4 ms·

Yea apparently it was so important to the government of Britain to dictate which consenting adults can fuck each other that they would force hormones and essent

by advael 2y ago

Yea apparently it was so important to the government of Britain to dictate which consenting adults can fuck each other that they would force hormones and essentially permanent probation on a literal world-changing scientist and undeniable war hero over it I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults, and it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy. Death to tyrants

billyjobob 2y ago
Turing's boyfriend was 19, therefore not an adult under UK law at the time.
- foldr 2y ago
  The age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16 at the time. As gay sex was illegal, there was no corresponding age of consent for it, but it’s misleading to suggest that 19 was not considered a sufficient age for sexual consent in general.
tim333 2y ago
>insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy If there is zero government you get gang rape etc so it's more a question of where you draw the line.
- chx 2y ago
  whao talk about gaslighting that's not what gp said > it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world He said the subset of governments for which it is true they uphold full bodily autonomy is the empty set. He did not state anything about a country not having a government
  - tim333 2y ago
    Maybe I phrased it badly but I don't think it's insane that there are no governments that do that because there are obvious problems if they did. I guess you could go for full autonomy as long as the other people involved are not pissed off.
    - ozzcer 2y ago
      > I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults Its almost like that's what they said
- advael 2y ago
  Seems reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. By definition, rape of any kind fails the "consenting adults" criterion pretty trivially. I draw the line exactly where I said I do, and the whole "the worst crimes I can think of justify the whole project of authoritarianism because it's simply a matter of degrees" line of reasoning is as puerile as it is unoriginal
rayiner 2y ago
Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. What can override that? For example, you cite this “principle of full bodily autonomy.” Is that a thing that exists? What’s your proof for it. It sounds like some religious concept, except for libertarians.
- CalChris 2y ago
  > Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. That rank populism is what Franklin warned us against and sounds suspiciously like a Leni Riefenstahl movie, except to libertarians.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Franklin was religious and believed man was created by God and had an “immortal soul,” and that God created morality as well. https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-religious-faith https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-relig... (“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.”). It follows from that thinking that there are limits on what the government can do to a God-created individual. God’s law trumps man’s law. But what’s the argument that doesn’t resort to the supernatural? There’s a logical, utilitarian basis for saying that governments are created by societies to effectuate the popular will. There’s no God-favored king or clergy, and biology doesn’t anoint some humans to rule over others, as with say bees, so the popular will should be carried out. Insofar as the people have committed to things like constitutions and laws, of course, that can provide a principled basis for limiting what the government can do to individuals. But OP was talking about some “principle of full bodily autonomy” that apparently transcends any specific constitution or law. Where does that come from? If the people don’t believe in any notion of “bodily autonomy”—or impose particular limits on that concept—what higher law can possibly override that?
    - CalChris 2y ago

by advael 2y ago

billyjobob 2y ago

Turing's boyfriend was 19, therefore not an adult under UK law at the time.

foldr 2y ago
The age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16 at the time. As gay sex was illegal, there was no corresponding age of consent for it, but it’s misleading to suggest that 19 was not considered a sufficient age for sexual consent in general.

tim333 2y ago

>insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy If there is zero government you get gang rape etc so it's more a question of where you draw the line.

chx 2y ago
whao talk about gaslighting that's not what gp said > it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world He said the subset of governments for which it is true they uphold full bodily autonomy is the empty set. He did not state anything about a country not having a government
- tim333 2y ago
  Maybe I phrased it badly but I don't think it's insane that there are no governments that do that because there are obvious problems if they did. I guess you could go for full autonomy as long as the other people involved are not pissed off.
  - ozzcer 2y ago
    > I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults Its almost like that's what they said
advael 2y ago
Seems reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. By definition, rape of any kind fails the "consenting adults" criterion pretty trivially. I draw the line exactly where I said I do, and the whole "the worst crimes I can think of justify the whole project of authoritarianism because it's simply a matter of degrees" line of reasoning is as puerile as it is unoriginal

rayiner 2y ago

Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. What can override that? For example, you cite this “principle of full bodily autonomy.” Is that a thing that exists? What’s your proof for it. It sounds like some religious concept, except for libertarians.

CalChris 2y ago
> Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. That rank populism is what Franklin warned us against and sounds suspiciously like a Leni Riefenstahl movie, except to libertarians.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Franklin was religious and believed man was created by God and had an “immortal soul,” and that God created morality as well. https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-religious-faith https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-relig... (“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.”). It follows from that thinking that there are limits on what the government can do to a God-created individual. God’s law trumps man’s law. But what’s the argument that doesn’t resort to the supernatural? There’s a logical, utilitarian basis for saying that governments are created by societies to effectuate the popular will. There’s no God-favored king or clergy, and biology doesn’t anoint some humans to rule over others, as with say bees, so the popular will should be carried out. Insofar as the people have committed to things like constitutions and laws, of course, that can provide a principled basis for limiting what the government can do to individuals. But OP was talking about some “principle of full bodily autonomy” that apparently transcends any specific constitution or law. Where does that come from? If the people don’t believe in any notion of “bodily autonomy”—or impose particular limits on that concept—what higher law can possibly override that?
  - CalChris 2y ago