Nah. It means you are forced into things without your consent. The world isn’t always going to ask if you want something or not. It’d be unreasonable to expect it to. But you should ask for consent before surgically removing part of someone’s dick
In case you missed it, I originally did say that circumcision should require consent. But sadly, being a newborn male, (and sometimes female in certain places and cultures), just means you consent to some things automatically just by existing and being there.
Now, whether that cultural opinion is right or wrong or fair is a whole 'nother argument.
That’s not how consent works though. “Being a woman in saudi arabia you just automatically consent to being raped if you don’t wear a burka” see how ridiculous it sounds? If you’re not consenting you’re not consenting. The fact that it happens anyways doesn’t magically make it consensual.
The end effect of obligations, culture, and circumstances are all just consent - even without your direct permission. If the end result is not different, what is the difference then?
It is impossible to give permission or express willingness without knowledge.
I reject your use of consent in your examples… it would be better expressed as situational realities or obligations of existence rather then mindful permission.
You’re ignoring what they’re saying. They know that. They simply disagree with your definition of consent because, well, its not the definition of consent.
Consent comes before the outcome. If the outcome happens without consent, the outcome happens without consent. The word consent has a meaning and it isn’t “something that happened”
Being born and alive means you just automatically consent to things in life whether you like it or not. But this should not be one of them.
Nah. It means you are forced into things without your consent. The world isn’t always going to ask if you want something or not. It’d be unreasonable to expect it to. But you should ask for consent before surgically removing part of someone’s dick
In case you missed it, I originally did say that circumcision should require consent. But sadly, being a newborn male, (and sometimes female in certain places and cultures), just means you consent to some things automatically just by existing and being there.
Now, whether that cultural opinion is right or wrong or fair is a whole 'nother argument.
That’s not how consent works though. “Being a woman in saudi arabia you just automatically consent to being raped if you don’t wear a burka” see how ridiculous it sounds? If you’re not consenting you’re not consenting. The fact that it happens anyways doesn’t magically make it consensual.
There is no such thing as “automatic consent.” You are forced.
I disagree that you can give consent without knowledge.
You can be obligated by your existence, or your culture, or your circumstances, but it does not mean you consented.
Consent by any other name is still consent.
That is a tautology, and also cyclic and thus doesn’t address the point that you can not unconsciously give consent.
The end effect of obligations, culture, and circumstances are all just consent - even without your direct permission. If the end result is not different, what is the difference then?
Again, consent by any other name.
This discussion is going nowhere without a definition to shape it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consent
It is impossible to give permission or express willingness without knowledge.
I reject your use of consent in your examples… it would be better expressed as situational realities or obligations of existence rather then mindful permission.
Reject all you want. It does nothing to change the outcome.
You’re ignoring what they’re saying. They know that. They simply disagree with your definition of consent because, well, its not the definition of consent.
Consent comes before the outcome. If the outcome happens without consent, the outcome happens without consent. The word consent has a meaning and it isn’t “something that happened”