(September 2, 2015 at 3:19 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think, C_L, you are glossing over a very important point here.
Do you think that consent is only needed if physical, emotional, or mental damage is inherent?
So if I (don't like to even type this) were to digitally penetrate a woman when she was passed out, leaving no physical damage, and let's just say she was blacked out enough that she never knew that it happened at all, that wouldn't be an issue in this scenario?
Just because an animal doesn't have the higher cognitive function to understand what is happening doesn't mean that the animal with the higher cognitive function shouldn't be held accountable for the action.
Makes sense, and is a good argument. Thanks for the honest response and for not being a jerk.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
