Why is consent important?

[Flavus Aquila]

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.

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.

 

[wolly.green]

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??

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.

 

[wolly.green]

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.

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?"

 

[the]

@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.

 

[Sandie33]

@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.

I see. Thank you for clarifying for me.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

@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.

lololol
Good point. I wish someone would have sooner explained it to me as well as you have.

 

[wolly.green]

@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.

Ok, but why characterize consent in this manor? What problem do you solve by depicting consent as a tool for the weak?

 

[the]

Ok, but why characterize consent in this manor? What problem do you solve by depicting consent as a tool for the weak?

What are you getting at?

 

[wolly.green]

What are you getting at?

A hypothesis is literally useless unless it is intended to solve a problem.

 

[the]

A hypothesis is literally useless unless it solves some sort of problem.

Knowing what doesn't work is also useful.

 

[wolly.green]

Knowing what doesn't work is also useful.

What? Why is your characterization of consent interesting? What problem does it solve?

 

[the]

What? Why is your characterization of consent interesting? What problem does it solve?

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.

 

[wolly.green]

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.

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?

 

[the]

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?

Ha that is very limited thinking.

 

[wolly.green]

Ha that is very limited thinking.

Oh please. You've contributed nothing. Well done

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Oh please. You've contributed nothing. Well done

@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.

 

[wolly.green]

@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.

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.