Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    15 Feb '18 11:52
    Sensible ... or denying people of their human rights?
  2. 15 Feb '18 12:05
    LOL, it is a bit much to say it is a human right.

    There is a clear way around this: leave your current position to pursue a sexual relationship.

    How it functioned in the military for us:

    a superior could acutally marry an inferior without it being fraternization if a previously estrablished relationship could say to have existed and I think there were actually ways to dance around it enough that if you weren't in the same unit it could occur.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    15 Feb '18 12:54
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    LOL, it is a bit much to say it is a human right.

    There is a clear way around this: leave your current position to pursue a sexual relationship.

    How it functioned in the military for us:

    a superior could acutally marry an inferior without it being fraternization if a previously estrablished relationship could say to have existed and I think the ...[text shortened]... ere actually ways to dance around it enough that if you weren't in the same unit it could occur.
    Having sex is a human right isn't it?
  4. 15 Feb '18 13:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Having sex is a human right isn't it?
    heh you're adorable

    no, it's a privilege. one you have to earn by convincing whoever you want it from to give it to you. through whatever means you like.
    it IS a right to refuse sex. that immediately means receiving sex is a privilege.

    putting it simply, you have no right to anything that might contravene with other person's rights.
    a fetus, even if you declare it a person, contravenes the woman's right to her own body, ie freedom. therefore it doesn't have the right to live at the expense of that woman's freedom. you can't force someone to donate organs to someone else even if the latter would die otherwise.

    let me know if you find an example that contradicts my definition. (it is necessary, not sufficient)
  5. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    15 Feb '18 14:08
    Of there’s a differemce between power-level... it should be clear it’s not done.
  6. 15 Feb '18 14:11
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Having sex is a human right isn't it?
    Perhaps if he's never had some he might think that way.
  7. 15 Feb '18 14:36
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    Perhaps if he's never had some he might think that way.
    Ba-dum CHHHHHHHHH...

    But on a serious note...

    This "rights" talk is all silly.

    I don't get why you would act like your ability to consent to sex with others was even a public discussion that had to be legally enshrined somewhere.

    The whole idea that this belongs in the public realm of discussion is, on some level, a bit absurd, and counter to the traditions of the society.
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    15 Feb '18 17:20
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Ba-dum CHHHHHHHHH...

    But on a serious note...

    This "rights" talk is all silly.

    I don't get why you would act like your ability to consent to sex with others was even a public discussion that had to be legally enshrined somewhere.

    The whole idea that this belongs in the public realm of discussion is, on some level, a bit absurd, and counter to the traditions of the society.
    So, you think, if some girl has consensual sex with Weinstein, because otherwise she won’t get a job, that it’s alright?

    What about UN / Oxfam workers having consensual sex with women who are hungry?
  9. 15 Feb '18 17:33
    But see, those are exactly moments where the concept of consent is questionable, and the exploitation of women (or men) is at risk.

    My point was actually just basic, my friend, that calling sex a "human right" is silly in the sense that we should not contemplate the concept of consensual sex being some object of public discussion.

    Forgive the clumsiness of my words, my friends.
  10. 15 Feb '18 18:14
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    I don't get why you would act like your ability to consent to sex with others was even a public discussion that had to be legally enshrined somewhere.
    That's because I haven't said that.
  11. 15 Feb '18 18:16
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Forgive the clumsiness of my words, my friends.
    You're coming across as a bit of prick.
  12. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    15 Feb '18 21:04
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Sensible ... or denying people of their human rights?
    Back on track ....

    How many couples have you known who met at work?
    And how often was one senior to the other?

    Should these liaisons be banned?
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    15 Feb '18 21:26
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Back on track ....

    How many couples have you known who met at work?
    And how often was one senior to the other?

    Should these liaisons be banned?
    Yes. If one is senior to the other, yes.

    Sure you fall in love, etc.
    But then one of you needs to be replaced to another sector.
    Otherwise you can’t act / judge without being compromised.
  14. 15 Feb '18 22:15
    my take is that two adults can do whatever they want as long as they disclose their relationship to HR and sign a waiver absolving the company of legal responsibility.
  15. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    15 Feb '18 23:22
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    But see, those are exactly moments where the concept of consent is questionable, and the exploitation of women (or men) is at risk.

    My point was actually just basic, my friend, that calling sex a "human right" is silly in the sense that we should not contemplate the concept of consensual sex being some object of public discussion.

    Forgive the clumsiness of my words, my friends.
    So, in other words, you're offended by people merely talking about it?