Worst Things You Can Ever Say As A Pagan

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

Now, with consent, anything goes.

So with consent, murder goes?  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

Now, with consent, anything goes.

So with consent, murder goes?

I think murder implies lack of consent. If there's consent then that would be called "assisted suicide." In which case if the person is in the right frame of mind then I don't see anything wrong with this.

Edit: I'm probably missing an application. I was thinking more of consent when it comes to sexual acts. Personally I see sharing of energy as a sexually charged act, but that's just due to bias in how I myself experience it with my loved one.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

I think murder implies lack of consent.

Murder is unlawful killing.

Quote:

If there's consent then that would be called "assisted suicide."

And murder.

Quote:

I was thinking more of consent when it comes to sexual acts.

But then you get into the conflict where you can't really consent to actual rape. Play Rape? Sure. But that's fantasy, not reality.

Quote:

Personally I see sharing of energy as a sexually charged act, but that's just due to bias in how I myself experience it with my loved one.

Sharing? Hell yeah! But culling?  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

I think murder implies lack of consent.

Murder is unlawful killing.

Quote:

If there's consent then that would be called "assisted suicide."

And murder.

Not in these countries. By definition assisted suicide is not unlawful killing in the places in which they are legal. I could've sworn this was legal somewhere in the U.S. ... somewhere in CA I think, but it's possible that that was revoked again.

Quote:

Quote:

I was thinking more of consent when it comes to sexual acts.

But then you get into the conflict where you can't really consent to actual rape. Play Rape? Sure. But that's fantasy, not reality.

Quote:

Personally I see sharing of energy as a sexually charged act, but that's just due to bias in how I myself experience it with my loved one.

Sharing? Hell yeah! But culling?

Well yeah...obviously if there's consent before, during, and after, then it's not rape. But for every thing you can think of and find disgusting, there will be someone in the world that gets really turned on by it. What comes to mind are some D/s relationships in which the sub gets turned on by being used, which is a form of culling. I would not be surprised if this also takes place specifically in the context of taking energy.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

By definition assisted suicide is not unlawful killing in the places in which they are legal. I could've sworn this was legal somewhere in the U.S. ... somewhere in CA I think, but it's possible that that was revoked again.

Granted, if it is lawful, it isn't murder.

Quote:

But for every thing you can think of and find disgusting, there will be someone in the world that gets really turned on by it.

That doesn't justify it.

Quote:

What comes to mind are some D/s relationships in which the sub gets turned on by being used, which is a form of culling.

No. Culling as applied here is specifically one sided. If the Sub gets what they want, then it isn't one sided.

Quote:

I would not be surprised if this also takes place specifically in the context of taking energy.

To which, I point out that people who do so are, to use Celeblin's English, abominations.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Quote:

But for every thing you can think of and find disgusting, there will be someone in the world that gets really turned on by it.

That doesn't justify it.

Not by itself, no. If there is consent between the two people (or more?) that are doing the act, then that does justify it.

Quote:

Quote:

What comes to mind are some D/s relationships in which the sub gets turned on by being used, which is a form of culling.

No. Culling as applied here is specifically one sided. If the Sub gets what they want, then it isn't one sided.

You were talking about one person not having consent to take another's energy, and I agree that that's wrong. I was talking about a relationship in which there was consent for culling. In which case if there is consent then there's nothing wrong with it. In the context you were talking about, the culling was one sided. I don't think it necessarily is one sided if it's agreed that the people involved are by turn getting compensated for the act.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

Not by itself, no. If there is consent between the two people (or more?) that are doing the act, then that does justify it.

That approach supports Frostian Child Molestation. They'd argue their children consented, that their legal rights to help determine a child's spiritual welfare justify their position.

Somethings are wrong- no matter who consents.

Quote:

In which case if there is consent then there's nothing wrong with it.

Consent to something immoral does not change it's moral value.
See above.  

[Aino Ailill]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

Not by itself, no. If there is consent between the two people (or more?) that are doing the act, then that does justify it.

That approach supports Frostian Child Molestation. They'd argue their children consented, that their legal rights to help determine a child's spiritual welfare justify their position.

Somethings are wrong- no matter who consents.

They'd first have to make an argument defending the children in question's ability to consent.  

[TeaDidikai]

Aino Ailill

They'd first have to make an argument defending the children in question's ability to consent.

Or do the end run I mentioned wherein they cite their right to determine the child's spiritual welfare.

Consent isn't a magic wand.
Consent doesn't remove detrimental unknown side effects to the action that was consented to. It doesn't change the nature of any objective morals involved.  

[Aino Ailill]

TeaDidikai

Aino Ailill

They'd first have to make an argument defending the children in question's ability to consent.

Or do the end run I mentioned wherein they cite their right to determine the child's spiritual welfare.

That is not an issue of a person giving consent.

Quote:

Consent isn't a magic wand.
Consent doesn't remove detrimental unknown side effects to the action that was consented to. It doesn't change the nature of any objective morals involved.

The presence of unknown, detrimental side-effects does not make something immoral, does it? And if it is known by one party, and not by the other, than that is a case where consent is not truly given.  

[TeaDidikai]

Aino Ailill

That is not an issue of a person giving consent.

It is when who can and cannot give consent is currently outlined in an arbitrary fashion based on how many times the earth has circled the sun baring additional factors.

Quote:

The presence of unknown, detrimental side-effects does not make something immoral, does it? And if it is known by one party, and not by the other, than that is a case where consent is not truly given.

But consent is given. The consent is issued for the action. The action is not the side effects.

It's the reason why someone passing an STD isn't rape.  

[AniMajor]

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I would not be surprised if this also takes place specifically in the context of taking energy.

To which, I point out that people who do so are, to use Celeblin's English, abominations.

I think that's so far my favorite term to apply to those who consider themselves vampires.  

[TeaDidikai]

AniMajor

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I would not be surprised if this also takes place specifically in the context of taking energy.

To which, I point out that people who do so are, to use Celeblin's English, abominations.

I think that's so far my favorite term to apply to those who consider themselves vampires.

Džungoškiňa is mine.  

[Aino Ailill]

TeaDidikai

Aino Ailill

That is not an issue of a person giving consent.

It is when who can and cannot give consent is currently outlined in an arbitrary fashion based on how many times the earth has circled the sun baring additional factors.

How do the failings of the AoC laws make a legal guardian making decisions for their children the same as the child consenting?

Quote:

Quote:

The presence of unknown, detrimental side-effects does not make something immoral, does it? And if it is known by one party, and not by the other, than that is a case where consent is not truly given.

But consent is given. The consent is issued for the action. The action is not the side effects.

It's the reason why someone passing an STD isn't rape.

If a person has sex with another who knows that they carry the HIV virus and fails to tell their partner, the person has not consented to the increased risk of contracting the virus. The person's ability to make an informed decision about the action, which includes the risks, has been withheld.

It is rather like getting on a rollercoaster that the Park knows is unsound. You are consenting, in riding, to the ride and to a certain level of risk. When the chance of that risk bearing foul fruit is significantly increased, such as when the ride is unsound, and this information is withheld, then the persons who opted to take the ride cannot be seen as having consented to the situation they find themselves in.  

[TeaDidikai]

Aino Ailill

How do the failings of the AoC laws make a legal guardian making decisions for their children the same as the child consenting?

Because it's currently set up to not differentiate between a child saying yes and the adult saying yes on their behalf.

Quote:

If a person has sex with another who knows that they carry the HIV virus and fails to tell their partner, the person has not consented to the increased risk of contracting the virus.

Sure they did- in that they still consented to the risky behavior in the first place. Abstaining from the behavior is the only way to opt out of the risk completely, and when you choose not to do that, you choose to accept that while you can attempt to move odds in your favor, you cannot remove the risks all together.