Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

To clarify, I was not and am not asking if it would have been consensual for the police to have illegally sodomized Martin Luther King.

Instead, I was and am asking if, in your opinion, it would have been consensual if the legal penalty for Martin Luther King's crimes was to be sodomized by the police rather than jailed, would that mean that the ensuing sodomizing was consensual rather than rape?

In other words, if 60% of voters had voted for the law to mandate that the police sodomize Martin Luther King, no matter how much cried and begged them not to, and thus it had become law prior to Martin Luther King's arrest that the penalty for his crimes was to be sodomized by the police, and so (acting within their mandate) the police legally sodomized him as mandated by law, would that have been consensual sex according to you?

is the sodomy of MLK rape? Rape, of course, is a legal term. And under the standard definition of rape, being under the legal custody of the state is similar to being mentally incapacitated or a minor in the sense that sexual intercourse cannot be consensual, it is rape regardless of "giving consent" or not

I am not asking you if it would be "rape" (as you use the term), but rather if it would be consensual.

Nope, not consensual, since (as I referenced) those in the custody of the state cannot legally give consent.

[LuckyR]

If I cannot agree with someone on the more black-and-white simplified examples (what you call "extremes"), then I would not want to get into even muddier waters with them.

[...]

I'm generally not going to waste effort talking to someone about 2nd-trimester abortion if they believe male masturbation is murder of human life and that male masturbaters must be executed for murder.

[...]

Do you think Martin Luther King consented to being in jail?

Do you think the jailing of Martin Luther King was consensual?

I believe that members of the jurisdiction of the police have "given" group consent to the police/prosecutors fulfilling their job responsibilities by using those identical services each and every day. So in a word: yes.

Surprising.

To me, this feeling reminds me of when someone tells me they think male masturbation is "murder" (as they use the term), and thus want it to be illegal.

I totally and completely disagree, but thank you for your answer.


Thank you,
Scott

Well did MLK give consent to the police to arrest a mugger that the policeman witnessed assault Dr King's wife?

If so, then is this consent (for the police to arrest law breakers) in general or only specific to cases that involve other law breakers but not if the law breaker has the last name "King"?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

To clarify, I was not and am not asking if it would have been consensual for the police to have illegally sodomized Martin Luther King.

Instead, I was and am asking if, in your opinion, it would have been consensual if the legal penalty for Martin Luther King's crimes was to be sodomized by the police rather than jailed, would that mean that the ensuing sodomizing was consensual rather than rape?

In other words, if 60% of voters had voted for the law to mandate that the police sodomize Martin Luther King, no matter how much cried and begged them not to, and thus it had become law prior to Martin Luther King's arrest that the penalty for his crimes was to be sodomized by the police, and so (acting within their mandate) the police legally sodomized him as mandated by law, would that have been consensual sex according to you?

is the sodomy of MLK rape? Rape, of course, is a legal term. And under the standard definition of rape, being under the legal custody of the state is similar to being mentally incapacitated or a minor in the sense that sexual intercourse cannot be consensual, it is rape regardless of "giving consent" or not

I am not asking you if it would be "rape" (as you use the term), but rather if it would be consensual.

Nope, not consensual, since (as I referenced) those in the custody of the state cannot legally give consent.

It seems to me you have clearly contradicted yourself.

Whether the punishment (a.k.a. interaction) is (1) caging in a cell vs (2) sodomizing vs (3) execution wouldn't affect it's consensuality.

In other words, taken together, your statements in this thread cannot be true, since they are utterly illogical (i.e. they contradict themselves).


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Well did MLK give consent to the police to arrest a mugger that the policeman witnessed assault Dr King's wife?

That question is incoherent for the same exact reason the following is:

1. Did Calvin consent to Alfie and Bob having gay sex in the privacy of their own home.

2. Did Jim Carrey consent to me (Eckhart) paying my barber to cut my hair for me, assuming I am paying with my own money or with my own services (e.g. me agreeing to plunge my barber's toilet for him if he cuts my hair in exchange, i.e. as payment).


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[LuckyR]

Well did MLK give consent to the police to arrest a mugger that the policeman witnessed assault Dr King's wife?

That question is incoherent for the same exact reason the following is:

1. Did Calvin consent to Alfie and Bob having gay sex in the privacy of their own home.

2. Did Jim Carrey consent to me (Eckhart) paying my barber to cut my hair for me, assuming I am paying with my own money or with my own services (e.g. me agreeing to plunge my barber's toilet for him if he cuts my hair in exchange, i.e. as payment).


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Oh, now I get you. The concept of an individual agreeing that an entity (such as the police) fulfill it's stated function in general isn't part of what you mean by "consent". In your usage "consent" only refers to the actions of the entity upon himself alone.

Well, why go through all of the trouble and confusion of stipulating Dr King specifically, who had a very particular and atypical relationship with the police? Under your usage of "consent" almost no one interacting with the police, including MLK, gave PERSONAL "consent" to the police to do the job that in general they want them to do.

This also puts the taxation thread in a different light, sure everyone wants the benefits that tax dollars pay for in general, but very few are circumspect enough to understand that taxes pay for them and thus almost no one "consents" to PERSONALLY pay taxes.

How about a thread on whether little kids "consent" to their bedtimes or having to do their homework?

Yeah, folks don't like what they don't like. An obvious point, but I guess it had to be made.

[Kurumy]

Legal authority and personal consent are different things. Just because someone is subject to laws doesn’t mean they agree to all the actions taken under those laws, especially if they’re outside the norm. Consent is more about personal agreement, while legal processes follow different rules.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply.

Well did MLK give consent to the police to arrest a mugger that the policeman witnessed assault Dr King's wife?

That question is incoherent for the same exact reason the following is:

1. Did Calvin consent to Alfie and Bob having gay sex in the privacy of their own home?

Oh, now I get you. The concept of an individual agreeing that an entity (such as the police) fulfill it's stated function in general isn't part of what you mean by "consent". In your usage "consent" only refers to the actions of the entity upon himself alone.

No, I didn't say that.

It doesn't matter if Alfie, Bob, and Calvin are freely associated corporations, groups, gangs, families, or just individual humans.

Alfie could be a married couple into swinging, Bob couple be another married couple into swinging, and Charlie could be some homophobic group on the other side of the planet whose never met nor contract with Alfie (nor any of Alfie's group members) or Bob (nor any of their group members).

Well, why go through all of the trouble and confusion of stipulating Dr King specifically,

Because it's on that topic (MLK specifically) that you have blatantly contradicted yourself, and because it is the topic of this thread, and the forum rules require we stay on topic.

You contradicted yourself by simultaneously claiming both:

1. If the punishment for MLK's crimes is being jailed in a cage, then the punishment (i.e. jailing) is consensual.

2. If the punishment for MLK's crimes is being legally sodomized, then the punishment (i.e. the legal sodomy) is not consensual.


That's illogical.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[LuckyR]

Folks don't agree with what they don't like. Not profound, but admittedly true.

Moving on.

[Sy Borg]

MLK disagreed with racist laws so, no, he did not consent to being imprisoned based on racist rules.

Anyone put into prison for protesting against certain laws is obviously not consenting to being punished, although they may use that punishment as a means of exposing what they see as bad laws.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" ... sadly, many people today do not subscribe to this basic logic.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

MLK disagreed with racist laws so, no, he did not consent to being imprisoned based on racist rules.

I agree 100%.