. Was he lured into the predators zone of control and killed against his will? And the predators defense is "he consented".
I'm sure doctors and such can provide much better information on why outlawing behavior that kills and maims human beings supports a civil society.
Of course it was not long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Maybe we will see Ray Bradbury's voluntary suicide to help the planet, come to fruition in our lifetime.