373
True love (lemmy.today)
submitted 6 days ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
locked 181 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Then what is your condition for consent?

My point is that consent is not a shield that protects someone from criticism and accusations of immorality.

your argument is that we shouldn't bother with the legal system to deal with issues of morality?

I'm saying it does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function.

No, it's that sensationalized stories about how age-gaps in relationships are somehow a form of abuse in and of themselvs distract from salient critiques of real conditions that impact many, many more women who are more disenfranchised across the spectrum of intersectionality. That age-gaps of celebrities are generally a non-issue.

Age gaps are just one aspect of the system of abuse that are the result of a system of a disenfranchisment. You can be critical of one aspect of the system and the system itself. I am less concerned specifically about the age gap of celebrities compared to the greater majority of people in imbalanced relationships. That doesn't mean it should be free from criticism.

You're right, you never offered a solution, other than shaming celebrities on internet forums. No, I'm claiming that notions that women need to be protected from themselves are applying puritan aesthetics.

You are again blaming the women and not the greater system that directs wealth and power to men that enables them to create these relationships in the first place. The solution is pretty apparent if you actually examined feminism from a leftist perspective......

Which I not only agree with, but recognize as the often more impactful aspect of a person that is used to create situations of abuse. It's why laws like alimony, or child support exist, to help offset the potential harm inflicted vis-a-vis financial dependence, which traditionally existed regardless of age-gaps.

And you think these individuals do not benefit, support, and reinforce the system that allows them to remain in their place within the hierarchy?

From firefighting to mining, people risk their personal safety and face harm every day, but we consider it a reasonable risk for individuals to take, as long as they are making the choice to undertake those tasks of their own volition.

In this scenario my criticism is pointed at the workers..... It's pointed at the owners who are doing everything they can to take advantage of their labour.

If we say that women can't properly differentiate between conditions where harm can exist in relationships at 19, then why should we ask anyone to undertake anything that could remotely be dangerous at 19?

Again my problem is with the those who benefit from destroying the guardrails and make these task even more dangerous for personal gain.

In the US, and likely western hemisphere, evidence shows that the trend is for couples to be closer in age with every passing year. Age-gap relationships are more rare than ever. How is promoting these stories addressing a trend?

A bad thing is happening less, so we should be less critical of when it still happens?

What a gross mischaracterization. I have literally said multiple times across this thread, that the differentiation is the line in the sand at which we decide, as a society, who qualifies as an adult, capable of making their own choices within the context of consent.

That's what I meant when characterized your statements.....

Yes, rape and abuse are brutal crimes that deserve sever punishment. I think it's morally worse for a 12 year old to be raped than a 15 year old, and likewise for an 18 year old. Just like it's worse to abuse a child than it is to abuse an adult in any manner.

And those actions should be criticized whether they are children or adults.... Now should the consensual actions between adults that took place before the actual legal abuse took place be criticized as well?

Maybe a rich and powerful man building relationships with young women that may lead to abuse should be scrutinized before the abuse happens?

If you actually care about discussing this issue, then what are your moral standings on the issue? It's easy to sit there and spout off "old man bad" with no follow-through on specifics, or what that line in the sand of becoming 'bad' constitutes.

I think you are purposely being obtuse if you haven't been able to figure any of this out. Characterizing my many and often stated claims as "old man bad" reeks of a bad faith and hypocritical argument.

My moral standing on the issue is that anyone who takes advantage and further empowers a patriatical system that was put in place to reinforce a system where women and other marginalized people are victimized by those the system rewards are bad and should be criticized.

Is it possible for relationships where two people of different intelligence are involved to be consensual? How can you be sure that won't lead to manipulation? Can a relationship that's more than 1 year difference be consensual? 5 years? 10, 15, 20? What's the cut off and what is your rationale for there being a specific cutoff? OR, why shouldn't there be a cutoff and what specific mechanisms should be employed to ensure consensual relationships free of manipulation are realized?

You don't need to have an absolute and unimpeachable critical theory to make a declarative commendation over a type of relationship.

For example.... Slavery.

There were slaves who were family members of their masters. Some of those slaves loved their masters and were loved by their masters. Some slaves wanted to return to work for their former master after emancipation. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and did so, utilizing what agency they possessed. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and chose not to out of fear of reprisals. All of these decisions involved varying levels of consent and cohesion. Does that mean I cannot declare slavery as a whole to be bad, because a minority of slaves experience happiness as slaves?

Can you see how ridiculous asking someone to exactly delineate the ethical and moral position for every instance within a relationship hierarchy that they believe to be harmful as a general concept?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    Your entire thesis can be summarized as "Destroy the patriarchy." You offer no means to do so, beyond, being critical where any shred of evidence of patriarchy exists. You state no objective outcomes, or means to achieve them. You state that "I’m saying it (the legal system) does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function." - which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function, as moral authority is seemingly only a function of hegemony, of which (somehow) governing institutions have not impact. That you think the justice system is not inherently rooted in systems of morality is moronic, at best, and much more likely utterly disingenuous rhetoric you're simply employing to win a debate. You're not earnest in your engagement, nor are you actually interested in discussing core complications with relationships, how to dismantle the patriarchy, or how to decrease actual rates of abuse. You sound like a yankee who is disillusioned by the world and possibilities that governance structures can actually be a force of good in the world. Goodbye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Your entire thesis can be summarized as "Destroy the patriarchy." You offer no means to do so, beyond, being critical where any shred of evidence of patriarchy exists.

    Again, this would be obvious for anyone who actually studied feminism with a leftist perspective. Feminism is a cornerstone of any modern socialist political ideology. By providing equity and equality to the most marginalized groups in any hierarchical structure, you extend an umbrella of social justice to those higher in the hierarchical structure.

    You state that "I’m saying it (the legal system) does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function." - which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function, as moral authority is seemingly only a function of hegemony, of which (somehow) governing institutions have not impact.

    Lol, "which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function".

    Since slavery was completely legal during large swaths of our history ....one would think it would lead you to believe that the legality of a practice isn't really related to the morality of the practice.

    That you think the justice system is not inherently rooted in systems of morality is moronic, at best, and much more likely utterly disingenuous rhetoric you're simply employing to win a debate.

    It absolutely is not rooted in systems of morality, it's rooted in systems of governance, property, and the maintenance of hierarchical control.

    That's why slavery was legal, it's why the war on drugs is still ongoing, it's why people are being kidnapped by ICE. Why do you think it's so hard to put someone like Epstein in jail? The law is used to maintain order, not provide justice. The fact that you believe otherwise just speaks to your naivety and lack of historical context.

    You're not earnest in your engagement, nor are you actually interested in discussing core complications with relationships, how to dismantle the patriarchy, or how to decrease actual rates of abuse. You sound like a yankee who is disillusioned by the world and possibilities that governance structures can actually be a force of good in the world. Goodbye.

    You are just to ignorant to actually understand anything were talking about. Have a good one, go read a book or two.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    You apparently don't even understand the difference between morality and ethics. Slavery was moral within systems that allowed/perpetuated it. Slavery was a regulated practice under christian states, for instance, where treatment of slaves was dictated by moral decrees of the church. The ETHICS of slavery has not changed, but humanity's MORAL understanding of it has. Just as the MORALs of capitalist societies favour rich people and provide a different justice system for them, or the morality of patriarchal societies favour men. The ETHICS of justice are very different than the MORALs of justice. The ETHICS of humanist discourses (through the enlightenment era) were why feminism and anti-slavery/social rights movements were able to flourish in the first place, despite the overwhelming MORAL systems that defined the oppression of the eras that came before (and continue to persist). Ethics are dependent on philosophy, which can, and does, have roots in human moral understandings of the world, and not all ethical models agree on the scope of ethics, but ethical models are based on logic, not feeling (as much as human cognition allows, anyways). The implementation of emergent ethics and morality into justice system apparatus' is the process through which societies regulate what they consider as morally good. Women's suffrage, for instance, was a battle that was fought using ETHICAL arguments to recognize women as human to overcome their place within a system of MORALITY that denied women that standing. Just as the MORALITY of spousal rape, or even rape more broadly, has been integrated into the justice system as MORAL wrong because of pressure from feminist scholars, who broadly have used ETHICAL arguments to see such change occur. That you don't understand that considering a hierarchy, a governmental system, property rights, etc., as "good" or "bad" is inherently a moral consideration is all the evidence anyone should need to see that you don't have an even basic grasp on theories of ethics or morality. You don't know what any of these terms mean and sound like you watched a video, or listen to the occasional feminist podcast as your entire intelectual education. I thought you were being disingenuous, but it turns out you're just dumb.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    You apparently don't even understand the difference between morality and ethics. Slavery was moral within systems that allowed/perpetuated it. Slavery was a regulated practice under christian states, for instance, where treatment of slaves was dictated by moral decrees of the church. The ETHICS of slavery has not changed, but humanity's MORAL understanding of it has.

    Slavery was legal, not moral. Just because something is regulated does not mean that it becomes more moral. Morality and ethics can be used interchangeably in most cases. Some philosophers distinguish between the two, saying that morality concerns more with the individual interpretation of morality while ethics deals with the philosophical concept of determining what is right or wrong. However, that does not mean that someone's subjective perspective of a scenario is determinative or that morality is fixed in time or by social group..

    Just as the MORALs of capitalist societies favour rich people and provide a different justice system for them, or the morality of patriarchal societies favour men. The ETHICS of justice are very different than the MORALs of justice. The ETHICS of humanist discourses (through the enlightenment era) were why feminism and anti-slavery/social rights movements were able to flourish in the first place, despite the overwhelming MORAL systems that defined the oppression of the eras that came before (and continue to persist).

    Lol..... It would still be a semantic dispute, but the word you are looking for is not MORALS, it's MORES. Morals are un fixed to a certain group or time period and are subject to modern interpretation. Mores are fixed to the time and group of particular people.

    The implementation of emergent ethics and morality into justice system apparatus' is the process through which societies regulate what they consider as morally good.

    Lol. Yes because it's always been "society" who dictates legality....... You do realize that legal systems predate democratic societies, right?

    Women's suffrage, for instance, was a battle that was fought using ETHICAL arguments to recognize women as human to overcome their place within a system of MORALITY that denied women that standing. Just as the MORALITY of spousal rape, or even rape more broadly, has been integrated into the justice system as MORAL wrong because of pressure from feminist scholars, who broadly have used ETHICAL arguments to see such change occur.

    You really have just invented a revisionist theory based on a semantic dispute.....

    That you don't understand that considering a hierarchy, a governmental system, property rights, etc., as "good" or "bad" is inherently a moral consideration is all the evidence anyone should need to see that you don't have an even basic grasp on theories of ethics or morality.

    Lol, who taught you this? It's like arguing with a chatbot fed solely off of reddit circa 2012.

    Morality and ethics can and often are interchangeable, you could make an argument about the difference in a philosophical discussion. However, claiming slavery as a social construct is immoral or unethical or even bad...... Is perfectly valid.

    You just wasted so much of your own time writing nonsensical slop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Fucking hell are you ever reaching for relevance. You don't know what any of the terms your using mean, where they come from, or how they used across different applications. MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right. The most basic definition of MORES explicitly references societal societal MORALS. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores As MORES are first described by Sumner, they are explicitly described as societal cultural practices through which a society's MORALS are codifed customs. While I could pull many excerpts from his writings that substantiate this readily here's one such quote: "The case is somewhat different when attempts are made by positive efforts to prevent the operation of bad mores, or to abolish them. The historians have familiarized us with the notion of corrupt or degenerate mores. Such periods as the later Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Merovingian kingdom, and the Renaissance offer us examples of evil mores. We need to give more exactitude to this idea. Bad mores are those which are not well fitted to the conditions and needs of the society at the time. But, as we have seen, the mores produce a philosophy of welfare, more or less complete, and they produce taboos which are concentrated inhibitions directed against conduct which the philosophy regards as harmful, or positive injunctions to do what is judged expedient and beneficial. The taboos constitute morality or a moral system which, in higher civilization, restrains passion and appetite, and curbs the will." Looking at the MORALITY of age-gap relationships, we can understand that the MORES of how societal cultural expression and legal apparatus' impact such MORAL considerations.

    I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems. Entire books written about how the MORALITY of governments evolve, change and are re-interpreted based on contemporary understandings.

    If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society? You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code. Did you learn that from your cult leader? Or did you read an excerpt on Kant once and decided that was the only ethical model available?

    I suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right.

    Mores is used to describe the scope of what a particular group of people believe to be moral in a fixed period of time. That does not mean that morality in general is defined by any set of social mores.

    I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems.

    Those academics are not judging the morality of different political systems by the political systems own social mores..... That would obviously be redundant.

    If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society?

    I never claimed any society was devoid of the concept of morals, just that social mores can be described by people both inside and outside of that particular group as immoral/unethical. Both I and the Quakers contemporary to the time of slavery can both correctly determine that slavery is immoral/unethical.

    You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code.

    Lol, the whole point of the philosophical concept of ethics is that it's an open debate. If you think something is immoral, then you can make that determination and convince other people to do the same. I would argue that there is no universally moral way to live your life, but in any given society you could argue that certain actions are bad for society or human decency as a whole and should be labeled as immoral.

    suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.

    Says the person who claimed slavery wasn't immoral......

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent