>>
>> Whether might *makes* right is a question for philosophers; whether
>> Might *enforces* Right is not.
>
> Might unfortunately does enforce Right. It's called government. There
> are usually conflicts between rights for any two rights you care to
> name, and even if it is not obvious, then States usually are able to
> override or compromise rights when it suits them one way or another.
> Rights may be stated as absolute but the nature of power in human
> society means in reality there are no absolute rights that cannot be
> compromised if governments wish to do so eg capital punishment. What
> rights get enforced and where are also subject to current societal
> mores, obsessions, and media and public sympathy.
>
> I agree the above manifesto is a tad utopian, as any statement of
> principle usualy is, and I imagine the author probably knew that. We are
> in no position to make demands at this time. I also imagine it was not
> intended to say "there is no child abuse (sexual or otherwise)". Of
> course children can be forced or coerced, just as adults can. The
> central point, perhaps not clearly made, is that children do have
> sexuality and are people, therefore should be entitled to make decisions
> about their expression of sexuality. Just as with adults, this should
> not open the door to being forced or harmed. Society allows children to
> make decisions about quite dangerous things. But not about the
> expression of sexuality, which in reality is now almost a totally
> forbidden area. So all such contact between minors (a definition that
> keeps changing) and older males is deemed harmful, whether it is or it
> isn't. And what we have is a total ban, which means we, as boylovers,
> are pariahs. We can't even come out.
I notice my comment above was not quoted in other parts of the thread.
Are my posts getting through, since this server can misbehave.
Just checking.
#jpj
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|