Why is consent important?

Eventhorizon said:
I consider myself to be fairly intelligent and to be able to follow most ideas and train of thought.
This is beyond me though. I have no idea what this discussion is about. Due in part perhaps to lack of interest in what's being discussed. Kind of like next year's fashions.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem may be that the topic is framed in terms of a particular historical philosophical discussion. I haven't read any Popper for many years, so until I get that sorted, the terminology is a little impenetrable.

However, juxtaposing consent/dissent in terms of evidence based fact should at least give you a sense of the scope of the topic. The political aspect involves aspects of freedoms, coercion, and communication: is it legitimate to tolerate factual error, or in this case, to tolerate the toleration of factual error.

In terms of what this applies to, a current topic may be things like "false news" and the involvement of government. It also involves issues of "freedom of conscience" and toleration of opinions.
 
Sandie33 said:
Could you expand for me how you view consent as a tool to soothe the weak. and, Who is the 'weak' in your reference?

@wolly.green can you clarify this?
Reading through it implies that there should be no set rule in scientific pursuit ... wouldn't that breed a sect of 'mad' scientists experimenting on anyone and anything in the name of progress??
Click to expand...

I mean to prevent a scientist from having a dissenting opinion. I havent thought about the fundamentals of ethics though, so I won't comment.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Part of the problem may be that the topic is framed in terms of a particular historical philosophical discussion. I haven't read any Popper for many years, so until I get that sorted, the terminology is a little impenetrable.

However, juxtaposing consent/dissent in terms of evidence based fact should at least give you a sense of the scope of the topic. The political aspect involves aspects of freedoms, coercion, and communication: is it legitimate to tolerate factual error, or in this case, to tolerate the toleration of factual error.

In terms of what this applies to, a current topic may be things like "false news" and the involvement of government. It also involves issues of "freedom of conscience" and toleration of opinions.
Click to expand...

I should probably clarify. This discussion also applies to every day choices. My question is actually "why is it so important to protect the right to choose?"
 
@Sandie33 consent is a tool for the weak because strong people can just resist and "shake off" the unwanted activity of others. An example would be if a woman tried to rape me then I would just punch her in the nose. I'd never have to bring up that I didn't consent, it never got that far.
 
the said:
@Sandie33 consent is a tool for the weak because strong people can just resist and "shake off" the unwanted activity of others. An example would be if a woman tried to rape me then I would just punch her in the nose. I'd never have to bring up that I didn't consent, it never got that far.
Click to expand...
I see. Thank you for clarifying for me. :-)
 
the said:
@Sandie33 consent is a tool for the weak because strong people can just resist and "shake off" the unwanted activity of others. An example would be if a woman tried to rape me then I would just punch her in the nose. I'd never have to bring up that I didn't consent, it never got that far.
Click to expand...
lololol
Good point. I wish someone would have sooner explained it to me as well as you have.
 
the said:
@Sandie33 consent is a tool for the weak because strong people can just resist and "shake off" the unwanted activity of others. An example would be if a woman tried to rape me then I would just punch her in the nose. I'd never have to bring up that I didn't consent, it never got that far.
Click to expand...

Ok, but why characterize consent in this manor? What problem do you solve by depicting consent as a tool for the weak?
 
wolly.green said:
What? Why is your characterization of consent interesting? What problem does it solve?
Click to expand...

I do not know why you are under the impression that something needs to be interesting or that it needs to solve a problem, I do not believe that either is a necessity. I'm just telling you about consent.
 
the said:
I do not know why you are under the impression that something needs to be interesting or that it needs to solve a problem, I do not believe that either is a necessity. I'm just telling you about consent.
Click to expand...

Because the only way to critically analyse a conjecture is to discuss the problem it solves; without a problem, there is nothing to discuss. This is what critical thinking means?
 
wolly.green said:
Because the only way to critically analyse a conjecture is to discuss the problem it solves; without a problem, there is nothing to discuss. This is what critical thinking means?
Click to expand...
Ha that is very limited thinking.
 
Last edited:
wolly.green said:
Oh please. You've contributed nothing. Well done
Click to expand...
@the does make a point. Emphasising consent promotes passivity. (Termed weakness).

Passivity does not respond to problems with ingenuity and action, but with resistance.

Surely progress is more a matter of initiative and action, than of resistance and passivity.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
@the does make a point. Emphasising consent promotes passivity. (Termed weakness).

Passivity does not respond to problems with ingenuity and action, but with resistance.

Surely progress is more a matter of initiative and action, than of resistance and passivity.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Progress can't happen at all if the means of error correction is removed. For example, why would you allow a single institution to determine what the scientific community can do? The same logic applies to consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top