Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:But in your analogy - the train one - both people "automatically assume all responsibility".

I'm not going to argue this point again but it would be nice if you could could not just assert that but show why you think this is the case.

You said that in the universe of your train analogy 'physical' consequences equal both the legal and physical consequences of our universe.

Why is the passenger co-responsible for the driver not hitting the breaks to avoid colliding into the oncoming train? What if some people in the train also die. Is the passenger also 50% responsible for their deaths? Are those people in the train responsible for their own deaths simply because they got onboard? Or is the driver who decided not to hit the brakes responsible for their deaths?

You're changing the analogy. In its original form the only consideration was the physical outcome for the driver and passenger to which you said the physical outcome in that universe is the same as the legal + physical outcome in our universe.

Now you are changing it to where there would appear to be a separate legal consequence which fundamentally changes the analogy.

To which point I'd ask "when would the passenger EVER be responsible for those legal consequences?"

It seems so obvious to me that the doctor, who is the one person who decided where the victim would die or live, is the only one who should ultimately be deemed responsible for that death, especially if the doctor made that choice deliberately for his own personal gain alone, not because he made some error of judgement medically. In other words what happened is what the doctor wanted to happen and he had the exclusive power to decide this.

Apparently we do not agree about this.

purplerat wrote:You're changing the analogy. In its original form the only consideration was the physical outcome for the driver and passenger to which you said the physical outcome in that universe is the same as the legal + physical outcome in our universe.

Now you are changing it to where there would appear to be a separate legal consequence which fundamentally changes the analogy.

To which point I'd ask "when would the passenger EVER be responsible for those legal consequences?"

You're missing the point (which could be due to me not making it clear enough) but I'm not going to argue this further.

Let me try my own version of one of these analogies.

Let's say I go over to my neighbor's house to borrow a tool but he's not home. However, I see his garage door is wide open so I walk in and take the tool. I know there's a risk something might happen to it while I'm using it but I figure he has homeowners insurance covering theft so he'll be ok either way.

So I take the tool and do in fact end up breaking it. I throw the tool away don't bother telling my neighbor what I did. Eventually, he realizes the tool is missing and reports it as stolen. He files a claim with his insurance agency but they tell him that because he left his garage door open they will not replace what was lost.

So by your logic, I don't owe my neighbor a new tool because the insurance company could have replaced it but didn't.

Papa Smurf wrote:It seems so obvious to me that the doctor, who is the one person who decided where the victim would die or live, is the only one who should ultimately be deemed responsible for that death, especially if the doctor made that choice deliberately for his own personal gain alone, not because he made some error of judgement medically. In other words what happened is what the doctor wanted to happen and he had the exclusive power to decide this.

Apparently we do not agree about this.

I guess I don't understand why only one person can be responsible.

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:You're changing the analogy. In its original form the only consideration was the physical outcome for the driver and passenger to which you said the physical outcome in that universe is the same as the legal + physical outcome in our universe.

Now you are changing it to where there would appear to be a separate legal consequence which fundamentally changes the analogy.

To which point I'd ask "when would the passenger EVER be responsible for those legal consequences?"

You're missing the point (which could be due to me not making it clear enough) but I'm not going to argue this further.

I would say it's due to you lacking a point. The only way your train analogy makes sense is if you are either arguing that the passenger/father does assume all responsibilities or if you are arguing that he never does. i.e. Men should never be responsible for the children that come from their sexual activities. That's the direction Willhud seems to have slipped in order to make his argument work. Maybe that is the inevitable end to such a position.

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:It seems so obvious to me that the doctor, who is the one person who decided where the victim would die or live, is the only one who should ultimately be deemed responsible for that death, especially if the doctor made that choice deliberately for his own personal gain alone, not because he made some error of judgement medically. In other words what happened is what the doctor wanted to happen and he had the exclusive power to decide this.

Apparently we do not agree about this.

I guess I don't understand why only one person can be responsible.

In general more than one person can be responsible for something. It's just that in this scenario in my view the doctor's actions remove all responsibility for the victim's death from the driver. The driver is still responsible for the accident and the injuries, not the fact that the victim actually died from those injuries.

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:It seems so obvious to me that the doctor, who is the one person who decided where the victim would die or live, is the only one who should ultimately be deemed responsible for that death, especially if the doctor made that choice deliberately for his own personal gain alone, not because he made some error of judgement medically. In other words what happened is what the doctor wanted to happen and he had the exclusive power to decide this.

Apparently we do not agree about this.

I guess I don't understand why only one person can be responsible.

In general more than one person can be responsible for something. It's just that in this scenario in my view the doctor's actions remove all responsibility for the victim's death from the driver. The driver is still responsible for the accident and the injuries, not the fact that the victim actually died from those injuries.

So he's responsible for causing fatal injuries but not for the fatality that was caused by said injuries? Wierd.

So what's the point of this legal outlook? Are drivers who cause fatal injuries some sort of protected class who need insulation from their own choices and behaviors?

purplerat wrote:I would say it's due to you lacking a point. The only way your train analogy makes sense is if you are either arguing that the passenger/father does assume all responsibilities or if you are arguing that he never does. i.e. Men should never be responsible for the children that come from their sexual activities. That's the direction Willhud seems to have slipped in order to make his argument work. Maybe that is the inevitable end to such a position.

The driver is the one who decided not to hit the brakes, not the passenger. Just because the passenger got into the car, knowing that there is a non-zero chance they they will reach a railroad crossing at the exact time as a train, does not make him responsible. It would be very reasonable for him in this scenario to assume that the driver will at least attempt to avoid a colission and will (attempt to) hit the brakes if necessary. He does not have any brakes to hit and cannot do anything after deciding to step into the car.

You seem to be saying that if he does not want to be hit by a train, he should not get into the car with the driver and that by doing so he automatically assumes 50% of the responsibility for hitting the train, regardless of what the driver does and why.

Now if this was a car with a double brake system with one on the passenger's side (as is required to be installed in cars used by driving instructors in our country), the passenger could have hit the breaks. If he does not hit the brakes either he would in fact be 50% responsible (or rather I would say that both driver and passenger having an option to break are both 100% responsible).

I'm guessing the rebuttal to my previous question will be something along the lines of "why hold the driver responsible?" to which I would respond that I very much so want people who are in a position to cause fatal injuries to be scared that if they do so they will be held fully responsible. I don't want drivers out there thinking that if that cause somebody to be gravely injured that they have an 'out card' in the form of somebody else saving the victim's life.

In short, I think the world is a much better place when people have to fully consider the full weight of their actions.

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:I would say it's due to you lacking a point. The only way your train analogy makes sense is if you are either arguing that the passenger/father does assume all responsibilities or if you are arguing that he never does. i.e. Men should never be responsible for the children that come from their sexual activities. That's the direction Willhud seems to have slipped in order to make his argument work. Maybe that is the inevitable end to such a position.

The driver is the one who decided not to hit the brakes, not the passenger. Just because the passenger got into the car, knowing that there is a non-zero chance they they will reach a railroad crossing at the exact time as a train, does not make him responsible. It would be very reasonable for him in this scenario to assume that the driver will at least attempt to avoid a colission and will (attempt to) hit the brakes if necessary. He does not have any brakes to hit and cannot do anything after deciding to step into the car.

You seem to be saying that if he does not want to be hit by a train, he should not get into the car with the driver and that by doing so he automatically assumes 50% of the responsibility for hitting the train, regardless of what the driver does and why.

Now if this was a car with a double brake system with one on the passenger's side (as is required to be installed in cars used by driving instructors in our country), the passenger could have hit the breaks. If he does not hit the brakes either he would in fact be 50% responsible (or rather I would say that both driver and passenger having an option to break are both 100% responsible).

You're still lacking a point. If both die and that's all we care about then they both share the same responsibility.

If they live and there's some additional legal responsibility then when would the passenger ever be responsible in such a scenario? You have to answer this to make it relevant to the actual topic we are discussing. Either the passenger is never responsible (fathers never have responsibility) or sometimes they do. If you choose the latter then how does your analogy work towards that? (hint: it doesn't).

I predict the only way you can make it work is by further convoluting the analogy as you've done with a double braking system. It should be obvious that when you have to start stretching your analogy that it's a failed analogy. Most likely due to the original premise being faulty.

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:You're changing the analogy. In its original form the only consideration was the physical outcome for the driver and passenger to which you said the physical outcome in that universe is the same as the legal + physical outcome in our universe.

Now you are changing it to where there would appear to be a separate legal consequence which fundamentally changes the analogy.

To which point I'd ask "when would the passenger EVER be responsible for those legal consequences?"

You're missing the point (which could be due to me not making it clear enough) but I'm not going to argue this further.

I would say it's due to you lacking a point. The only way your train analogy makes sense is if you are either arguing that the passenger/father does assume all responsibilities or if you are arguing that he never does. i.e. Men should never be responsible for the children that come from their sexual activities. That's the direction Willhud seems to have slipped in order to make his argument work. Maybe that is the inevitable end to such a position.

Bolded bit: No, of course that is not what I'm arguing. If you have unprotected sex and there is no understanding of some sort between parties that a child is an unwanted result then it's clear that he's responsible. The relative level of responsibility varies depending on the exact scenario.

In the case of the train accident, if the car is owned by the passenger and he has neglected to have it properly maintained and the brakes simply don't work because of that, thereby causing the accident, the passenger would be 100% responsible and the driver 0%. If the car is their mutual property and the responsibility for maintaining it is shared equally and they don't they are equally responsible.

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:I would say it's due to you lacking a point. The only way your train analogy makes sense is if you are either arguing that the passenger/father does assume all responsibilities or if you are arguing that he never does. i.e. Men should never be responsible for the children that come from their sexual activities. That's the direction Willhud seems to have slipped in order to make his argument work. Maybe that is the inevitable end to such a position.

The driver is the one who decided not to hit the brakes, not the passenger. Just because the passenger got into the car, knowing that there is a non-zero chance they they will reach a railroad crossing at the exact time as a train, does not make him responsible. It would be very reasonable for him in this scenario to assume that the driver will at least attempt to avoid a colission and will (attempt to) hit the brakes if necessary. He does not have any brakes to hit and cannot do anything after deciding to step into the car.

You seem to be saying that if he does not want to be hit by a train, he should not get into the car with the driver and that by doing so he automatically assumes 50% of the responsibility for hitting the train, regardless of what the driver does and why.

Now if this was a car with a double brake system with one on the passenger's side (as is required to be installed in cars used by driving instructors in our country), the passenger could have hit the breaks. If he does not hit the brakes either he would in fact be 50% responsible (or rather I would say that both driver and passenger having an option to break are both 100% responsible).

You're still lacking a point. If both die and that's all we care about then they both share the same responsibility.

If they live and there's some additional legal responsibility then when would the passenger ever be responsible in such a scenario? You have to answer this to make it relevant to the actual topic we are discussing. Either the passenger is never responsible (fathers never have responsibility) or sometimes they do. If you choose the latter then how does your analogy work towards that? (hint: it doesn't).

I predict the only way you can make it work is by further convoluting the analogy as you've done with a double braking system. It should be obvious that when you have to start stretching your analogy that it's a failed analogy. Most likely due to the original premise being faulty.

There seems to be no way that I can make you understand.

Papa Smurf wrote:
In the case of the train accident, if the car is owned by the passenger and he has neglected to have it properly maintained and the brakes simply don't work because of that, thereby causing the accident, the passenger would be 100% responsible and the driver 0%. If the car is their mutual property and the responsibility for maintaining it is shared equally and they don't they are equally responsible.

But isn't that analogous to having sex without taking the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy?

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:
In the case of the train accident, if the car is owned by the passenger and he has neglected to have it properly maintained and the brakes simply don't work because of that, thereby causing the accident, the passenger would be 100% responsible and the driver 0%. If the car is their mutual property and the responsibility for maintaining it is shared equally and they don't they are equally responsible.

But isn't that analogous to having sex without taking the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy?

To the bolded bit, yes. That is exactly what I had in mind.

The italicized bit would be more like the man using a condom that is past it's expiry date (and the woman not knowing about that).

Papa Smurf wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:
In the case of the train accident, if the car is owned by the passenger and he has neglected to have it properly maintained and the brakes simply don't work because of that, thereby causing the accident, the passenger would be 100% responsible and the driver 0%. If the car is their mutual property and the responsibility for maintaining it is shared equally and they don't they are equally responsible.

But isn't that analogous to having sex without taking the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy?

To the bolded bit, yes. That is exactly what I had in mind.

Then what's the argument? Excluding scenarios where men are raped or their semen stolen from spent condoms or tissues? Otherwise, if pregnancy occurs then obviously they didn't take the proper precautions.

Papa Smurf wrote:
The italicized bit would be more like the man using a condom that is past it's expiry date (and the woman not knowing about that).

I'd disagree. If the woman is relying on the condom to not get her pregnant then she's responsible for checking that it is capable of doing so. If you're willing to simply trust somebody else then you are accepting the consequences if that trust was misplaced.

The_Metatron wrote:the man attached to the dick doing the fucking is a god damned moron if he believes it.

Ah, OK. The dick (i.e., the man) is doing the fucking. That's one perspective, for sure. In that case, it's all about the doing, which is what makes it look as if the pregnancy is also the man's act or achievement. It's one view of the male role, the sower of seed. Very old-fashioned, even biblical, works like a charm in an underpopulated desert world, and solves the mystery of why some men resist having a vasectomy even when they know they don't want any kids. These are the morons you're talking about.

Cito di Pense wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:the man attached to the dick doing the fucking is a god damned moron if he believes it.

Ah, OK. The dick (i.e., the man) is doing the fucking. That's one perspective, for sure. In that case, it's all about the doing, which is what makes it look as if the pregnancy is also the man's act. It's one view of the male role, the sower of seed. Very biblical, works like a charm in an underpopulated desert world, and solves the mystery of why some men resist having a vasectomy even when they know they don't want any kids. These are the morons you're talking about.

No, it's the topic of the thread. The person who started it could have made it about parental responsibilities but instead, they thought it so important that men above all else need relief from parental responsibilities. So that's what we are talking about.

purplerat wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:the man attached to the dick doing the fucking is a god damned moron if he believes it.

Ah, OK. The dick (i.e., the man) is doing the fucking. That's one perspective, for sure. In that case, it's all about the doing, which is what makes it look as if the pregnancy is also the man's act. It's one view of the male role, the sower of seed. Very biblical, works like a charm in an underpopulated desert world, and solves the mystery of why some men resist having a vasectomy even when they know they don't want any kids. These are the morons you're talking about.

No, it's the topic of the thread. The person who started it could have made it about parental responsibilities but instead, they thought it so important that men above all else need relief from parental responsibilities. So that's what we are talking about.

To be sure: This thread was started by someone just whompingly biblical, to coin a phrase, and he was using a technique known as playing devil's advocate, and is long fucking gone from relevance in the discussion, if not flat long gone.

Do you think I'm disputing that it is what we'd be talking about if we let michael^3 run the show? The thread is addressing precisely that view of the male role, and perhaps covertly adopting it. I would even agree, with some caveats, that these are exactly the sort of men who might, oddly enough, be tempted on occasion to seek relief from parental responsibilities. But this is not the universality of men, perhaps just the very old-fashioned ones, who see themselves in a sort of biblical role. However, this is the modern age, is it not, and at least some men and women have opportunities for more nuanced views of their roles.

If we buy into this view of how some men treat their role, does it mean that all men are subject to that view? No, of course it does not. Some more nuanced view of the way many sexual encounters develop is merited. In avoiding those nuances, you are implicitly buying into that globalized view of the male role, however you came by it. No pun intended. Ah, fuck it. Pun intended.