RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 27, 2015 at 1:01 pm
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm by Anima.)
Ace;
Do not argue with them on the subject of free will. Let them have there is no freewill. It is a Pyrrhic victory at best that leads them down a rabbit hole were no actor is liable for their actions or in need of consent from victim who may not consent.
Since the actor is unable to refuse the action (and is essentially in the meat sack for the ride) they may not be liable for their actions. To argue otherwise is to argue punishment of the innocent for the actions beyond their control or to recognize the actor could resist engagement of the action (this is to say had freewill).
Since consent is more than mere understanding of the act being committed, but is an explicit or implicit choice to agreement to that act; one without freewill may not consent. To argue otherwise is to argue because the victim understands or was unwillingly induced to the act they are agreeing to it or the victim's understanding or unwilling inducement does not constitute consent, but rather the victim's willful agreement (freewill) to engage in the act is consent.
By arguing there is no freewill they effectively make it so the action is the actor and the actor is the action. This is to say we must punish the person who commits or is inclined to the act because the actor cannot chose to not engage in the action.
Do not argue with them on the subject of free will. Let them have there is no freewill. It is a Pyrrhic victory at best that leads them down a rabbit hole were no actor is liable for their actions or in need of consent from victim who may not consent.
Since the actor is unable to refuse the action (and is essentially in the meat sack for the ride) they may not be liable for their actions. To argue otherwise is to argue punishment of the innocent for the actions beyond their control or to recognize the actor could resist engagement of the action (this is to say had freewill).
Since consent is more than mere understanding of the act being committed, but is an explicit or implicit choice to agreement to that act; one without freewill may not consent. To argue otherwise is to argue because the victim understands or was unwillingly induced to the act they are agreeing to it or the victim's understanding or unwilling inducement does not constitute consent, but rather the victim's willful agreement (freewill) to engage in the act is consent.
By arguing there is no freewill they effectively make it so the action is the actor and the actor is the action. This is to say we must punish the person who commits or is inclined to the act because the actor cannot chose to not engage in the action.
