I don't think you don't get the context here.
I don't think your context matters. That there was chattel slavery pre Bible is irrelevant. That the Bible ended chattel slavery is irrelevant. That chattel slavery still occurs today is irrelevant. The point is that when one originally becomes a chattel slave, no money changes hands. The cost to the original owner is zero. Historically and now, you get to be a chattel slave when someone takes you by force from your environment and holds you as property, perhaps selling you to someone else later. Either that or you are born to a slave, which would make you a freebee. In either case, for the original owner, no money changed hands with the acquisition. You were either captured into slavery or born into slavery. You came free, plus expenses. There is no purchase price, only maintenance costs. For subsequent owners, of course, the purchase price would have to make economic sense.
I only imagined that you said you would allow legal recognition of marriage of fathers and daughters?
I would allow it. I have tried to explain the difference between passively leaving the law silent on it and actively advocating legalizing it. I don't know any further way to explain the difference.
I actually don't know of any others so far that would allow legal recognition of incestuous marriages, but there probably are such folks.
I understand that you would consider that a threat but I think that your concern is producing figments.
As for women, I can define essential qualities that define them from men.
And the essential quality that distinguishes gays from straights is that gays are attracted to their own rather than the opposite sex. Whatever wiring we have that triggers sexual urges works differently for gay and straights. It's the different wiring, not the behavior. I realize that that's a slimmer difference than, say, the difference between men and women. But the differences among ethnic groups can be pretty slim, too, yet we protect that as an essential difference. They don't have to behave differently, just have different genes or different home countries.
Actually it would be amoral, not immoral.
Not according to Lakoff as he describes the Strict Father Model, the basic model for social conservatives. In his section entitled moral boundaries, he emphasizes the strict division between good and evil. No middle ground, no standing on the sidelines. If you deviate from the path, that's immoral. If you make deviance seem safe, normal or attractive, that's a threat to the community, which is immoral. If you tolerate deviance from the path, likewise, that's immoral. No place for amoral anywhere. You either support the morality scheme or your don't. <g>
Thats not a liberty I will defend.
That's because you expect the legal code to enforce your moral code and I don't. I want it to be silent on moral codes unless there's a victim to protect.
I don't believe a young woman reaches the age of 21 and says hey, I want to bed my Dad suddenly.
Maybe, but that's not the question on the table. The question on the table is two adults. If you want to go after him for incest with a minor, have at it. Let me know how I can help
According to Lakoff, in the Strict Father model, parents raise their kids to be morally upright, which includes self sufficient. Once the child is grown, he's supposed to prepared to stand on his own. The parent loses moral authority over a child when he reaches maturity. Trying to exert moral authority after contravenes the moral authority of the child over himself and is consider not only meddling but immoral. Legitimacy of moral authority is a big deal. (Fascinating stuff. I haven't gotten to the part of the book where variations on the central model are discussed.)
Actually, isn't elevation of individual liberty to a point where its the only consideration - morality doesn't count - a binary view too?
Actually I think I'm less binary. I can recognize both liberty and morality as good things to advance
What I wrote was this:
"You are interested only in the morality factor. I am interested as well in the liberty factor. I judge that the affront to liberty is greater than the affront to morality."
As you can see, I was recognizing both liberty and morality. I gave the greater weight in this case to liberty. You interpreted that as my making liberty the "only consideration" when I was clearly weighing them both, same as you. Now that's the response of someone interpreting from a binary perspective. Since I put more weight on liberty, I must have given no weight to morality. Not me being binary.
I see no need for a clean sheet of paper construct.
The clean sheet of paper matters because any proposed action has to consider the default. Direction of movement matters. I had a discussion the other day with someone who wanted to raise taxes on the rich. She didn't care what the rates were. What mattered to her was that they went up. Direction affects perceptions.
I think the distinction between disapproval of incest and disapproval of people who commit incest is too small to worry about
It is a small difference on the level of evaluating an incident, but it matters when you're going for hate speech. Hate speech only applies to classes of people. (Personally, I don't think hate crimes should be treated as different from their underlying crimes because they target a group, either, but that's another matter.) |
