From kencomer@hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 22:01:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11094 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2000 05:01:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Sep 2000 05:01:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (209.185.241.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2000 05:01:17 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:10:12 -0700 Received: from 208.140.33.251 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:10:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.140.33.251] To: pycyn@aol.com, lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:rape, etc. Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:10:12 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2000 19:10:12.0237 (UTC) FILETIME=[92806BD0:01C01F48] From: "Ken Comer" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4342 >In a message dated 00-09-15 12:48:19 EDT, ken writes: ><< As a non-professional philosopher, I could point out that, if you spread > your legs, you are giving permission, and I would also say that > applies whether or not someone is holding a gun to your head. >> >Thanks. I'm not sure that I would go that far down the line about where >permission occurs, but it does help to make the point about the difference >between permission and consent that I was looking for. Looking at a dictionary will show that -- generally speaking -- "permission" is merely "formal consent." In essence, "permission" is "consent." Looking an on-line dictionary, I garnered the following examples of "NON-wilful" consent/permission quotations: My poverty, but not my will, consents. --Shak. And whispering ``I will ne'er consent,'' -- consented. --Byron. Admittedly, this is a sense of the word that is less customary, but -- viewed logically and rationally -- if you are willing to put any price less than the painful death of you and all you hold dear on something, there is a limit at which you will grant permission for that thing. The nasty saying, "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it" has truth to it. (Later, you should get a dozen Texans to show him how we make a steer from a bull, but that's not pertinent to the neoligism in question.) If *I* pull your legs apart and chain you that way, you have given no consent. If *you* pull your legs apart of your own volition, you have given consent (however reluctantly, unhappily, or under what type of duress). The key element is not your consent. The key is, did I *compel* you? >So the etymology has >a role here, pointing to the notion of willing agreement with the intention >of the act, which is lacking in the forced cases. So what does Lojban have >to offer here? Note: {tugni} is no help. I already answered this and invited a rebuttal based on facts. Simply assume that if it is a "forced case" there is a lack of wilful consent and refer to it as (bapgletu). If you still have it, please put either send my other post back to me or forward it to the egroup. I forgot that the current set-up for the lojban egroup sends to the poster rather than the egroup. la ken.komyr. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.