I think you made a typo. The highlighted sentence should read: “If it is wrong for a rapist to infringe upon the will of his victim, then it follows that it is wrong for the prevention of rape to infringe upon the will of the would perpetrator.”
Do you deliberately misread other’s posts? No it was not a typo, and should have been clear, had you read the whole post contextually, please revisit. If someones freedom is restricted due to the action or would be action of another it is an injustice. Why is that hard to digest?
I see a significant difference to curtail someone’s freedom to do rape, and the rapist’s ability to curtail the freedom of the victim. Don’t you guys believe in some kind of morality?
Now your talking in levels of degree, of course there is a hierarchy of infringment of liberty, but any valid moral system does not ignore one infringement to curtail another. Could you not see the insanity of banning everyone from driving because of drunk driving crashes? I see little difference.
Nonsense. Humans who have no violent streaks in them are hardly “automatons”.
There was never any mention of violent ‘streaks’ unto this point. Are you changing the nature of the discussion? Besides, many of these crimes are perpetrated as isolated acts, not part of a ‘streak’, which is essential to the discussion, because all human activity would need be monitered and manipulated to carry out such thought policing.
If emotion and behavior are ‘controlled’, definitionally they will be automatons- manipulated beings. Free of personal control.
You did not pay attention. There are robotsto do these tasks, “who” are expendable, and who can do the job much better. What is the point of putting oneself into useless danger?
Where to begin?
Let’s combine the analogy’s and see how you dodge this one. At the beach there is a girl drowning out in the deep. The robot lifegaurd short circuits and is inoperable (let’s just say the whole lifegaurd system is on the fritz). The beachgoers, including her parents, are impotent to act because the self violence of heroism has been stripped from them. How is this a good thing?
O.K., O.K., you’re fine that heroism is dead. What then do people strive for? How do people grow in positive human characteristics?
How could you possibly say ‘What is the use of putting oneself into useless danger?’ It is the most usefull danger to put ones self in- to put ones own life on the line to save another!
Have you ever seen ‘I Robot’? 2 people are about to drown in vehicles that went into the drink. The robot is freeing the man who says ‘No, save the girl!’ (in the other car). But the robot can only do its programming with no respect to the would be heroism of letting another live instead of self. He valued the little girls life over his own. Can you seriously call such sacrifice useless?
As I said, not all emotions are eliminated. The emotions are still there, but the desire to act out the violent ones is eliminated.
No, you admitted that eliminating violence would eliminate heroism.
Not all of those is eliminated, and no one desires to do the rest. People would look at you as mildly insane.
Only if you equate “human” with violence, which seems to be the case.
Please don’t put words in my mouth and take them out of context. Either you’re ignoring my line of reasoning all together, or are unable to repond with logic and reason. I believe the latter, for your line of reasoning seems to be based solely on emotion, (which is ironic, since you wish some emotions were not allowed)
I simply don’t feel I should have a right to victimize my children and brothers. Apparently you do. Violence is just a turnkey philosophical tool. Even the Jesus story is filled with violence.
