Moral and legal questions on belting

curious

Milord About consent, I need to remember you that denying freedom to someone is against the UN declaration of right.

What you obviously not understand is, that UN declarations are not a binding law.
Every country can decide if it wants to join in on such a declaration or not. But that is only the first layer of complexity. Even if a country has joined, an individual person cannot claim that right in court. It is for the law makers in each country to make the actually applicable laws.
If for example you had read through the entire article from India, you should have read that it is not only common practice but also considered legally acceptable in that Indian province when a husband compells his wife to wear a chastity belt. While from the western perspective of that article's author that was outrageous, the local judical system has no problem with that. Their issue was, that the belt had caused actual physical harm.

So you can disagree with their way of handling things, but as much as they have no right to tell you how you should deal with things in Italy, you have no right to intervene in their way of living.

Milord

curious

You are on this forum
You have to stick with it's rules. I will not answer here anymore

@Ines can it be moved elsewhere? So we can continue this interesting conversation

Milord

Disclaimer. Had some issues with forum, so topics are not in the right order. But concepts are all here and in the next post. Apologies for confusion

curious What you obviously not understand is, that UN declarations are not a binding law.

Really? I never guessed. Of course it's not an executive law, and must be made as a country law.

Every country can decide if it wants to join in on such a declaration or not.

all countries joined

But that is only the first layer of complexity. Even if a country has joined, an individual person cannot claim that right in court. It is for the law makers in each country to make the actually applicable laws.

Of course. Coercion is a crime in every country.

If for example you had read through the entire article from India, you should have read that it is not only common practice but also considered legally acceptable in that Indian province when a husband compells his wife to wear a chastity belt. While from the western perspective of that article's author that was outrageous, the local judical system has no problem with that. Their issue was, that the belt had caused actual physical harm.

So you can disagree with their way of handling things, but as much as they have no right to tell you how you should deal with things in Italy, you have no right to intervene in their way of living.

I have the right to say that it is wrong. Also, we are not in India. We all came from countries where the basic human rights are enforced.

The declaration of human rights has been signed by all 194 States members of United Nations.
Maybe they are not applied everywhere, but their moral content is universal. Freedom among them.

@curious a thing is discussing this thing in a forum, but if you apply your ideas in real life, you have a problem. This is a friendly advice, then do as you want.

Sin

curious wow okay. I mean I knew we were kinda backward but this is new to me.

To be honest physical punishment went out years ago (in the '90s at least), it's something that would be frowned upon in most corners of society, and certainly likely to be reported if it was ever witnessed.

Now excuse me while I go smack the crap out of my daughter!

curious

Sin wow okay. I mean I knew we were kinda backward but this is new to me.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not arguing in favour of physical punissshment. I just wanted to make the point that lots of issues are by far not as clear as we might want them to be or believe they are, even from a strictly legal perspective. And moral perspective is even more complex.

curious

Milord can it be moved elsewhere? So we can continue this interesting conversation

Yes please, move it.
I suggest topic name: Ethical and legal aspects around chastity

Milord

curious

Or moral and legal question on belting, the first post I opened!

https://unwedchastity.org/d/984-moral-and-legal-questions-on-belting/215

Laura

@Ines @Laura @Bryan could you move the next posts to the thread opened by Milord, please.

Done

dorothea

Laura Thanks to you.

Milord

dorothea just to be clear @dorothea you are welcome to express your ideas here, and sorry for invading your post

curious

Milord But every Western country is against abuse.

The problem you are constantly ignoring is:
While you are right with this Statement, it is actually very vague. What is considered 'abuse' can be very different depending on the actual jurisdiction.

You always make claims why certain things are wrong and illegal and but those statements out as if they were universally true - which they are not.
Unlike you, I never claimed that certain actions are right or wrong, legal or illegal. All I do is stand up against people like yourself who try to impose their values and beliefs on everyone else.
Why do you find it so difficult to accept that not everyone shares your values and your perspective and let everyone come to his/her own conclusion about right or wrong, rather than trying to quieten everyone who does not agree with your Interpretation?
Life is not black or white. If I put out a statement like 'it is wrong to murder someone in cold blood', that appear to be correct. And you would expect everyone to agree, because it is so obvious you are right that nobody could ever disagree.
.... until I ask: Don't you think if someone had the foreseight to see how Hitler would put an entire continent through years of death and destruction, killing millions and millions of people through his actions, that murdering Hitler in 1937 maybe would actually have been morally the right thing to do?

Milord

curious what you seems unable to understand is that there are universal principles that should guide us. What is wrong and what is right should be well defined inside each of us. I’m not interested if in Sudan there is the right to infibulate young girls to keep her virgin. It is still wrong. Freedom is a universal principle.
But let's stay in the moral limbo you want to be.
Here, this place, has rules. Rules that you have to accept. And rules are adult and consent. For you it's fine to respect indian law to enforce a chastity belt on wives, but it seems very difficult to accept rules that prevent you to get what you want.
Can I change what goes wrong in India, in Sudan, or everywhere else? No I can't do anything
Can I critizize them? Yes I can, and I will do.

In Germany, where @dorothea lives, coercion is forbidden. Especially on children. It has been confirmed several times. That's why it is a well guarded secret. So not only it is immoral, it's also illegal. And while I can't stop it (not that Dorothea is forced) I can at least tell. If this disturbs you, it's your problem, not mine.

curious

Milord what you seems unable to understand is that there are universal principles that should guide us. What is wrong and what is right should be well defined inside each of us

No, that is exactly where you are wrong.
You require everyone to agree to the principals YOU happen to consider right but you ignore that everyone has a right to decide for him/herself what principals and values they have and want to follow.
There simply is no such thing as a universal principle. For everything, no matter how widely agreed it is, you will find people who happen to disagree. And they have exactly the same right to their opinion that you have to yourself.

curious

Milord I have the right to say that it is wrong.

Actually no, you don't.
You have a right to say that you CONSIDER IT wrong and you are free to make any argument you like to support your perspective. But you have no right to universally claim something IS wrong.
Your right to having your opinion and freedom of speech has its limits where it invades on other people's rights to their beliefs and express their opinion freely.
If you claim for yourself the right to decide that for example the legal practice in India to lock wifes in chastity belts against their will is wrong, some Indian guy would have exactly the same right to tell you that you must follow his rules.
There is a fine line between arguing for your perspective but respecting that other people have every right to make their own choices even if they are not aligned with your ideas and between trying to impose your views on everyone else. Sadly, lots of people seem to be unable to see that distinction.

Milord

curious so, before each chart, declaration, Constitution, there should be a preamble with “according to us” disclaimer, as to avoid offending a Taliban that happen to be against woman freedom?

curious Your right to having your opinion and freedom of speech has its limits where it invades on other people's rights to their beliefs and express their opinion freely.

No. According to YOUR belief there are no universal right. So since Freedom of speech is not a right respected everywhere, you can't invoke it.

curious There simply is no such thing as a universal principle.

There isn’t, so I can say anything. This is your idea, not mine.

curious There is a fine line between arguing for your perspective but respecting that other people have every right to make their own choices even if they are not aligned with your ideas and between trying to impose your views on everyone else.

Consent and being adult are forum rules. I just happens to agree with them. If you are unable to respect them, administrators can impose them to you. As for my ideas, I'm totally powerless on imposing my ideas outside my area of influence, just remember others that in the countries where they live, ignoring consent is immoral, illegal, and not acceptable in this forum.
According to you I can't? You will have to live with it, because I will continue until the owners of this forum, not you, will ask me to stop.

curious

Milord
You are aware how stupid your argument is, aren't you?
When I claim a right for myself, I must be prepared to give the same right to everyone else. That does not mean forcing it upon other people but give everyone the opportunity to claim the right for themselves. Turning that principle around like you are trying here is absurd.
That is the difference between you and me.
You try to decide what rights other people must have, based on your values and if they do not want to share in your views, you start claiming that only you have those rights. So you are actually in violation of your own principles.

I respect everyone's right to make their own decisions, no matter how much I might disgree. And if I claim a right for myself (e.g. freedom of speech) I implicitely mean everyone can claim the same right. But I never turn that argument around the way you are trying to do.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that not everyone shares your views and that other people have a right to their own values, no matter how strongly you disagree? If asked you can provide your arguments and your opinion, but otherwise it is simply non of your business how and according to what values other people live.
Do I agree with how the Taliban have structured society and the legal system in Afghanistan? No. Do I have a right to say that IN MY OPINION what they do is wrong? Yes. Do I have a right to universally say they ARE wrong and must change their ways? No. Because if I did, the principal of applying equal rights would require that then Talibans also have the right to tell me how I must live.
Or in more simply words:
Do not judge others, because they will then judge you. Living alongside each other peacefully requires tolerance.

Milord

WRONG POST. Added to the the previous. Please delete

Milord

curious

For me your are more absurd, while mine is, as much as without success, the use of a retorica image called "paradox"
For you my lack of acceptance of others right to force, rape, kill, put in slavery, and yes, also forcing a belt on an unwilling daughter, is an unnaceptable lack of respect toward the ones that are fine with them. It's true, i can't respect them.
While i can accept some exceptionally circumstances (for example, helping assisted suicide for a terminally ill that asks for it) the general principles are not negotiable. If this makes me a bad person in your eyes, I will find a way to survive your blame.

Also, I have to note that I've answered to every single item you said, while you avoided a lot of mine. Are you unable to challenge them? Post 217 of this thread

Angelina

curious Do I agree with how the Taliban have structured society and the legal system in Afghanistan? No. Do I have a right to say that IN MY OPINION what they do is wrong? Yes. Do I have a right to universally say they ARE wrong and must change their ways? No. Because if I did, the principal of applying equal rights would require that then Talibans also have the right to tell me how I must live.

The comparison sounds far-fetched but I agree, it shows 100% what the problem with a sensible discussion culture is

I have only read the other posts roughly because unfortunately there were a lot of mutual accusations here, but I would like to address a few general points.

Is there a court ruling on whether a minor or adult child is made to wear a chastity belt against the child's will? If so, please post a link. If not, then we can only guess whether it is legal or illegal. I assume based on the laws in most western countries that it is illegal and abuse, but of course I don't know, which brings me to the second point..
Everyone can express their opinion and, if they want, support it with arguments. I express my opinions on topics and others have different opinions. Anyone who doesn't like it or who tries to force their opinion on others has not understood the purpose of a discussion forum
If I take my 18-year-old daughter's phone away at night and install an hour of screen time, even if she paid for the phone herself and is an adult, is that abuse? Or can I demand that she follow my rules as long as she lives with me?

curious

As you only accept what is right according to your values, continuing any discussion is a waste of time and effort.
The likes of you will obviously never stop to try to impose their views on other people, other societies and other value systems. That is the definition of intolerance.
Tolerance is accepting that other people have a right to live without you trying to tell them how wrong they are, even if you disagree strongly. As you are unable or unwilling to be tolerant, you will not get any further reply from me. Waste of time.

Milord

curious

Tolerance find his own limit on intolerance. It is his own paradox, according to Karl Popper

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I know that the paradox of intolerance applies primarily to freedom of speech, but I found it fitting to apply it to those who negates other's basic rights

Lets face the truth @curious , your position of accepting everyone idea no matter how broken their ideas are is impossible to defend. Staying against lack of consent is normally accepted everywhere. You can't challenge and you hide this behind hollow issues. I'm here, when you want.

« Previous Page Next Page »