“Oh, no no no, officer. The neighbors got the wrong idea— he was just giving me a ‘love tap’! We do it all the time, it’s just teasing. This shiner? I walked into a door! I’m so clumsy! I even knocked my husband off balance when I fell. Landed on his knuckles and scraped them all up. We’re fine, honest!”
No, I disagree.
Return to my example of the woman wearing the dog collar. Is she not allowed to do so in public?
Again, I disagree. Your approach means that when there is a disparity of power, no consent for such treatment is valid, and I disagree completely.
However, I thank you for being the first person to actually argue the points at issue here.
A somewhat valid point… except I feel that it has already been refuted by the “easy way / hard way” discussion above. Remember the distinction I offered there?
I actually agree with you about the dog collar, because the person wearing the collar has specifically consented to the treatment in advance.
Yeah, that is pretty much my point. There’s no valid consent for abuse.
I regard it like OSHA, actually. I don’t care if someone waived* their right to a safe work environment. You are still required to provide a safe work environment.
*tried to waive their right. You can’t actually waive it.
Why can Dog Collar Lady waive her right to be treated like a human being, then?
Because it sets a bad precedent and society as a whole is the worse for it.
Now, she can choose to submit to that kind of treatment of her own volition in either private or public settings. BUT, it would be bad for society (in a legal/moral sense) to agree to view her as anything less than human and all the rights that entails.
Um… huh?
We all seemingly agree that a woman can validly consent to wearing a dog collar, being paraded around in public by her “Master,” and being treated like a dog, even slapped or hit.
But a woman cannot consent to being treated as Hawkins was?
This is what I get for walking in half way through a conversation. :smack:
Allow me to caveat what I posted previously.
Hawkins can consent to being Trump’s rug all she wants. She’s well within her rights to do so.
But that doesn’t mean that we (as a society) have to agree with her or encourage predators (i.e. Trump) to think it’s acceptable.
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote here.
I am just discussing her right to consent.
Want to go on record that I do not concede to the bolded part being displayed in public.
OK.
So in your view, a person cannot consent to being slapped or hit in public? Even if the person desires to be treated thusly?
In my view. Correct.
Boxing and MMA contests are an entirely different thing. In case you were thinking it.
OK. I disagree. In my view, a person CAN meaningfully consent to being slapped or hit in public.
What is your rationale for saying otherwise? What are the limits of consent, according to you?
What I saw Trump do was, in his own words, disgraceful. Obviously she couldn’t do much about it without insulting the owner of the pageant and jeopardizing her own job security. It just further reveals his own chauvinism/misogyny and his belief that he owns people, like master. What’s worse is the huge part of the population that sees nothing wrong with this. She consented to this treatment about as much as Melania consented to do two or three more big speeches.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I gotta admit, I don’t understand your worldview here. I think a person can consent to be slapped or hit in public. I think they can even consent after the fact, sure. But I’m not about to go around slapping people in the hopes that I’ll find out later that they’re cool with it. That’s what we call high risk, low reward.
Is Trump a mind reader? Did they talk about this attempted kiss beforehand? I don’t believe either of those things.
I’m trying to think of a ridiculous analogy. So let’s say I can shoot portable toilets on my own farm, right? No law against that as far as I know. Now let’s say I’m having a farm party and I order a row of portable toilets, then halfway through the party while we’re having a calm conversation I pull out my ol’ 1911 and plug a few holes through one of them randomly. You stand there, aghast, waiting for the blood to run out the bottom of the door, but I open it and show you, to your relief, that nobody was inside.
No harm no foul, right? Ends up nothing bad happened. But I’m still the kind of moron who fires into a portable toilet without checking that it’s empty first. If I keep doing that, I’m liable to kill someone.
Likewise, if Trump keeps going around kissing women without their consent, he’s liable to commit sexual assault. And lo-and-behold, lots of women have come forward saying that he’s done just that.
The limits of consent, in my opinion, would include anything that would contribute to publicly promoting in-equality in society.
What job? She was the 2004 pageant winner and this happened in 2011. What job, specifically, do you mean?
Sorry I’m a bit late, but here it goes.
Hilary, unlike almost anybody else, has an unbroken 30-year record (going back to the Whitewater debacle in Arkansas) of dishonesty that is at least a full order of magnitude worse than the average politician. Whenever anything, no matter how minor, comes up that needs explaining, she NEVER tells the truth. Her very first instinct is to lie, and lie, and keep on lying, even after enough information has come out to make her lies look ridiculous.
She’s manipulative, opportunistic, and has absolutely no scruples whatsoever. She’s Machiavellian in the worst possible way, and she’s not smart enough to hide it.