This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » Eliot Spitzer and changing my mind. aka Why is sex special? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Eliot Spitzer and changing my mind. aka Why is sex special?
ursus arctos
Member
Member # 1452

 - posted      Profile for ursus arctos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is starting to sound like a "can one willingly consent to slavery" argument (at least to me).

I think that is part of what Hof is getting at with his criticism of B as being way overbroad; there are certain arrangements to which it clearly wouldn't apply even in principle (at least as I understand the term).

Posts: 18670 | From: mediolanum | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This is starting to sound like a "can one willingly consent to slavery" argument
 -

Ha! Can open, worms everywhere...

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wyatt Earp
Member
Member # 108

 - posted      Profile for Wyatt Earp     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dogbeak: yeah, he's doing reductio ad absurdum. And he's right: the premise as stated stands disproven. But I don't think defences of legalised prostitution depend on premises so sweeping: the underlying claim isn't that sex resembles all other saleable services in all ways, but that it resembles certain other saleable services in relevant ways.

Toro's argument, as it stands, would outlaw all "services" we regard as age-restricted, from (focusing on the sexual alone) stripping, through acting in steamy Channel 4 dramas, down to doing bawdy stand-up. Unless there's a principled ground for drawing a line somewhere down the middle of that that I've missed.

Posts: 19927 | From: the Cryptic Cabal | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ooh aah
Member
Member # 464

 - posted      Profile for ooh aah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well the key words in point B are reasonably request. Parents can reasonably request services from their children. Tidy your room is a reasonable request. Help your mother with the shopping, pick your brother up from school, do the washing up, and various other chores are all reasonable requests.

However buy mummy some crack, touch daddy's penis, or have a look and see if my gun is jammed would, I suggest, fall outside of the realms of reasonable requests.

Posts: 2266 | From: the bottom of the barrel | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The thing is, on what basis?

Crack, and its procurement, is illegal. So it doesn't fall under A. Checking if the gun is jammed is reasonable if the child is skilled in the use of guns, unreasonable because dangerous if not.

You need to say why touching daddy's penis falls into the same category.

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I thought incest was illegal?
Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yep. But so is prostitution. The point is, the basis on which many people argue we should legalise one seems to speak for legalising the other, which we don't want to do.
Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dr. Hofzinser
Member
Member # 26

 - posted      Profile for Dr. Hofzinser     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Point B is too sweeping as formulated, yeah. But again, I think it or something like it stands in principle, and any restrictions on it are comparatively ad hoc.

Well, what is the "something like it" that stands up in principle? Because as worded, I don't think it stands at all. At the very least, some justification for it standing has to be offered.

I don't think that conclusion C can be acceptable even in principle.

Why not?

NB I'm not saying it is acceptable; just prying out the reasoning.

Posts: 9155 | From: salubrious Crouch End | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ooh aah
Member
Member # 464

 - posted      Profile for ooh aah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Children shouldn't be skilled in the use of guns. But let's change the gun example. In an episode of the Simpsons Homer is mowing the lawn, and without looking mows over a roller skate, and says something to the effect of - 'Bart you've got little hands, will you slip you hand in and find out what's causing the problem.'

Now that's not illegal, but not a reasonable request either. The child is being asked to do something which he/she can't realistically consent to, because he/she is too young to fully understand the consequences.

I can make requests of my dog too, such as 'fetch' but it shouldn't be legal for me to train the dog in order to remake 'Animal Farm'

[ 18.03.2008, 15:06: Message edited by: ooh aah ]

Posts: 2266 | From: the bottom of the barrel | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But if drugs were leagalised it then would fall under a.

Then there would be no problem with geting your kid to buy you crack, would there? So the analogy still doesn't work.

quote:
Children shouldn't be skilled in the use of guns. But let's change the gun example. In an episode of the Simpsons Homer is mowing the lawn, and without looking mows over a roller skate, and says something to the effect of - 'Bart you've got little hands, will you slip you hand in and find out what's causing the problem.'

Now that's not illegal, but not a reasonable request either. The child is being asked to do something which he/she can't realistically consent to, because he/she is too young to fully understand the consequences.

How young does he or she have to be? It's an unreasonable request of a five year-old, but of a seventeen year-old?

And if the analogy holds, why not make incest "not illegal, but not a reasonable request either"?


quote:
Well, what is the "something like it" that stands up in principle? Because as worded, I don't think it stands at all. At the very least, some justification for it standing has to be offered
"Parents have a prima facie right to request or require labour and/or services of their children not overly hazardous or onerous, which is not (entirely?) subject to the usual legal provisions regarding age restrictions, remuneration, consent, etc." ?

Again, it's clunky. I'm kind of feeling my way towards a formulation, and the thread is really helpful in thinking about the limitations of this way of reasoning.

quote:
Why not?

Hmm. Incest seems to be a moral surd here; I can't imagine it being morally okay, nor can I imagine accepting a moral argument (e.g. for legalising prostitution) which implied that it was. I imagine most people would share that intuition, but it's not really reducible to any more basic moral principle.
Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ooh aah
Member
Member # 464

 - posted      Profile for ooh aah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
'Then there would be no problem with geting your kid to buy you crack, would there? So the analogy still doesn't work.'
You mean aside from the dangers of going into a crack house, taking the crack themselves etc. I mean if drugs were legal I still wouldn't want one of my kids doing this.


quote:
And if the analogy holds, why not make incest "not illegal, but not a reasonable request either"?
Because the mower example is negligence, whereas incest is child abuse. Either way you could lose your kid, but you're more likely to get arrested and prosecuted for child abuse because it's a deliberate and pre-meditated act, as opposed to laziness, carelessness etc.

[ 18.03.2008, 15:37: Message edited by: ooh aah ]

Posts: 2266 | From: the bottom of the barrel | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackdogbeak
Member
Member # 12747

 - posted      Profile for blackdogbeak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Would there still be crack houses if it was legal?

I'm hoping yes, and that they'd be the equivalent of theme pubs.

Posts: 651 | From: the muddy banks of the irwell | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You mean aside from the dangers of going into a crack house, taking the crack themselves etc.

None of which they'd have to do if it were legal.

quote:
Because the mower example is negligence, whereas incest is child abuse. Either way you could lose your kid, but you're more likely to get arrested and prosecuted for child abuse because it's a deliberate and pre-meditated act, as opposed to laziness, carelessness etc.
Right, but that's precisely the intuition I'm looking for. Sex is different.
Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ooh aah
Member
Member # 464

 - posted      Profile for ooh aah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well no, only if you think sex and paedophilia are the same. They're different, and should be treated as such.
Posts: 2266 | From: the bottom of the barrel | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ooh aah
Member
Member # 464

 - posted      Profile for ooh aah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You mean aside from the dangers of going into a crack house, taking the crack themselves etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of which they'd have to do if it were legal.


Whilst clearly I'm wrong about crack houses, they still could take the crack themselves, in exacly the same way they could help themselves to chips if asked to pick up a few fish suppers

Posts: 2266 | From: the bottom of the barrel | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there