(January 3, 2018 at 11:22 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 11:05 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

Both parties are objectively harmed, as is society in general.  She was groped, he was punched, and we have to live in a society where gropers need to be punched because some don't consider groping objectively harmful.

Now I remember... thanks!
What objective harm was done in groping?  It seems like this would be at best subjective.... some may not mind as much, and it may even be relative to the person who is doing the groping. An external observer, cannot really tell what harm was done.   What makes groping the boob wrong (from a harm standpoint), but tapping her on the shoulder not harmful?  I don't think that the guy intended harm or was thinking about harming the girl.  And yet she intentionally caused him harm.

(January 3, 2018 at 11:32 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Now I remember... thanks!
What objective harm was done in groping? 

Saunter over this way, I'll grab your dick, and then you can ask yourself that very, very silly question.

Quote: I don't think that the guy intended harm or was thinking about harming the girl.

I know right? Probably just one of those guys that, like you.........question what objective harm is done by sexual assault. -and that's why we have to live in a world where gropers need to be punched.

(January 3, 2018 at 11:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 11:05 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have a question, from some previous conversations.  I apologize if this is too far off topic, but this came to mind from this post.

This stems from some talks about harm as a basis of objective morality.  I felt there was some disconnect, in what was meant by objective in those discussions, epistemology vs ontology and so on.  However this illustration has me curious if I understand correctly for those who view harm as the foundation for what is immoral.


Now I am making some assumptions here.  First that the boob grab was just a touch.  Second it's difficult to tell how well the punch was landed by the woman (as some commented it should have been more); for the sake of the discussion, assume some damage such as a black eye.

I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

Minimizing harm doesn't require the abrogation of self defense. I don't much care that the boob grab was 'just a touch' - to any sensible person, it qualifies as assault. Her boobs, her body, her right to stomp this guy flat.  THAT is the moral justification for what she did. 

Boru

I'm not saying anything about self defense (by the way, I don't think that was defense).   What harm was done?   So if he tapped her on the shoulder and she took offense, then she would be justified in assaulting him back?  What are the limits that one can return the assault back for a touch. 

I'm not justifying what the guy did at all... he was certainly wrong; and, I agree he deserves what he got or more.  However this seems like a good illustration against the harm view, particularly the one presented previously talking about it being objective.  Harm doesn't seem to be a sufficient basis, for evaluation.

---

(January 3, 2018 at 11:34 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 11:32 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Now I remember... thanks!
What objective harm was done in groping? 

Saunter over this way, I'll grab your dick, and then you can ask yourself that very, very silly question.

Quote: I don't think that the guy intended harm or was thinking about harming the girl.

I know right?  Probably just one of those guys that, like you.........question what objective harm is done by sexual assault.  -and that's why we have to live in a world where gropers need to be punched.

I agree that it is wrong, so if you want to continue along these lines, it is a straw man.

I also think that you are trying to direct things towards me, to avoid the issue.

(January 3, 2018 at 11:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I agree that it is wrong, so if you want to continue along these lines, it is a straw man.

........................?  I didn't ask you if you thought it was wrong. 

I asked you whether or not you might be able to identify some harm done if I waltzed up behind you and grabbed your dick. I've asked you whether or not sexual assault is objectively harmful. If you don;t think so, fair enough. That;s hardly a cogent criticism of any moral system, however, lol.

The "issue"..is that you're either dense or pretending to be dense in order to grind an axe you are patently incapable of lifting.

(January 3, 2018 at 11:47 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 11:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I agree that it is wrong, so if you want to continue along these lines, it is a straw man.

........................?  I didn't ask you if you thought it was wrong. 

I asked you whether or not you might be able to identify some harm done if I waltzed up behind you and grabbed your dick.  I've asked you whether or not sexual assault is objectively harmful.

The harm is subjective, it's really going to depend on the person, and how they feel (subjective).  The act in question is physically harming.
If the person feels harmed because you touched their shoulder, would you justify a similar reaction?

And no... if someone runs up and touches my dick, I'm not gong to assault them.  I don't really feel harmed, and there is no objective harm done.  Is there an objective difference if he had accidentally touched the boob vs purposely?

Why bother with subjective morality when we have the good ole bible to guide us.

KJV Deuteronomy 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Taketh him by the secrets I say !!

Why are breasts a sexual organ to he hidden? I think the question should start there.

(January 3, 2018 at 11:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The harm is subjective, it's really going to depend on the person, and how they feel (subjective). 

That's not what the term subjective harm means or refers to.  

Quote:The act in question is physically harming.

-and psychological harm, and societal harm, and self harm -and you might get jacked in the grill......   Gee, objectively harmful in every possible way.  It's almost as if sexual assault is one of the big bads or something?  

Quote:If the person feels harmed because you touched their shoulder, would you justify a similar reaction?

Shoulder tapping isn't sexual assault so I won't waste my time with useless diversion.

Quote:And no... if someone runs up and touches my dick, I'm not gong to assault them.  I don't really feel harmed, and there is no objective harm done. 

If you're comfortable standing here before us and claiming that..while you question the objective harm of sexual assault, then you do you.   I question your hetero street cred -and- moral competency, however......if you're comfy with having your pecker groped by a random male.  

Either that...or..you know, you're pretending to be dense.......again. 50/50.

Quote:Is there an objective difference if he had accidentally touched the boob vs purposely?

Sure.  The difference between groping and faceplanting into someones tits, or some poor guys crotch is palpable.  One is comically miserable, the other is sex crime. Probably shouldn't do either though, amiright? Gotta pace yourself, falling all over people drunk is a party foul.

(January 3, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 11:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The harm is subjective, it's really going to depend on the person, and how they feel (subjective). 

That's not what the term subjective harm means or refers to.  

Quote:The act in question is physically harming.

-and psychological harm, and societal harm, and self harm.   Gee, objectively harmful in every possible way.  It's almost as if sexual assault is one of the big bads or something?  

Quote:If the person feels harmed because you touched their shoulder, would you justify a similar reaction?

Shoulder tapping isn't sexual assault so I won't waste my time with useless diversion.

I think that there is more of a disconnect than I previously thought.  What do you mean in the instance between objective and subjective?  (I don't think you really understand the terms.)

It seems that most of your response is saying "duh, sexual assault is wrong" but doesn't ground it in your foundation of harm (and I don't think objectively at all).  You seem to be avoiding the issue.  Why is it harmful?    If every time someone feels emotional or psychological distress, they punched someone, don't you think that would be harmful to society?

Quote:

Quote:And no... if someone runs up and touches my dick, I'm not gong to assault them.  I don't really feel harmed, and there is no objective harm done. 

If you're comfortable standing here before us and claiming that..while you question the objective harm of sexual assault, then you do you.   I question your hetero street cred -and- moral competency, however......if you're comfy with having your pecker groped by a random male.  

Either that...or..you know, you're pretending to be dense.......again.  50/50.

Something similar to what happened in the video, seriously wouldn't bother me that much.  I would probably think it was funny.  Although I could see becoming quickly uncomfortable and stopping them for something more sustained.  Even then, I don't think I would be scarred, or seek out physical damage to the person (except in self defense perhaps).  And I don't care what you think about my "hetero street cred -and- moral competency" (just don't care about the first, and you don't know what you are talking about in the latter)

And again, I'm not saying that sexual assault is not wrong.  But you still seem to be avoiding identifying the objective harm you keep talking about.

Quote:

Quote:Is there an objective difference if he had accidentally touched the boob vs purposely?

Sure.  The difference between groping and faceplanting into someones tits, or some poor guys crotch is palpable.  One is comically miserable, the other is sex crime.   Probably shouldn't do either though, amiright?  Gotta pace yourself, falling all over people drunk is a party foul.

Not what I asked.... the two things that I asked, physically and objectively could be very... very similar.  The main difference is intent.

(January 3, 2018 at 12:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that there is more of a disconnect than I previously thought.  What do you mean in the instance between objective and subjective?  (I don't think you really understand the terms.)

It seems that most of your response is saying "duh, sexual assault is wrong" but doesn't ground it in your foundation of harm (and I don't think objectively at all).  You seem to be avoiding the issue.  Why is it harmful?    If every time someone feels emotional or psychological distress, they punched someone, don't you think that would be harmful to society?

I'm not interested in arguing with you over whether or not sexual assault is objectively harmful.  I assume you have access to all of the information on the subject that I have...and also that you really wouldn't need any of it to recognize that it is harmful.  Just imagining me grabbing your crank in a world full of men who also grab your crank should suffice.

Like I said, if you're comfortable pulling the "is sexual assault really objectively harmful" routine..then you do you.  

Quote:Something similar to what happened in the video, seriously wouldn't bother me that much.  I would probably think it was funny.  Although I could see becoming quickly uncomfortable and stopping them for something more sustained.  Even then, I don't think I would be scarred, or seek out physical damage to the person (except in self defense perhaps).

And again, I'm not saying that sexual assault is not wrong.  But you still seem to be avoiding identifying the objective harm you keep talking about.

If you say so.  But who cares whether you're more comfortable being groped or less violent in your response to being groped than she was?  You;re virtue signaling against a victim of sexual assault, at this point, while questioning the reality of harm caused by sex crimes..and it's fucking hilarious.

Quote:Not what I asked.... the two things that I asked, physically and objectively could be very... very similar.  The main difference is intent.

That's not really the "main difference" between sex crime and stumbling, but sure, it's -a- difference.