This and that
True dat. Well, maybe.
I anxiously await Wollstovine's Vindication of the Rights of Goats.
And, of course, keep us updated on your effort to talk a hungry lion out of eating the goat. I hear the Baldatearing Safari Park in China is a place where you might have that talk. Maybe if you bribe a couple of the staff, you can have that discourse face to face.
Would you assert, Max, that animals are of equal status to humans, and should thus be afforded a full complement of what we call "human rights"?
Also, then, what of their responsibilities?
Should you shoot a goat for trespassing on your lawn? ("It was him or me. I had no choice!")
Perhaps you make the point as some sort of jest, but it is at its root a valid consideration. Are you willing to discuss those aspects in order to establish the inanity of consent?
It is relatively well-established that juveniles think and make decisions according to different processes than adults. We cannot rationally expect that different processes will necessarily produce similar results. For this reason, juveniles are forbidden certain privileges, as well as spared certain responsibilities. Indeed, this was a central theme in the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the Missouri Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down the practice of executing juvenile offenders.
Furthermore, civilization has a certain merit in this consideration. Consider what we do not allow children to do—drive a car, go to war, consent to sex, consume alcohol—and ask yourself where in the United States Constitution is such blind equality guaranteed? Indeed, the Preamble to the Constitution reads,
Promiscuous child soldiers driving drunk to the battle front are not indicative of domestic tranquility, suggestive of justice, promotive of the general welfare, or symptomatic of a more perfect union (e.g., society) seeking to secure the blessings of liberty for the present or future. Looking back even to the Anarchists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, one does not find such a forfeiture of the species itself in pursuit of liberty.
We might look at the imperfect result of the American endeavor and ask whether its faults are such that we think it best to plunge ourselves into a libertine chaos akin to what we see in Uganda, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. What say you, Max? Does your sense of liberty demand drugged-up juvenile soldiers raping child war brides (after all, if consent is inane, why not?) in place of our imperfect freedom in contemporary American society?
Well, you can talk to the Jews and Christians, whose heritage has been so influential in the building of our American experience. You can also consider the increased risk of birth defects. And you might also stop to consider the purpose of marriage. Incestuous unions do not fulfill the purpose at the root of what the homophobes refer to as "traditional marriage". Indeed, but for bastardy laws—which, incidentally, are few and far between in the twenty-first century—homosexual marriage does fulfill that purpose:
Incest does not regard the larger group; it does nothing to extend cooperative relations beyond immediate family. As British commentator and radio and television host Mark Steel remarked of Darwin's marriage,
Who dares say Darwin wasn't a genius, eh?
See above. You might as well be saying that there is no difference between circles, squares, and triangles because, after all, they are all shapes. Or, indeed, humans and goats, since they're both mammals.
Whatever degree of humor you intended in that passage is its own consideration. However, you have quite aptly characterized the crux of a deep sociopolitical problem that is not without its relevance here. Many people of a libertarian nature resent the idea that their freedom does not extend to the right to willfully harm other people for no better reason than personal inclination. ("He was walking down the street. It was him or me. I had no choice!")
And that's entirely up to you.
____________________
Notes:
United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.
Mark Steel. "Charles Darwin". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Company. Originally broadcast November 4, 2003.
See Also:
Swan. "China Feeds Live Goats to Lions in Zoo - as Children Watch". NowPublic.com. February 9, 2008. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/china-feeds-live-goats-lions-zoo-children-watch
Kennedy, J. Anthony. "Opinion of the Court". Roper v. Simmons. United States Supreme Court. March 1, 2005. http://supreme.justia.com/us/543/03-633/case.html
Swarm said:
Baron Max would never suggest his homosexual goat love be sanctified in marriage.
True dat. Well, maybe.
• • •
Baron Max said:
Well, you're supporting laws that prevent me from marrying my goats and sheep by using an innane ideal of consent ...while you refuse to demand consent of the goats and sheep that you allow to be killed and eaten!
I anxiously await Wollstovine's Vindication of the Rights of Goats.
And, of course, keep us updated on your effort to talk a hungry lion out of eating the goat. I hear the Baldatearing Safari Park in China is a place where you might have that talk. Maybe if you bribe a couple of the staff, you can have that discourse face to face.
Would you assert, Max, that animals are of equal status to humans, and should thus be afforded a full complement of what we call "human rights"?
Also, then, what of their responsibilities?
Should you shoot a goat for trespassing on your lawn? ("It was him or me. I had no choice!")
Perhaps you make the point as some sort of jest, but it is at its root a valid consideration. Are you willing to discuss those aspects in order to establish the inanity of consent?
Well, there are other laws, too, that come into play in much the same way. We don't allow 15-yr old kids to marry ...that's discriminatory according to age.
It is relatively well-established that juveniles think and make decisions according to different processes than adults. We cannot rationally expect that different processes will necessarily produce similar results. For this reason, juveniles are forbidden certain privileges, as well as spared certain responsibilities. Indeed, this was a central theme in the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the Missouri Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down the practice of executing juvenile offenders.
Furthermore, civilization has a certain merit in this consideration. Consider what we do not allow children to do—drive a car, go to war, consent to sex, consume alcohol—and ask yourself where in the United States Constitution is such blind equality guaranteed? Indeed, the Preamble to the Constitution reads,
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(via Legal Information Institute)
Promiscuous child soldiers driving drunk to the battle front are not indicative of domestic tranquility, suggestive of justice, promotive of the general welfare, or symptomatic of a more perfect union (e.g., society) seeking to secure the blessings of liberty for the present or future. Looking back even to the Anarchists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, one does not find such a forfeiture of the species itself in pursuit of liberty.
We might look at the imperfect result of the American endeavor and ask whether its faults are such that we think it best to plunge ourselves into a libertine chaos akin to what we see in Uganda, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. What say you, Max? Does your sense of liberty demand drugged-up juvenile soldiers raping child war brides (after all, if consent is inane, why not?) in place of our imperfect freedom in contemporary American society?
We don't allow women to marry their fathers, nor do we allow men to marry their mothers ...and that's discrimination, too.
Well, you can talk to the Jews and Christians, whose heritage has been so influential in the building of our American experience. You can also consider the increased risk of birth defects. And you might also stop to consider the purpose of marriage. Incestuous unions do not fulfill the purpose at the root of what the homophobes refer to as "traditional marriage". Indeed, but for bastardy laws—which, incidentally, are few and far between in the twenty-first century—homosexual marriage does fulfill that purpose:
.... [F]or most of history, marriage was not primarily about the individual needs and desires of a man and woman and the children they produced ....
.... Reviewing the role of marriage in different societies in the past ... I came to reject two widespread ... theories about how marriage came into existence ... the idea that marriage was invented so men could protect women and the opposite idea that it was invented so men could exploit women. Instead, marriage spoke to the needs of the larger group. It converted strangers into relatives and extended cooperative relations beyond immediate family or small band by creating far-flung networks of in-laws.
(Coontz, 6)
Incest does not regard the larger group; it does nothing to extend cooperative relations beyond immediate family. As British commentator and radio and television host Mark Steel remarked of Darwin's marriage,
As Darwin pieced his theory together, it caused him enormous anxiety; he became obsessive. For example, he used a similar method to the one he'd used to work out natural selection to decide whether or not to get married. He wrote out two columns headed, "Marry", and "Not Marry". Under "Marry" was,
Constant companion and friend in old age; better than a dog, anyhow .... Charms of music and female chit-chat .... Intolerable to think of spending one's life like a neutered bee.
A biologist's way of saying, "Well, att least I'll get me end away on a regular basis." Under "Not Marry" was,
Conversation of clever men at clubs, perhaps quarreling .... Not forced to visit relatives.
Which may be why he married his cousin. He was thinking, "Well think of the time I'm saving in visiting relatives. 'Cause her relatives are the same as mine. I'm laughing!"
(The Mark Steel Lectures)
Who dares say Darwin wasn't a genius, eh?
We prevent underage kids from marrying. We prevent sons from marrying their mothers. We prevent daughters from marrying their fathers. We prevent sisters from marrying their brothers. See? There are lots of things that we prevent that should be, in the same ideal as gays, equal rights.
See above. You might as well be saying that there is no difference between circles, squares, and triangles because, after all, they are all shapes. Or, indeed, humans and goats, since they're both mammals.
I do! I hate freedom that restricts my right to kill a person who angers me or abuses me. I hate freedom that restricts my rights to exact my own brand of revenge on those who do me wrong. I hate freedom that forces me to pay taxes for things that I don't want or need. I hate freedom that prevents me from spewing forth racial hatred whenever I want, against whoever I want. I hate freedom that forces me to get a license to buy a gun for my own protection. I hate freedom that forces me to drive my car at a restricted speed.
Whatever degree of humor you intended in that passage is its own consideration. However, you have quite aptly characterized the crux of a deep sociopolitical problem that is not without its relevance here. Many people of a libertarian nature resent the idea that their freedom does not extend to the right to willfully harm other people for no better reason than personal inclination. ("He was walking down the street. It was him or me. I had no choice!")
And I hate freedom that won't let me marry my goat and sheep! Yeah, I hate freedom!
And that's entirely up to you.
____________________
Notes:
United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.
Mark Steel. "Charles Darwin". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Company. Originally broadcast November 4, 2003.
See Also:
Swan. "China Feeds Live Goats to Lions in Zoo - as Children Watch". NowPublic.com. February 9, 2008. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/china-feeds-live-goats-lions-zoo-children-watch
Kennedy, J. Anthony. "Opinion of the Court". Roper v. Simmons. United States Supreme Court. March 1, 2005. http://supreme.justia.com/us/543/03-633/case.html