Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-15-2017, 04:46 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 11,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I have little doubt it would make some rapists "more angry and frustrated in general", but it seems very unlikely to me that that would result in anything close to as much violence as compared to all the sexual violence the 'rule' would prevent.
I don't see how. The main purpose of sexual aggression is to establish dominance over the victim. If the aggressor doesn't get horny, he uses fists instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

The 'rule' can read intentions and consent and wouldn't allow this. There'd be no way for a would-be victim to "provoke" feelings of nausea under this rule.
I thought the rule suppressed violence? There's no violent intent on the part of the accuser, and if you were to expand the rule to include any sort of harmful intent, you'd have a lot of cases to clarify. No one solid rule can cover all bases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

That's possible. Though the rule could be crafted such that even that would be prevented.
Again, this isn't sounding like a fast and simple rule. The more repercussions you try to cover, the more provisions you have to add. Plus, humans will be asking why you're not extending the same rule to the rest of the animal kingdom. There's rape among non-humans too.

Last edited by Knowed Out; 10-15-2017 at 04:47 PM.
  #52  
Old 10-15-2017, 05:46 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
I don't see how. The main purpose of sexual aggression is to establish dominance over the victim. If the aggressor doesn't get horny, he uses fists instead.
That's not how I understand it. Rapists want to rape -- they don't want general or vague assertions of dominance -- they want rape. Some of them might react violently, but every single one? Especially when victims would then have a clear chance to escape (while the attacker is incapacitated by nausea)? I seriously doubt that would result in more violence. But if you feel differently, fine -- it's not like I can prove it either way.

Quote:
I thought the rule suppressed violence? There's no violent intent on the part of the accuser, and if you were to expand the rule to include any sort of harmful intent, you'd have a lot of cases to clarify. No one solid rule can cover all bases.

Again, this isn't sounding like a fast and simple rule. The more repercussions you try to cover, the more provisions you have to add. Plus, humans will be asking why you're not extending the same rule to the rest of the animal kingdom. There's rape among non-humans too.
One relatively simple rule can cover all bases -- any time someone acts in a sexual or intimate way which is not desired (and thus not consented to) by the other party (anything from trying to kiss to grabbing a boob to jumping out from the bushes and grabbing to rape), they will experience nausea, which will continue until the would-be assaulter/attacker/groper/rapist stops trying to assault/attack/grope/rape. Even if they think the victim wants it. Consent is much more important than intent, but intent will matter in the very rare cases in which someone might be grabbed for their own safety (like to avoid a car).

So if you're on a date and you kiss (not lean in for a kiss and stop to make sure they want a kiss, but actually kiss regardless of the actions and desires of the other party), and your date doesn't want to kiss, you'll feel some nausea. If you grab their private parts without their consent, you'll feel nausea. And so on. It makes the rule a tiny bit more complicated, but I'll add a sliding scale such that the worst nausea goes with rape, and lesser nausea for lesser violations of consent.

Violating someone's consent with regards to sex and intimacy will literally be impossible due to this rule.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-15-2017 at 05:48 PM.
  #53  
Old 10-15-2017, 05:50 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,121
Play this argument out a little bit.

Let's suppose that your divine power isn't totally supernatural, and it works by making a change in the genetic code of men, so they feel debilitating nausea.

Generations pass, and you the divine being have long ago gotten bored and left. Random mutations break this mechanism in some men.

Those men, able to rape without consequences, use it so they have more children than men who are not able to do it.

A few more generations pass. Someone who is a descendant of a man who only got his mother pregnant from a rape, commits a rape himself.

But now we have genetic screening and can actually show why the defendant committed the crime. He was predisposed to it from birth.

Do we punish him? If we punish him, do we torture him? Try to treat him? Kill him? Should we feel sympathy?

The fucked up thing is, if published numbers on the prevalence of rape are remotely accurate (1/3 of women get raped eventually, half of all men admit they would do it if there were no chance of getting caught), that's basically the world we live in. It is entirely possible that men are genetically predisposed to commit rapes (and murders and other serious crimes) from birth, and they don't really "choose" in the kind of "free will" sense we implicitly assume. It could be the difference between a man who commits the crime and who doesn't might just be environment.

Last edited by SamuelA; 10-15-2017 at 05:53 PM.
  #54  
Old 10-15-2017, 09:43 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Play this argument out a little bit.

Let's suppose that your divine power isn't totally supernatural, and it works by making a change in the genetic code of men, so they feel debilitating nausea.

Generations pass, and you the divine being have long ago gotten bored and left. Random mutations break this mechanism in some men.

Those men, able to rape without consequences, use it so they have more children than men who are not able to do it.

A few more generations pass. Someone who is a descendant of a man who only got his mother pregnant from a rape, commits a rape himself.

But now we have genetic screening and can actually show why the defendant committed the crime. He was predisposed to it from birth.

Do we punish him? If we punish him, do we torture him? Try to treat him? Kill him? Should we feel sympathy?

The fucked up thing is, if published numbers on the prevalence of rape are remotely accurate (1/3 of women get raped eventually, half of all men admit they would do it if there were no chance of getting caught), that's basically the world we live in. It is entirely possible that men are genetically predisposed to commit rapes (and murders and other serious crimes) from birth, and they don't really "choose" in the kind of "free will" sense we implicitly assume. It could be the difference between a man who commits the crime and who doesn't might just be environment.
I think this is a different discussion. But for a quick answer, even if genetics could possibly play a role, that's no defense, IMO. Someone who has a desire to rape can still decide not to rape. At best, that might be a mitigating factor, but people still have control over whether they attack and rape someone else or not, whatever their desires.
  #55  
Old 10-16-2017, 12:40 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think this is a different discussion. But for a quick answer, even if genetics could possibly play a role, that's no defense, IMO. Someone who has a desire to rape can still decide not to rape. At best, that might be a mitigating factor, but people still have control over whether they attack and rape someone else or not, whatever their desires.
Unfortunately, the best evidence says that the brain simply follows the laws of physics. If you are born with the wrong genes, and you are exposed to the wrong environment, then under some stimuli, you will commit a crime. There is no actual evidence to suggest free will even exists.
  #56  
Old 10-16-2017, 03:29 AM
Delicious Delicious is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 74
Does 'the rule' consider consent invalid if one or both parties have been drinking?

If so, I imagine one consequence would be a huge reduction in birth rate and possible bankruptcy of most breweries
  #57  
Old 10-16-2017, 05:18 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicious View Post
Does 'the rule' consider consent invalid if one or both parties have been drinking?

If so, I imagine one consequence would be a huge reduction in birth rate and possible bankruptcy of most breweries
No, consent still applies to those who drink.
  #58  
Old 10-16-2017, 05:19 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Unfortunately, the best evidence says that the brain simply follows the laws of physics. If you are born with the wrong genes, and you are exposed to the wrong environment, then under some stimuli, you will commit a crime. There is no actual evidence to suggest free will even exists.
Okay. Whether true or not, this doesn't change the hypothetical.
  #59  
Old 10-16-2017, 06:55 AM
Delicious Delicious is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 74
How would the rule handle a situation where a couple are having sex then one of them decides it's a bad idea and wants to stop? Does the other partner immediately start vomiting? Do they have to be told first?

Also, how about people using positions of power to 'convince' someone to sleep with them? The underling would consent but only under some duress/promise of reward.

The rule could result in lower employment for hotties since bosses would want to avoid any temptation to slap a butt.

Also, people with stomach bugs may get mistaken for sexual predators and get beaten up.
  #60  
Old 10-16-2017, 07:35 AM
Delicious Delicious is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 74
Also, would you get sick if you murdered someone then had sex with their still warm corpse?
  #61  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:39 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicious View Post
How would the rule handle a situation where a couple are having sex then one of them decides it's a bad idea and wants to stop? Does the other partner immediately start vomiting? Do they have to be told first?
Once consent no longer exists in either partner's mind, the other partner would start to feel nausea (I haven't said anything about vomit). That would put an end to the violation of consent, since continuing would be impossible under the nausea. And the nausea would go away when they stopped (but would come again if one party tried to restart again without the other party's consent).

Quote:
Also, how about people using positions of power to 'convince' someone to sleep with them? The underling would consent but only under some duress/promise of reward.
There can't be consent if there is duress (i.e. "do this or your fired"), and thus the would-be assaulter would feel nausea once he started to violate the consent (i.e. reaching for the underling, even if he/she just said "yes" due to the threat). As for promise of reward, I don't think that takes away consent -- someone can consent for a variety of reasons aside from intimate desire, including transactional reasons (i.e. for profit or a reward).

Quote:
The rule could result in lower employment for hotties since bosses would want to avoid any temptation to slap a butt.
I'm not sure how -- this doesn't increase the chances of any consequences aside from nausea, which could be managed simply by not doing those actions. This rule would/should result in far fewer instances of workplace sexual assault allegations (and thus fewer lawsuit expenses and executive firings), since would-be assaulters (including gropers and butt slappers) would be unable to assault.

Quote:
Also, people with stomach bugs may get mistaken for sexual predators and get beaten up.
I suppose that's possible, but there's not exactly a way to pick out who has a stomach bug when looking at a crowd of strangers. People who are mildly nauseous look like anyone else; people who are severely nauseous usually stay in bed or in the bathroom until it passes.
  #62  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:20 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,121
You know, this would completely change dating strategies. Inadvertently, in this hypothetical, you've finally given men what they've wanted for thousands of years - a clear signal. Want to know if a girl's into you? Use this mechanism as feedback. I assume something marginal...maybe barely brushing her with your fingers somewhere on the border (her back or something) would only give you slight nausea if she's not into it, right?
  #63  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:35 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You know, this would completely change dating strategies. Inadvertently, in this hypothetical, you've finally given men what they've wanted for thousands of years - a clear signal. Want to know if a girl's into you? Use this mechanism as feedback. I assume something marginal...maybe barely brushing her with your fingers somewhere on the border (her back or something) would only give you slight nausea if she's not into it, right?
Yes, your assumption is pretty close to my thoughts -- more severe violations of consent would be more debilitating, and less severe violations would be less debilitating.
  #64  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:54 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,408
And no nausea = consent. Hey, I could safely go around making moves on every woman I see, and I'd automatically know whether they'd welcome my advances.
  #65  
Old 10-16-2017, 10:50 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
And no nausea = consent. Hey, I could safely go around making moves on every woman I see, and I'd automatically know whether they'd welcome my advances.
....by which time you will be too sick to "advance".
  #66  
Old 10-16-2017, 11:08 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
As far as the original question, your 'wish' doesn't fit your own conditions IMO. What you propose isn't making a single change by a one-shot power. What you're doing clearly requires ongoing intervention by some sort of intelligence that interprets situations and determines what is and isn't consent by a very complicated and culturally-specific set of standards. So you're not just doing what I would consider a 'single, one-off change' like making everyone's skin blue, but instead appointing a deity (or host of angels or fraction of divine attention or whatever) to abjudicate a rather complex set of circumstances that requires seeing inside of people's minds.

A really basic flaw with the wish is that it doesn't impair anyone who has a fetish for nausea, which I'm pretty sure is an actual thing (there are definitely people with fetishes for vomit). It seems that a likely result of the wish is that people who are inclined to assault also develop a fetish for the feeling of nausea, and then are actually encouraged to rape by the thing you've wished for. Your obvious response to that is 'well it keeps people from liking the nausea', but that highlights that this really isn't a one-off change but instead is ongoing divine intervention, and that your initial 'wish' needs to be a multi-page contract with lots of special cases, not a simple statement easily made on the fly (which doesn't really qualify as a 'single change' to me). I also think you've vastly underestimating just how weird human sexuality can get, and think that 'well, god will just figure out what's going on and stop it' is really a cop-out when examining how people would respond in a major change to how sex works.

Having a divine being that enforces morality during time on earth violates the tenants of most major religions. Interfering with people's free will is pretty questionable on its own, but that's one of those fundamental religious questions and isn't specific to this. What is interesting is how this affects the judgement of people in the afterlife - how does someone who would have raped another person get judged if they were stopped by Holy Nausea? It seems unfair to judge them as 'good, they didn't do a bad thing' when they would have done it without the hand of god in their belly, but at the same time it also seems unfair to cast them down for something that they didn't actually do.

Also, the specifics that you've included in the wish are very morally questionable to me. For example, why did you pick a prohibition on sexual assault and not one against torture, general assault, murder, slavery, or any other ill? For example, it seems to me that your system for determining if something is a reward, threat, coercion, or inducement would be of incredible value in handling labor relations and would deeply affect the fundamental morality of society. Why are you effectively making the decision 'I would rather die than be raped' for people (if someone gives me the option of 'fuck me now or die' I have an option now, under your system they would just kill me)? Why are you 'hiring' permanent watchers to look over every sexual situation and inflict Holy Acid Reflux instead of removing the desire in the first place?

And if think this is moral for you to do, is it moral for someone from a different cultural background to make the wish? If person wishing worked off of something as familiar to us as US or Western European law in the 1980s, then once you're married you won't get nauseous sexing your partner no matter how much they object (consent was not required for married sex in the US and Western Europe until the mid-90s), you won't be having anything but PIV sex without crippling nausea (sodomy laws hung around until 2004), won't be having sex outside of marriage (some adultery and cohabitation laws are still around today). If the person was in progressive Sweden, then your 'prostitution is OK' clause falls apart, as Swedish law considers prostitution inherently coercive. And that's not even getting into what would happen if hardcore fundamentalists started setting up their system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There can't be consent if there is duress (i.e. "do this or your fired"), and thus the would-be assaulter would feel nausea once he started to violate the consent (i.e. reaching for the underling, even if he/she just said "yes" due to the threat). As for promise of reward, I don't think that takes away consent -- someone can consent for a variety of reasons aside from intimate desire, including transactional reasons (i.e. for profit or a reward).
There are a bunch of questions that I think show that the answer to this is not as simple as you're making out that I've listed below, but I'd like to open with one specific one from my personal experience that I think shows the torture your wish will inflict on people in an abusive relationship. Let's say that I'm in a badly broken relationship, where my partner will routinely yell at my for hours a day over the course of a week in case of a dispute. (You can also up the emotional abuse to physical abuse in the example if it makes a difference, in the actual case it wasn't physical). One day my partner approaches me for sex, and I don't strongly object but don't really want to, but know that if I say 'no' they will get angry and I will spend the next week in another hellish argument, so I say 'yes'. Will my partner get nauseous or not? If they do, and this repeats a few times, and my subconscious realizes that having reservations like that gets punishment so suppresses them, will the divine judgement eventually let me avoid the week-long arguments, or will it force me into them even though I believe I'm willingly having sex? Also I'm also still in love with this partner and still want to have sex in times that aren't stressed, so will that work, or will one or both of us get nauseous even though we both want sex at the time?

It doesn't seem like there isn't an answer to sex in an abusive relationship that isn't either 'inexplicable nausea all the time, even though both people want to be together' or 'allows coercion' anywhere in there. And it seems like, if your divinity intervenes at all, whatever it does will make life worse for the victim, at least in the short term.

Going to the more general case, would "I will marry you and take you away from your miserable life on this dirt farm if you sex me up/bear the royal heir/etc, and if you back out you're going back to the squalor" qualify as duress or reward? How about "I will only hire you if...", is the offer of a job a reward or the refusal to hire a threat? What if the conditions have both, 'I'll give you a sack of gold if you bang me, but throw you to the wolves if you won't'? OK, but what if the threat is minor 'I'll give you a sack of gold if you bang me, or not invite you to my birthday party if you don't'? What about someone working as a prostitute but only doing it because they will starve without the money - will they then starve because any potential John gets sick due to the duress they didn't know was there? What if it's just an implied threat but no explicit threat? What if the victim feels that there is a threat, but the 'aggressor' doesn't actually intend any threat and has no intention of carrying one out? What if the victim is insane and imagines a threat that has no bearing on reality, or has a cultural bias towards seeing a threat (like the traditional view of black men in the US)?

The above answer says that it's a simple, uncontroversial thing, but I don't think that 'is there coercion?' is as easy as you think, especially if 'but it's OK if there's a reward' is tacked on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Let's suppose that your divine power isn't totally supernatural, and it works by making a change in the genetic code of men, so they feel debilitating nausea.
Rape isn't just something that men do, it just seems that way because a lot of studies of rape and sexual assault defined their terms in a way that mostly or completely excluded female on male sexual assault until VERY recently (the FBI's crime survey only counted FOM starting in 2013). Here's a good article on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...edator/503492/
  #67  
Old 10-16-2017, 11:45 AM
Delicious Delicious is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 74
Since the OP title says it's a moral question: How morally culpable would iiandyiiii be for all subsequent human suffering after wasting his omnipotent power on mildly punishing some creeps?

Starving Cancer-Ridden child : "Thanks Andy! I can go to my excruciating, unjust death with a smile on my face, now that I know unwanted butt grabbing will be accompanied by queasiness" ##cough cough##
  #68  
Old 10-16-2017, 12:39 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
I chose nausea because the goal is to prevent sexual assaults, not to punish would-be assaulters. Nausea is physically debilitating -- AFAIU, sexual assault would be physically impossible if someone is experiencing severe nausea. If that's not true, then nausea is the wrong condition to use -- feel free to substitute whatever physical condition would actually, with certainty, render sexual assault impossible (partial paralysis, gradual black out, general weakness, etc.). And I chose sexual assault because (as I explained before), unlike pretty much every other potential violation of bodily autonomy and consent (punching someone, killing someone, etc.), there is literally never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to sexually assault someone.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-16-2017 at 12:44 PM.
  #69  
Old 10-16-2017, 02:29 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I chose nausea because the goal is to prevent sexual assaults, not to punish would-be assaulters. Nausea is physically debilitating -- AFAIU, sexual assault would be physically impossible if someone is experiencing severe nausea. If that's not true, then nausea is the wrong condition to use -- feel free to substitute whatever physical condition would actually, with certainty, render sexual assault impossible (partial paralysis, gradual black out, general weakness, etc.).
This makes even less sense. Why pick any particular physical condition, especially one that isn't completely debilitating, instead of just stopping the attack in the first place? And I'm not sure that there IS any condition that actually makes sexual assault physically impossible - you can tell your victim 'follow these directions to do stuff to yourself on video or I'll kill you', then lay in bed until they're done even if complete paralysis takes over your own body. Or order the victim to do stuff to you even while you're suffering 'general weakness', it's not like it takes a lot of strength or muscle movement to lay back while recieving oral sex. The vast majority of sexual assaults are done using social pressure, threats of later retribution, or sex

Quote:
And I chose sexual assault because (as I explained before), unlike pretty much every other potential violation of bodily autonomy and consent (punching someone, killing someone, etc.), there is literally never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to sexually assault someone.
There is never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to murder someone either, as murder is by definition unsanctioned killing - if it's justified to kill someone, it's (by the original definition) not murder. The trick is that if you use a term that means 'only bad X', there is literally never a reasonable time to do what the term says, but that's not particularly meaningful since it's really a tautology.

As even you have said, there are reasonable and morally acceptable times to perform things that some people consider sexual assault. For example, you said that having sex for money is non-coercive, and hence not assault, but the morality behind Sweden's laws disagree with you, so you're saying that a particular form of sexual assault is justified. You argue that 'underage' sex counts as sexual assault, but that one varies all over the place - some states consider a person under 18 unable to consent to sex with an older person, most of Europe and the US 16, some 14, and some as low as 12 with marriage. Some have a different age of consent for same sex sexual activity, and a lot of US states used to ban any interracial sexual activity. A number of medical procedures that involve the genitals or anus are considered sexual assault in some areas or by some people.

I don't think the basic hypothetical is well though-out - it seems like you thought it was a simple change, but it's actually extremely complicated and involves a lot more subjectivity than what the OP implies.
  #70  
Old 10-16-2017, 03:02 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
This makes even less sense. Why pick any particular physical condition, especially one that isn't completely debilitating, instead of just stopping the attack in the first place? And I'm not sure that there IS any condition that actually makes sexual assault physically impossible - you can tell your victim 'follow these directions to do stuff to yourself on video or I'll kill you', then lay in bed until they're done even if complete paralysis takes over your own body. Or order the victim to do stuff to you even while you're suffering 'general weakness', it's not like it takes a lot of strength or muscle movement to lay back while recieving oral sex. The vast majority of sexual assaults are done using social pressure, threats of later retribution, or sex
In such cases, the nausea would overwhelm the speaker before he could finish speaking, since the words themselves would coercive and violate consent.

But these are good and challenging questions for my hypothetical.

Quote:
There is never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to murder someone either, as murder is by definition unsanctioned killing - if it's justified to kill someone, it's (by the original definition) not murder. The trick is that if you use a term that means 'only bad X', there is literally never a reasonable time to do what the term says, but that's not particularly meaningful since it's really a tautology.

As even you have said, there are reasonable and morally acceptable times to perform things that some people consider sexual assault. For example, you said that having sex for money is non-coercive, and hence not assault, but the morality behind Sweden's laws disagree with you, so you're saying that a particular form of sexual assault is justified. You argue that 'underage' sex counts as sexual assault, but that one varies all over the place - some states consider a person under 18 unable to consent to sex with an older person, most of Europe and the US 16, some 14, and some as low as 12 with marriage. Some have a different age of consent for same sex sexual activity, and a lot of US states used to ban any interracial sexual activity. A number of medical procedures that involve the genitals or anus are considered sexual assault in some areas or by some people.

I don't think the basic hypothetical is well though-out - it seems like you thought it was a simple change, but it's actually extremely complicated and involves a lot more subjectivity than what the OP implies.
I think you're overstating it, but you've asked some good questions and brought up some good points for what I've intended as an intellectual exercise, so thank you for taking part.
  #71  
Old 10-16-2017, 04:00 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 11,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not how I understand it. Rapists want to rape -- they don't want general or vague assertions of dominance -- they want rape. Some of them might react violently, but every single one? Especially when victims would then have a clear chance to escape (while the attacker is incapacitated by nausea)? I seriously doubt that would result in more violence. But if you feel differently, fine -- it's not like I can prove it either way.
If you're this ambivalent about violent intentions, you're not going to have a clear cut case of who deserves nausea. Plus, even if the victim gets away when the attacker is overcome with nausea, that could produce a desire to hunt the victim down and pay her back using violence, which would have little to do with sexual desire.

Nothing will prevent "blame the victim" opinions. If the sexual predator is likely to rape, he's also likely to blame his nausea on the victim who gave him his sexual urges and seek revenge.

Plus, if you are this benevolent deity who wants to prevent sexual aggression, why aren't you extending the same preventive measures to non-sexual crimes?
  #72  
Old 10-16-2017, 05:26 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
If you're this ambivalent about violent intentions, you're not going to have a clear cut case of who deserves nausea. Plus, even if the victim gets away when the attacker is overcome with nausea, that could produce a desire to hunt the victim down and pay her back using violence, which would have little to do with sexual desire.

Nothing will prevent "blame the victim" opinions. If the sexual predator is likely to rape, he's also likely to blame his nausea on the victim who gave him his sexual urges and seek revenge.
I think this is a possibility, this just seems like it would be far less common than the current ubiquitousness of sexual assault and rape.

Quote:
Plus, if you are this benevolent deity who wants to prevent sexual aggression, why aren't you extending the same preventive measures to non-sexual crimes?
That's not what I wanted to discuss.
  #73  
Old 10-17-2017, 03:15 AM
Delicious Delicious is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 74
What if there's a creep pilot who always grabs his copilot's boobs 'for good luck' when landing... he's landing just as the rule comes into effect, crashes and hundreds die.

Are their deaths worth it? Do you hand yourself in to the authorities as you're responsible for the crash?
  #74  
Old 10-17-2017, 04:56 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,056
There's not really a flaw to the OP's suggestion; it's similar to saying "What if we could perfectly police sexual assault"?

It's only a problem for those who believe that the "solution" to the problem of evil, is free will. But there are many problems with that line of reasoning, the fact that we humans try to prevent crime (and therefore impinge on this magical free will) being just one of them.
  #75  
Old 10-17-2017, 05:04 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What downsides to this rule can people think of? Would any downsides be worse than the positives?
Only downside I can see is that you didn't make it applicable to all instances of humans intentionally doing violence/intending violence to humans (including pushing launch buttons, laying indiscriminate landmines, attempting to trick someone else into doing violence or programming drones to kill), not just sexual violence.

Also, I'd make it splitting headaches and waves of physical weakness, up to full-on passing out if the attempt persists, not nausea, but that's me. So idly thinking of ramming your car into that guy who cut you off is going to give you a nagging pain, reaching for a pistol to rob someone is gonna give you a splitting migraine, and you'll pass out way before you could actually pull a trigger on a human.

Otherwise, I approve wholeheartedly of you future career as an interventionist God.

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-17-2017 at 05:09 AM.
  #76  
Old 10-17-2017, 11:35 AM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Rape isn't just something that men do, it just seems that way because a lot of studies of rape and sexual assault defined their terms in a way that mostly or completely excluded female on male sexual assault until VERY recently (the FBI's crime survey only counted FOM starting in 2013). Here's a good article on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...edator/503492/
And this is probably another spanner in the works: The reluctance to acknowledge that women can rape/sexually assault.

If this happened, and women began to get sick, it would be parsed as something which "just happens" to women, sometimes, even though they're not doing anything wrong. It might be acknowledged that it stops men from raping, but I doubt it will be taken the same way for women.
  #77  
Old 10-19-2017, 09:37 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
There's not really a flaw to the OP's suggestion; it's similar to saying "What if we could perfectly police sexual assault"?
There is a huge flaw with that, because it implies that there is a perfect definition of sexual assault, when what contiutes sexual assault has lots of grey, lots of cultural dependence

The 'strange dude corners woman in the alleyway and physically forces her to have sex with him' situation is easy, sure. But what about marital rape? It wasn't even outlawed in the US or Western Europe until the 1990s. What about women raping men? Wasn't even considered possible by the FBI statistics until 2013. What about statutory rape, is the cutoff 21? 18? 16? 14? 12? Does marriage make a difference?
Does age gap? What about two drunk people who both want to have sex but are too drunk to consent? And that's without getting into coercion, especially implied coercion, for example does the Angel of Nausea 'protect' a woman from selling sex if she will starve without it? (Also whether selling sex is actually sexual assault in the first place, since some cultures believe all sex work is inherently coercive and thus a form of assault).

And no one managed to say what would 'perfectly police' this real life situation:
Quote:
Let's say that I'm in a badly broken relationship, where my partner will routinely yell at my for hours a day over the course of a week in case of a dispute. (You can also up the emotional abuse to physical abuse in the example if it makes a difference, in the actual case it wasn't physical). One day my partner approaches me for sex, and I don't strongly object but don't really want to, but know that if I say 'no' they will get angry and I will spend the next week in another hellish argument, so I say 'yes'. Will my partner get nauseous or not? If they do, and this repeats a few times, and my subconscious realizes that having reservations like that gets punishment so suppresses them, will the divine judgement eventually let me avoid the week-long arguments, or will it force me into them even though I believe I'm willingly having sex? Also I'm also still in love with this partner and still want to have sex in times that aren't stressed, so will that work, or will one or both of us get nauseous even though we both want sex at the time?
Also, another real-life situation that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis:
Take a couple that regularly has sex. One partner takes a new medicine that makes them super horny and uninhibited, other partner comes home, drugged partner initiates sex, they have a wild night, then the next day drugged partner doesn't remember anything and realizes it was the drug that affected them. They weren't averse to having sex, but also weren't actually able to consent, but the other partner had no way to know that. Does anyone get divine nausea in this situation?
  #78  
Old 10-19-2017, 10:28 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
There is a huge flaw with that, because it implies that there is a perfect definition of sexual assault, when what contiutes sexual assault has lots of grey, lots of cultural dependence
I disagree, as I think that's conflating two different things: Yes, how we define sexual assault is somewhat arbitrary as there's a big gray area. However, you can still hypothetically perfectly police whatever line you set.

And I think there's no need to take the OP seriously in a legal sense. ISTM it's asking a moral and philosophical question, touching on the problem of evil. It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we ask about who has legal ownership of your property if you use a star trek transporter, or if life insurance needs to pay out...they're valid questions I guess but not really what the discussion is about.
  #79  
Old 10-19-2017, 11:11 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I disagree, as I think that's conflating two different things: Yes, how we define sexual assault is somewhat arbitrary as there's a big gray area. However, you can still hypothetically perfectly police whatever line you set.
You can set an arbitrary line and police it, but then you're just policing an arbitrary line and not sexual assault. And I do not think that setting an arbitrary line and using divine power to enforce it is moral; there should be some basis for the line, not just something purely arbitrary. I mean, what if the postulate was the same, but the person considered all same-sex sexual activity sexual assault because it's all wrong so there's no way to consent to it - are you going to say 'oh, you're just conflating two different things' if I object to preventing all gay sex with divine nausea?

And I'll note, again, no one has answered how the divine nausea works in the all-to-real but messed up situation I postulated. It's easy to say 'well, god can sort it out' but that's just a cop-out.

Quote:
And I think there's no need to take the OP seriously in a legal sense.
The only mention of legalities that I have made has been to show that the idea of what is sexual assault (or what is moral sexual contact, or however you phrase it out) varies a lot. The fact that it was legal to rape your spouse in the US until the mid-90s indicates that some people morally considered marriage to constitute consent to sex. The fact that Sweeden considers all prostitution to be sexual assault shows that some people morally consider all sex for money to be coercive. The fact that a number of US states consider consentual BDSM to be assault indicates that not everyone agrees with the idea of 'whatever two adults agree to do is OK'.

Quote:
ISTM it's asking a moral and philosophical question, touching on the problem of evil. It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we ask about who has legal ownership of your property if you use a star trek transporter, or if life insurance needs to pay out...they're valid questions I guess but not really what the discussion is about.
It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we point out that there are laws about what constitutes the self that show that people don't agree with your personal at-this-moment, in-this-culture definition of the self, or with using divine power to enforce it across all peoples, times, and cultures.
  #80  
Old 10-19-2017, 11:56 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
You can set an arbitrary line and police it, but then you're just policing an arbitrary line and not sexual assault.
No, you're policing sexual assault as your society (or divine power) has chosen to define it.
Since there is no "Platonic ideal" sexual assault form, it's up to us to decide what the word means, what the concept is.

Quote:
And I do not think that setting an arbitrary line and using divine power to enforce it is moral; there should be some basis for the line, not just something purely arbitrary.
When I said arbitrary I don't mean we just throw a dart in some random place.
I mean the line could be anywhere but of course there should be some moral basis for where we set the line. All laws are like this, sexual assault is no exception.

Quote:
It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we point out that there are laws about what constitutes the self that show that people don't agree with your personal at-this-moment, in-this-culture definition of the self, or with using divine power to enforce it across all peoples, times, and cultures.
Yeah...that analogy might work, depending on what is meant by "laws about what constitutes the self".
But anyway, my point was that WRT this thread, the OP seems to be implying a free will type question, which is a different kind of issue to the one you're discussing. That's all I'm saying.
  #81  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:10 PM
Ovdeyevich Ovdeyevich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 11
There are minimum two drawbacks to that divine law; one is very significant, the other not so much. The significant one is that this 'divine nausea' would prove the existence of the divine to anyone on the planet, and that would have great - and terrible - consequences, and would change the face of humanity forever, possibly plunging it into a new dark age. New religions and cults would rise, many nation states would crumble and new ones will form, wars would most certainly be waged.

The lesser evil of this divine law is that human psyche and human sexuality is very complex and has many aspects, so there can be many false positives that would activate that power, for example if a woman is seduced by a man, she could often decide to give in to his caresses only after he had touched her, and not all such situations can be considered a sexual assault, far from it in fact. It could be very romantic and passionate, like in so many scenes from the best classic literature for example. They wouldn't have happened because of this divine law - a lover would simply have no chance to even begin seducing the woman, as seduction includes touching as well as talking. So your power would at least have to have some form of delayed activation, or take into consideration the supposed assailant's thoughts - whether his his intentions are truly evil. Else we all risk to be deprived of a great deal of our sexuality and our ability to express it, simply out of fear of a slightest chance to experience this power.

Last edited by Ovdeyevich; 10-20-2017 at 01:14 PM.
  #82  
Old 10-22-2017, 10:46 AM
Noel Prosequi Noel Prosequi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the Ning Nang Nong
Posts: 1,323
This is a fantastic debate. I think the point is a very deep one, which addresses the nature of the law and the nature of (and even possibility of existence of) god.

A first approximation of the nature of law is that it is in-principle possible to draft a law so that it is knowable in advance in order that a person can determine their future behaviour knowing with certain clarity whether they are in breach of it. Turns out this idea is aspirational rather than achievable. To be sure, in most cases an imperfectly complete law can be applied. Clearly grabbing a woman's private parts in a clear case is sexual assault. But the problem exists not in the common case, but the marginal one. It is not the case that objections to the Rule at the margin (such as those raised by Pantastic) are details that can be worked out. They are deeply and unavoidably built in to the nature of law.

The experience of lawyers is that law consists not of a collection of absolute rules that need to be memorised, but of principles that contain exceptions, then exceptions to exceptions, and so on all the way down.

By way of example, a primary rule is that relevant evidence is admissible. But an exception to that is that hearsay is not admissible. But an exception to that is that confessions to police are admissible. A further exception to that is that confessions obtained after police promises are inadmissible. And a further exception to that is if the prosecution can prove that the confession would have been made independently of the promise, it is admissible again. And so on, as per the turtle principle.

A powerful informing idea emerging from this is that the law is fractal. Perhaps not in a strictly mathematical sense, but nevertheless in a way that generates a priori undecidability at the margin.

To illustrate, suppose we create a law that says No vehicles in the Park.

We can graph this by inscribing a circle onto a surface. The circle represents the boundary between legal and illegal behaviour per the vehicles rule. Those points inside the circle represents behaviours that are prohibited by the rule, and those outside the circle behaviours that are not prohibited. Close to the centre are clear cases; close to the circumference are marginal cases.

So far so good. We now focus on a particular small segment of the circle line, and ask ourselves, what about emergency vehicles? We decide we have to modify the rule at this point. On the circle to represent the proposition that emergency vehicles are an exception to the rule as originally expressed, we make a little salient in the circle that projects inside into the circle to represent that a collection of behaviours that was formerly inside the circle is now to be outside.

Looking closer at that salient, we ask ourselves, what about stolen emergency vehicles, and we decide that stolen emergency vehicles are now an exception to the exception, and so make a reverse salient within the original salient to represent that. Then we consider the case of a stolen emergency vehicle that was stolen to respond to a real emergency, and inscribe a reverse reverse salient within our increasingly tightly focused segment of the circle upon which we are focusing. Then consider the case where there was no real emergency but the person stealing the vehicle genuinely thought there was. Then the case where he genuinely thought there was a real emergency, but had no reasonable basis to believe that. And so on. Focusing on what at first appeared to be a bright line now starts to appear fuzzy. It's like zooming in on the boundary of the Mandelbrot curve.

Consider another adjacent area of the circle segment. Do bicycles count as prohibited vehicles? We make an exception for two wheeled vehicles, and a corresponding salient in the circle. Then we realise that we have let in Harvey-Davidsons. So we alter the rule and the corresponding line segment. Then at yet another adjacent area, we consider big industrial trucks, and exceptions to that based on the need to conduct park maintenance and earth moving and, exceptions that drill down from there. And somewhere else mobility scooters, and within that, mobility scooters driven by people who are not in fact disabled, and then within that what does it mean to be disabled. And once more, exception to exception all the way down.


The thesis is that it is not possible in principle to create an a priori Rule that covers all possibilities.

And there is no brute-force solution. Suppose we decide that we will place a sticker on all the vehicles in all the world that indicate clearly whether they can or cannot come into the park. That doesn't solve the problem of who is driving them. And it doesn't solve the further boundary problem of: What counts as a vehicle to which we should attach a sticker in the first place. If we define vehicle very widely, as any sort of conveyance, do shoes count? And an a priori Rule still does not take account of future developments post proclamation of the Rule. Suppose after the rule is proclaimed Back to the Future hoverboards are invented. The stickers have already been distributed. What we should do with hoverboards will depend contingently on things like how inherently fast or stable or dangerous they are, something the Rule cannot have anticipated.

These points are similar to those made by Pantastic above, although I think they go further - they indicate the in-principle impossibility of any a priori Rule being capable of covering all possibilities.

Indeed the picture Pantastic paints of the inevitable need for ongoing intervention actually represents the evolution of the actual process of the law to the present point in history. The common law created broad rules that aspired to universality, but the process was sufficiently flexible for the common law to adapt the rules when corner cases emerged. And they always emerged. In the entire history of human kind, there is not the slightest indication that we are any closer to creating a Code of law that is so complete that it is essentially self-executing without the need for an ongoing judicial process that exists later in time than the code to interpret and adapt and apply it.

In the modern era, the legislature passes laws that are the best attempt at foreseeing all ends that can be done. Courts then adapt and apply the rules going forward in time. There is a self-correcting feedback loop built into the system, such that if, as again is inevitable, it turns out that the court's interpretation is not consistent with the legislature's intentions, the legislature can act to correct or some other in-principle action can be engaged to correct the courts.



So much for the inherent nature of law and its fundamental problem with a priori decidability.

Now - enter god into the picture. The OP is not clear whether he drafts the law that the supernatural enforcer enforces or whether he gives guidelines and god works out the details in each case according to some algorithm attached to the OP's general guideliines. If the former, the above analysis indicates that the process will fail. If the latter, then the OP has god's power, but not his omniscience. His imperfection of expression of guidelines will necessarily infect the Rule when it comes to the inevitable boundary cases. God will essentially have limited himself by outsourcing defining the initial state to the imperfect OP. The inherent problem is the undecidability a priori of the appropriate boundary conditions imperfectly generated by the OP.

Essentially, the problem becomes one of the class - Can god do impossible things? Can he create a weight even he can't lift? Can he make pi equal 3? Can he make the set of all sets that don't contain themselves, contain itself? Can god violate Godel's incompleteness theorem?

There are plenty of things physics says are impossible. FTL travel. for example. Can god violate that? It is superficially easy to imagine god scooching the Mars expedition across the distance from Earth in a couple of seconds. The problem is that in order to do so, he also has to deal with the consequences. Scooching in this universe will give the spaceship infinite mass, the consequences of which god will have to damp. Indeed, the proscription of FTL travel is so deeply embedded into the universe that it is not clear that god can do enough damping and still leave the universe coherent.

The are also plenty of things that are undecidable. The position and velocity of subatomic particles cannot both be known simultaneously, and this is not just a matter of inadequate measurement or just inventing a cooler machine. This undecidability is built into the rules of the universe. One can imagine god knowing these things from a naive perspective, just as one can imagine god making pi equal 3. Just not in a way that allows this universe retain coherence.

The standard theist responses to this are:

1. In God there is no inconsistency
2. God would not want to do such a thing as create a weight he couldn't lift or the equivalent.
3. God's power is beyond human capacity to understand
4. Don't put god to the test.

The answers to this are:
1. A handwave that seeks to simply naively redefine its way out of the problem without realising the problem is a definitional one in the first place.
2. An attempt to avoid the problem that resolves to saying that god is bound not by an absence of power to undertake inconsistgent things, but an absence of will. This is just shifting the problem to a different realm, not a solution.
3. A thought stopping slogan
4. An in terrorem thought stopping slogan.

I appreciate this debate is not about anyone's religious beliefs or whether god exists (although it tangentially engages that issue). But engaging god in the process has consequences that must be addressed.


A final point. It is always possible to shit on any hypothetical and say it is impossible so attempt scoffingly to dismiss the OP. This is rightly derided as boring and trivial. I emphasise I am not doing that. The fact that the OP has deep coherency problems means that any implementation of it will be imperfect unless there is a process of continual intervention, according to principles that are incoherent. If the outcome of the OP will inevitably be imperfect, that is inconsistent with the involvement of god. Further, inevitable imperfection necessarily implies that some outcomes will be unjust, in a way that the magnitude of which is unknowable in advance. And that is why the OP is unacceptable on its merits - unpredicatable unjust outcomes are subtly but deeply built into the idea.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017