Daktoria
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 397
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Private
Following is a discussion I'm having with a feminist that talks about learning about the boundaries of the rule of law and how society shouldn't be obligated to teach social values before acknowledging the "implicit" social contract. Instead, she says that people must be vulnerable to consequences and must take the chance of learning through trial and error.
By the end, she even says that she's allowed to generalize from experience, unlucky people (without quality social circles) are obligated to go to jail, and that only elites are entitled to protection from the unlucky. No, I'm not kidding you:
Italics = me, Bold = her
By the end, she even says that she's allowed to generalize from experience, unlucky people (without quality social circles) are obligated to go to jail, and that only elites are entitled to protection from the unlucky. No, I'm not kidding you:
Italics = me, Bold = her
Peace of mind is who people are. If you don't allow people peace of mind, there's no boundaries on harassment.
NO. People are too complicated for that and because different people want different things at different times, conflict WILL happen. The idea is to minimize the negative affects of the conflict and to not abridge anothers liberty with your desire
Why are men the only ones obligated to minimize that conflict?
Their not, everyone is obligated to try.
How do you know if someone's really trying?
Not only do you not know, it's very difficult to know.
You're saying there's a duty of care such that people can behave recklessly, and sue others who didn't take care of them. For example, if I walk along a cliff in your vicinity, you don't warn me that I can get hurt, and I fall and break a leg, I could sue you for damages.
I don't know if there's quite enough for duty of care, unless that person was drunk and it looked like they didn't notice cliff, then you might be obligated to say something
You're coming off as tremendously elitist here. Everyone can't AFFORD to perpetually experiment and observe in order to learn the difference between right and wrong.
You don't get it, just by living life everyday people are observing and experimentation begins in childhood when the child starts challenging the boundaries place upon it.
Does everyone have the same observations and experiments?
Not exactly but many of them are similar. example: don't touch the hot stove, or maybe don't touch the hot pan on the stove, <-similar but not exactly. Think of mastubation, likely no one taught you, but you figured it out and so did I and I bet our methods are pretty similar.
You should probably read up on the concepts of Actus Reus and Mens Rea to understand a complete perspective of what I'm saying here:
Criminal law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In accordance with legal experimentalism, these are SUBJECTIVE concepts which UNLUCKY people will be CONDEMNED into NOT UNDERSTANDING UNLESS they're taught SOCIAL VALUES.
There's no hard rule or reason that everyone needs to understand every rule they follow. Just a knowledge of the rule and possible consequence is sufficient to keep them out of trouble. If fact I think it would be prohibitive and difficult to teach everyone complete understanding of social values.
There's no law on being passive aggressive. You can be an ass one minute and nice the next, you can act like a little kid if you want. As long as you're generally aware of the current published rules and possible consequences, go nuts.
No, this is severely problematic. Passive-aggression is a distinct psychological condition, and if we tolerate it, we would be demanding that people be obligated to put up with others' WILLING SELF-DESTRUCTION of capacity.
Those who REFUSE to self-destruct would be enslaved to those who CHOOSE to self-destruct.
Capacity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We do put up with it. Bars and clubs serve alcohol, how do people get to those clubs? they drive. what do they do while they're there? drink, which destroys their capacity to drive safely, and since it became problematic what have we done as society? we've greatly increased the consequences for drinking and driving.
This helps victims of drunk driving accidents how?
Furthermore, everyone doesn't learn equally from consequences. Some people will drink and drive again. Other people will be too scared to ever drink or drive again.
First, by decreasing the number of drunk drivers and number of accidents.
Second, correct, everyone doesn't learn equally, in fact, some people don't even care about consequences, that's why we have prisons.
Why are enlightened people obligated to serve unenlightened people?
Again, you're demanding that people learn from trial and error EVEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO AVOID TROUBLE or JUST BE SOCIALLY ASSERTIVE.
We don't need consequences to teach people after the fact. We can teach children (who didn't ask to be born, so there's a duty of care) social values so people can know how to be innocent before the fact.
But We can inform of the consequences in advance with out having to explain the social theory behind it. When you see a sign saying keep off the grass you don't need to know why, you just need to trust the sign placer put it there for a valid reason. All the unlucky and unenlightened have to do is follow the sign. But if you're in a real hurry, cut across the grass, the consequences for breaking the rule are minimal if any and it will save you time.
Also, the primary educator of a child is the parent(s) and the parents social circle.
This covers children in the case of negligent parenting how?
You're condemning children who are born into alienating circumstances, and even more so, by refusing to teach them social customs, you're condemning them to coming off as monsters. Wtf?
It's all a matter of consequence. From speed limits to assault, your lifetime of education both formally through school and informally through observation and social contact has informed you about what's right, what's wrong, and what's expected of you. If that education was done right and you have no mental defect you should be able to function with little difficulty unless YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.
Obviously if there is no guiding parental force, other forces will do the shaping, be it friends, TV, school, the internet. And yes because those secondary forces are often called upon to step up and raise our children we have a serious issue with crime. It used to be that a community would help a family raise all the kids in that community, but in the US at least that sense of community can only be found in the very rural areas if you're lucky.
Holy crap...
...EDUCATION IS NOT ALWAYS DONE RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE.
Furthermore, you're OBLIGATING PEOPLE TO GET LUCKY in having appropriate social experience. People who are alienated since they're children become CONDEMNED to not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Also, you're now condemning anyone who lives in an urban community for not being entitled to a sense of community when their parents are negligent.
No, I am saying that many urban areas have suffered from community break down much more than the rural areas have. You see, I am a member of the world, I read, listen and talk to people. I have a general understanding of how the world is constructed. It has taken several decades for me to acquire this knowledge, but I have it and it allows me to make generalities because I not only have the understanding I have also taken into account the biases I have.
Our educational system does a pretty good job of telling people what's right and wrong even if the parents don't. I would say it's even pointed out that taking advantage of people who are inebriated is wrong. What the problem to me is that when it happens very few if any consequences come into play.
I really can't agree with this at all.
First off, I grew up in a very rural community, and there was very little to any social cohesion. If anything, people were incredibly suspicious of strangers.
Second off, our public school system doesn't contain any classes on moral philosophy or social customs at all. It's a strictly academic institution, and it doesn't help anxious students at all while tolerating bullying, mocking, teasing, etc. by social hierarchs.
I grew up in a rural community too. and while we were suspicious of strangers, all the locals knew everybody, all the teachers at my school knew every student whether you were in their class or not and everybodies parents knew everyone else's parents. Moral philosophy and social customs are what you get by participation in your social circle, and it isn't until recently that we've started to concentrate on bullying in an official way. As for mocking and teasing by social heirarchs, that is part and parcel of the elements of being social primates who challenge each other for position and dominance, and while we've civilized ourselves to the point that most of the time physical intimidation is limited the verbal aspect still exists and to some degree economic power has coopted what used to be a purely verbal/physical phenomena.
We're not just animals. We're people.
Furthermore, now you're saying dominance is tolerable.
You need to take back this animal argument against moral philosophy and social values and try something else.
I'm not saying dominance is tolerable, I am saying it exists. Along with our intellect which we would like to think guides all our decisions, we have our culture, which is partly sculpted by our biology that also contributes to our decision making process.
Why do those with unlucky biology deserve to be condemned?
You're telling me right now that unlucky people deserve to go to jail because they fall through the cracks.
Furthermore, you're telling me victims deserve to be exposed to being hurt by unlucky people. Why should you or I or anyone else have to tolerate this risk?
I am saying the unlucky will probably end up in jail, and if our penal system was focused either more towards rehabilitation or was so horrible that no one would even think of going back there would be a lot less recidivism than we have now. (about 65%)
We tolerate the risk because on first glance those unlucky look just like the rest of us. But of course if you're a member of the elite, you can easily avoid being exposed to these unlucky.
People are expected to behave because while society is built around collected values, most of those values don't conflict on another persons liberty and autonomy. It's those specific actions that do conflict with autonomy and freedom (a very short list) that need to be taught simply and specifically to everyone along with what the consequences are for violation of those societal rules.
The capacity to preserve autonomy has to be preserved, and this requires living in an assimilating society. Not only does society pay taxes for policing, but it also creates the jurisdiction which is being policed, so both the supply and demand of policing is determined by society. If the price of policing becomes too high, autonomy will no longer be preserved, so society needs to teach values in order to keep this price from exploding.
Completely wrong. We set the value of how much policing we want and then observe how much violation happens. Then we adjust the amount we pay until the policing and violation balance out to a level decided by societal consensus.
No, "we" don't. Collective consciousness doesn't exist, and there are always minorities in the definition of public policy.
You're condemning these minorities into alienation by not teaching them the social values of the majority.
Of course participation in the process is voluntary and difficult, but everyone is welcome.
Constant efforts are made to spread education to the minority element with varying levels of success.
Again, you're condemning the unlucky to whom social value spreading fails.
There will always be some of what you call "unlucky" because the rest of us have decided not to expend the time and resources to resolve the issue.
NO. People are too complicated for that and because different people want different things at different times, conflict WILL happen. The idea is to minimize the negative affects of the conflict and to not abridge anothers liberty with your desire
Why are men the only ones obligated to minimize that conflict?
Their not, everyone is obligated to try.
How do you know if someone's really trying?
Not only do you not know, it's very difficult to know.
You're saying there's a duty of care such that people can behave recklessly, and sue others who didn't take care of them. For example, if I walk along a cliff in your vicinity, you don't warn me that I can get hurt, and I fall and break a leg, I could sue you for damages.
I don't know if there's quite enough for duty of care, unless that person was drunk and it looked like they didn't notice cliff, then you might be obligated to say something
You're coming off as tremendously elitist here. Everyone can't AFFORD to perpetually experiment and observe in order to learn the difference between right and wrong.
You don't get it, just by living life everyday people are observing and experimentation begins in childhood when the child starts challenging the boundaries place upon it.
Does everyone have the same observations and experiments?
Not exactly but many of them are similar. example: don't touch the hot stove, or maybe don't touch the hot pan on the stove, <-similar but not exactly. Think of mastubation, likely no one taught you, but you figured it out and so did I and I bet our methods are pretty similar.
You should probably read up on the concepts of Actus Reus and Mens Rea to understand a complete perspective of what I'm saying here:
Criminal law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In accordance with legal experimentalism, these are SUBJECTIVE concepts which UNLUCKY people will be CONDEMNED into NOT UNDERSTANDING UNLESS they're taught SOCIAL VALUES.
There's no hard rule or reason that everyone needs to understand every rule they follow. Just a knowledge of the rule and possible consequence is sufficient to keep them out of trouble. If fact I think it would be prohibitive and difficult to teach everyone complete understanding of social values.
There's no law on being passive aggressive. You can be an ass one minute and nice the next, you can act like a little kid if you want. As long as you're generally aware of the current published rules and possible consequences, go nuts.
No, this is severely problematic. Passive-aggression is a distinct psychological condition, and if we tolerate it, we would be demanding that people be obligated to put up with others' WILLING SELF-DESTRUCTION of capacity.
Those who REFUSE to self-destruct would be enslaved to those who CHOOSE to self-destruct.
Capacity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We do put up with it. Bars and clubs serve alcohol, how do people get to those clubs? they drive. what do they do while they're there? drink, which destroys their capacity to drive safely, and since it became problematic what have we done as society? we've greatly increased the consequences for drinking and driving.
This helps victims of drunk driving accidents how?
Furthermore, everyone doesn't learn equally from consequences. Some people will drink and drive again. Other people will be too scared to ever drink or drive again.
First, by decreasing the number of drunk drivers and number of accidents.
Second, correct, everyone doesn't learn equally, in fact, some people don't even care about consequences, that's why we have prisons.
Why are enlightened people obligated to serve unenlightened people?
Again, you're demanding that people learn from trial and error EVEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO AVOID TROUBLE or JUST BE SOCIALLY ASSERTIVE.
We don't need consequences to teach people after the fact. We can teach children (who didn't ask to be born, so there's a duty of care) social values so people can know how to be innocent before the fact.
But We can inform of the consequences in advance with out having to explain the social theory behind it. When you see a sign saying keep off the grass you don't need to know why, you just need to trust the sign placer put it there for a valid reason. All the unlucky and unenlightened have to do is follow the sign. But if you're in a real hurry, cut across the grass, the consequences for breaking the rule are minimal if any and it will save you time.
Also, the primary educator of a child is the parent(s) and the parents social circle.
This covers children in the case of negligent parenting how?
You're condemning children who are born into alienating circumstances, and even more so, by refusing to teach them social customs, you're condemning them to coming off as monsters. Wtf?
It's all a matter of consequence. From speed limits to assault, your lifetime of education both formally through school and informally through observation and social contact has informed you about what's right, what's wrong, and what's expected of you. If that education was done right and you have no mental defect you should be able to function with little difficulty unless YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.
Obviously if there is no guiding parental force, other forces will do the shaping, be it friends, TV, school, the internet. And yes because those secondary forces are often called upon to step up and raise our children we have a serious issue with crime. It used to be that a community would help a family raise all the kids in that community, but in the US at least that sense of community can only be found in the very rural areas if you're lucky.
Holy crap...
...EDUCATION IS NOT ALWAYS DONE RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE.
Furthermore, you're OBLIGATING PEOPLE TO GET LUCKY in having appropriate social experience. People who are alienated since they're children become CONDEMNED to not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Also, you're now condemning anyone who lives in an urban community for not being entitled to a sense of community when their parents are negligent.
No, I am saying that many urban areas have suffered from community break down much more than the rural areas have. You see, I am a member of the world, I read, listen and talk to people. I have a general understanding of how the world is constructed. It has taken several decades for me to acquire this knowledge, but I have it and it allows me to make generalities because I not only have the understanding I have also taken into account the biases I have.
Our educational system does a pretty good job of telling people what's right and wrong even if the parents don't. I would say it's even pointed out that taking advantage of people who are inebriated is wrong. What the problem to me is that when it happens very few if any consequences come into play.
I really can't agree with this at all.
First off, I grew up in a very rural community, and there was very little to any social cohesion. If anything, people were incredibly suspicious of strangers.
Second off, our public school system doesn't contain any classes on moral philosophy or social customs at all. It's a strictly academic institution, and it doesn't help anxious students at all while tolerating bullying, mocking, teasing, etc. by social hierarchs.
I grew up in a rural community too. and while we were suspicious of strangers, all the locals knew everybody, all the teachers at my school knew every student whether you were in their class or not and everybodies parents knew everyone else's parents. Moral philosophy and social customs are what you get by participation in your social circle, and it isn't until recently that we've started to concentrate on bullying in an official way. As for mocking and teasing by social heirarchs, that is part and parcel of the elements of being social primates who challenge each other for position and dominance, and while we've civilized ourselves to the point that most of the time physical intimidation is limited the verbal aspect still exists and to some degree economic power has coopted what used to be a purely verbal/physical phenomena.
We're not just animals. We're people.
Furthermore, now you're saying dominance is tolerable.
You need to take back this animal argument against moral philosophy and social values and try something else.
I'm not saying dominance is tolerable, I am saying it exists. Along with our intellect which we would like to think guides all our decisions, we have our culture, which is partly sculpted by our biology that also contributes to our decision making process.
Why do those with unlucky biology deserve to be condemned?
You're telling me right now that unlucky people deserve to go to jail because they fall through the cracks.
Furthermore, you're telling me victims deserve to be exposed to being hurt by unlucky people. Why should you or I or anyone else have to tolerate this risk?
I am saying the unlucky will probably end up in jail, and if our penal system was focused either more towards rehabilitation or was so horrible that no one would even think of going back there would be a lot less recidivism than we have now. (about 65%)
We tolerate the risk because on first glance those unlucky look just like the rest of us. But of course if you're a member of the elite, you can easily avoid being exposed to these unlucky.
People are expected to behave because while society is built around collected values, most of those values don't conflict on another persons liberty and autonomy. It's those specific actions that do conflict with autonomy and freedom (a very short list) that need to be taught simply and specifically to everyone along with what the consequences are for violation of those societal rules.
The capacity to preserve autonomy has to be preserved, and this requires living in an assimilating society. Not only does society pay taxes for policing, but it also creates the jurisdiction which is being policed, so both the supply and demand of policing is determined by society. If the price of policing becomes too high, autonomy will no longer be preserved, so society needs to teach values in order to keep this price from exploding.
Completely wrong. We set the value of how much policing we want and then observe how much violation happens. Then we adjust the amount we pay until the policing and violation balance out to a level decided by societal consensus.
No, "we" don't. Collective consciousness doesn't exist, and there are always minorities in the definition of public policy.
You're condemning these minorities into alienation by not teaching them the social values of the majority.
Of course participation in the process is voluntary and difficult, but everyone is welcome.
Constant efforts are made to spread education to the minority element with varying levels of success.
Again, you're condemning the unlucky to whom social value spreading fails.
There will always be some of what you call "unlucky" because the rest of us have decided not to expend the time and resources to resolve the issue.
