LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

One's freedom ends where the rights of another being begin.

I'm sure we all agree (as does the Federation ). The problem, I believe, is that while we can all agree on this basic ethical value, and agree to view it as our guide, that doesn't offer an easy answer to any of the questions raised; about where and when one's integrity is being breached, where one is being granted unfair license or being unfairly repressed, where the freedom of the individual stands relative to the freedom of those around him. When we're dealing with dozens of species on top of that, some of whom are going to have biological or other quirks that complicate matters further... it does make me wonder: where does the UFP stand?

As the Vulcans say, wield the sharpest blade with the greatest care. Yet being overly careful is stifling, and the UFP should not be stifling, but free and diverse and challenging.

PS: This is partly why I reject the idea that the UFP should ever be presented as a "utopia".

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.

Ah, but that quote itself points to what is perhaps the central dilemma here - swinging your arm is an active, conscious decision, an action. An Orion's pheromone output and its effect on others is not conscious action, not chosen activity but inherent ability. That does not make it any less dangerous, any less powerful, any less problematic, but it means that an ethical and social code geared toward response to, or control of, overt action and active power is less equipped to handle it, perhaps?

I can choose to swing my fist, so it's not that hard to come up with an idea of where and when it is "acceptable" for me to do so, and where and when it's "unacceptable". But an Orion woman can't choose where and when to release her pheromones, which makes issues of responsibility far harder, perhaps, to get a grip on. It is not her action, it is she herself that is "the problem", whether people want to see it that way or not.

I do sympathise with Christopher apparently considering responsibility in those around her to control their response to be the lesser of two evils and preferable to anything that might attack someone for being what they are, cannot help and shouldn't be ashamed of, but I'm not so sure. I think, though, that your quote, hbquikcomjamesl, has pointed us to the core of the original dilemma.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

An Orion's pheromone output and its effect on others is not conscious action, not chosen activity but inherent ability. That does not make it any less dangerous, any less powerful, any less problematic, but it means that an ethical and social code geared toward response to, or control of, overt action and active power is less equipped to handle it, perhaps?

Of course Orions (and Deltans) can't help but be what they are. That's not being questioned. But they can take steps to remedy the situation. Just like a Medusan accepts that it will have to travel around in a container, but on a smaller scale.

Assuming that any inhibitor they take isn't harmful to their health, I don't see a problem here. Orions will obviously never have any reason to use their 'Orion abilities' while in Starfleet, and Deltan sexuality only applies to other Deltans, so expecting that they will reduce their species' attributes for the sake of the fleet does not seem to be out of line.

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I suppose rather than require an Orion female to suppress pheromones, there could be easily-available pheromone blockers that people could discreetly take if there are Orions around? That would sit more easily with me.

I overlooked this part before, and it's just what I was thinking myself. Why should it be the female's responsibility to change her nature? Why shouldn't it be men's responsibility to govern their own reaction to her nature?.

Because she's the one drugging them.

No, she's not, and that's an ethnocentric way of defining it. She's just emitting a natural attractant chemical of her species, one that other species happen to be susceptible to. Yes, it's possible for her to abuse that advantage, but that's a failing of behavior, not biology. We've seen Orion females who can choose not to exploit their advantages in that way, like Treir or Devna (as of "The Time Trap"). They don't deserve to be penalized for the way other Orions abuse their natural assets. We've seen Vulcans abuse their telepathic abilities to force themselves on other people once or twice; does that mean that all Vulcans should have their telepathic centers lobotomized? Or does it just mean that they should be held to the same laws that apply to everyone else, laws that address what they do to other people rather than what attributes they're allowed to have?

While, like I said, I'm basically in agreement with you, what you say here does makes me uncomfortable. It comes across as a desire to avoid having to assign responsibility to the Orion and instead deflect all responsibility onto the people around her; insisting that she has license, while they have responsibility. They must simply accept the imposition she brings without complaint, and if they do complain it's their own fault, for not being responsible enough.

No, they both have responsibility for their own actions and choices, and they both have liberty simply to be what they naturally are. The problem here is that you're blurring the questions of what someone is and what they do.

More importantly, we have to remember that these are fictions that symbolize real-world concerns. And in the real world, the state does not have the right to try to control women's bodies or their sexual choices. And in the real world, no matter how attractive a woman is, men need to keep in mind their own responsibility to govern their own behavior, rather than claiming, as so many men do, that a woman's attractiveness or attire is a legitimate justification to harass or assault her sexually. Sure, in fiction, you can say that the Orion female is the aggressor or the victimizer, but that comes uncomfortably close to some real-world attitudes and stereotypes that do a great deal of harm to women.

Why must they be responsible even with pheromones clogging up their every pore, but she can't possibly be expected to act to ensure that she isn't having that effect on everyone to begin with? Why is her natural state of pheromone production sacrosanct but everyone else's natural state of clear-headedness not?

You're skewing the issue quite dishonestly here. As I said, they're both responsible for their behavior, their choices. Neither one has the liberty to impose on the other, whether through the Orion female's advantage of pheromones or the male's advantage of greater physical strength. Both have biological advantages, and both are responsible for making sure they don't use those advantages to violate the other's rights. And the state has just as much responsibility to make sure it doesn't violate either of their rights by trying to regulate what biological attributes they're allowed to have.

An Orion's pheromone output and its effect on others is not conscious action, not chosen activity but inherent ability.

Not entirely true. As I said, pheromones aren't secreted constantly at a steady level. Pheromones are hormones transmitted beyond the body, and hormone release is stimulated by a variety of factors, such as sexual arousal and attraction. You give off pheromones when you're interested in attracting someone; it's a function of your mental and emotional state. So as I suggested before, an Orion who learned to manage her emotional and mental state, her reactions to other people, could have some degree of control over how strong her pheromonal secretion was. Conversely, it may be that Orions who choose to use their pheromones to exert control over others learn ways to amplify their arousal and intensify their pheromonal control. One simple way is to actively approach and seduce someone -- getting physically close would give them a stronger whiff of pheromones, and the activity of seduction would increase the woman's arousal and cause her to secrete even more strongly. Conversely, an Orion could reduce her pheromonal influence over someone simply by staying at a polite distance from them. Or she could rein it in simply by dressing more modestly, covering more of her skin in the areas containing the apocrine glands (e.g. the underarms and chest). So yes, it is very much within the woman's control.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Yes, it's possible for her to abuse that advantage, but that's a failing of behavior, not biology. We've seen Orion females who can choose not to exploit their advantages in that way, like Treir or Devna (as of "The Time Trap"). They don't deserve to be penalized for the way other Orions abuse their natural assets. We've seen Vulcans abuse their telepathic abilities to force themselves on other people once or twice; does that mean that all Vulcans should have their telepathic centers lobotomized? Or does it just mean that they should be held to the same laws that apply to everyone else, laws that address what they do to other people rather than what attributes they're allowed to have?

Like I said, I agree. I have no disagreement with anything you've written there.

Though I will point out that some people would consider being exposed to potent pheromones itself an imposition, no different from some people finding propositions to mate offensive. Getting a free pass on being sexually aggressive because it's biology not a choice is precisely the problem.

While, like I said, I'm basically in agreement with you, what you say here does makes me uncomfortable. It comes across as a desire to avoid having to assign responsibility to the Orion and instead deflect all responsibility onto the people around her; insisting that she has license, while they have responsibility. They must simply accept the imposition she brings without complaint, and if they do complain it's their own fault, for not being responsible enough.

No, they both have responsibility for their own actions and choices, and they both have liberty simply to be what they naturally are. The problem here is that you're blurring the questions of what someone is and what they do.

More importantly, we have to remember that these are fictions that symbolize real-world concerns. And in the real world, the state does not have the right to try to control women's bodies or their sexual choices. And in the real world, no matter how attractive a woman is, men need to keep in mind their own responsibility to govern their own behavior, rather than claiming, as so many men do, that a woman's attractiveness or attire is a legitimate justification to harass or assault her sexually. Sure, in fiction, you can say that the Orion female is the aggressor or the victimizer, but that comes uncomfortably close to some real-world attitudes and stereotypes that do a great deal of harm to women.

With the greatest respect, I believe that some of what you're saying comes uncomfortably close to real-world attitudes, stereotypes and biases that cause great harm to men, women and all manner of people, or at least is suggestive of them. But if I may be excused a personal opinion here, this wouldn't be the first time you've ignored "real world concerns" that fall outside a rather specific ideological view of matters pertaining to certain issues. In fact, that's more or less why, despite being in general agreement with you, I felt like poking around some more. You don't seem to realize that in being oh-so-careful to avoid stepping on the toes of certain people you potentially offend others; others who, somehow, are either not granted the same respect or, quite possibly, are in fact the ones actually being granted respect. (I mean, that you respect me is not in doubt, because you're willing to challenge me and argue with me; others I'm not so sure), and that avoiding certain ideas and tropes because they can suggest potentially harmful stereotypes or attitudes means you've made a stance that potentially reinforces other potentially harmful stereotypes and attitudes.

But then when people suggest that, you're willing to fight and argue in a way that you don't when faced with another set of potential "real world concerns".

Neither one has the liberty to impose on the other, whether through the Orion female's advantage of pheromones or the male's advantage of greater physical strength. Both have biological advantages, and both are responsible for making sure they don't use those advantages to violate the other's rights.

Yes, but the point is that to use greater physical strength requires action; in other words, for someone else to be affected by that strength requires the person act, whereas to be affected by the pheromones is automatic, no action needed, and therefore considered acceptable. Which may be a weakness of an ethical system geared toward evaluation and control of action and active power, or may point to how much more problematic it is to apply ethical standards outside of conscious action. Given your apparent suggestion upthread that a male responding with sexual interest to a female is imposing even if he isn't assaulting her; well, some might think being flooded in pheromones that alter your senses is imposing even if the Orion has no intention of abusing it. Behaviour might be responsible, intent might be harmless, but and yet people can take offense.

Yet applying the same standard there is out of the question, it seems, because that's a matter of passive biology not action (or active response to your own biology). Which is entirely a legitimate argument and one I sympathise with, but it's also very problematic.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I suppose, since it came up first in subtext and then sprouted openly, I should clear the air and address the subject of being "sexually provocative", and my personal perspective on it, which might in turn explain some of my distaste with what I see as a false liberalism. Please bear with me.

To begin, I do not support any sort of control or social disapproval/shaming system regarding clothing (that is, lack of such) on females; I oppose such systems for several reasons, relating both to the dignity of the individual woman and to wider issues of social philosophy. Trying to repress a person's natural sexuality because it's powerful and potentially disruptive a) doesn't work and, more importantly, b) is at odds with my personal values, as it imposes on the freedom of the individual and simultaneously deflects responsibility away from that individual onto others (I'd argue, contrary to what many would claim, that the practice of denying/repressing female sexuality can be framed as a desire to deny the woman responsibility, rather than to force it on her - she is forbidden from learning how to use, wield and own her power sensibly. In other words, I see it in part as an effort to avoid the spectre of responsibility resting with females, which humans are allergic to almost across the board. Traditional, "progressive", left, right, religious, feminist, etc., all can be essentially summarized with the assertion: "The female is (must be, must remain) irresponsible". It is one of our people's guiding values, whether they admit it or not. The only options as humans see them are repression or license, because female responsibility is rejected by all. Almost all...)

My distaste for shaming of sexuality applies across the board, by the way.

So, someone wants to wear as little as possible - go ahead! Not my place or anyone's to stop you. I don't approve of anyone saying you shouldn't, or imposing rules against it, or judging you for it. But simultaneously, if other people make sexual advances on you, that's fine too. You can't insist that the people around you respond only as you would want them to, and shame or punish them for responding to what strikes them as a standard message of availability (though it may not be intended as such), in a manner that inconveniences you. One cannot embrace this false liberalism of choice while shaming others for their responses to your choice.

If a crime is committed in the process of aggressive sexual advances, then that crime is dealt with on the basis of it's being a crime. Assault is a crime. Harassment - by which I mean genuine harassment - is a crime. Annoying someone or being "creepy" is not a crime. Standards of legal protection, of the defence of the individual rights under law, wisdom that took us centuries to build up, is being torn to pieces in colleges, etc., across the western world (and a certain country in particular) due to instinctive threat narratives and ideological propaganda creeping into actual hysteria (and which certain countries should remember as having afflicted them before). Responding to a sexually alluring unclothed female is no more shameful, wrong or deserving of judgemental societal control than the female's clothing itself, and you should especially agree with that if you're in favour of free and open sexuality. Now, a woman might of course be wearing what she's wearing for many reasons other than an attempt to be sexually alluring, but the message will still send. And people will respond. Personally, I wish they didn't (I have little sympathy for the idea that one's worth is tied to their ability to find a mate or appeal to a mate, and it is annoying). But responsibility is shared equally. Choosing to dress in a certain way is a conscious behavioural choice just like choosing to approach someone, and like the latter it carries its complications and its share of risks (i.e. you risk having people irritate you by approaching you all night).

(The Orion situation is similar, in that it's a sexually-related power that is either being repressed, subjected to control, embraced or allowed to proceed normally, but it's a more complicated situation in that female Orion sexuality actually has a chemical effect on a receptive male - that is, imposes on his bodily and mental integrity through no fault of the Orion - and that the effort taken by the woman in question to avoid this can be seen as more extreme than rules on clothing).

Now, I personally believe also that we should be careful with sexuality, as sexual instincts are powerful, and among the powerful instincts governing sexuality is a great caution among females about being approached aggressively by unwanted males. I therefore personally suggest that men should generally be very cautious about making advances on women, not because they're required to but because it's polite. Because you should think about what other people feel and how you're affecting them. Don't just think about your freedom and desires but about others. The fact that you're not doing anything wrong doesn't mean you should ignore that you're causing potential distress or discomfort. Exercising your liberty doesn't prevent others from disapproving of your choice or strip you of the need to acknowledge the effect you have on others and on others' feelings. Similarly, then, someone suggesting that it is polite for a woman to refrain from showing excessive skin is something I can sympathise with, not because a woman is doing anything wrong by wearing what she likes or somehow shouldn't do so, but because it could be viewed as showing a lack of an extra consideration for others.

Basically, no-one should, in my mind, be asking an Orion to take anything to dampen her pheromones. But if people think it a poor and selfish choice on her part not to, well so be it. And if anyone makes an irritation of himself by pestering her in response to her sexuality, it may be viewed as a poor and selfish choice, but so be it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I notice that Christopher here still hasn't answered the question: Why isn't it more realistic to ask ONE cadet (Orion, Deltan or whatever) to take an inhibitor to mask their own pheromones, than asking all the REST of the cadets to take one so they won't be affected by it?

Like I said, I know a cadet of any given species can't help but be what they are. "Born this way" and all that. I'm not blaming Orions, Deltans, etc. for having pheromones. But why put the responsibility on the entire Academy to deal with it? Surely they should limit the inhibitor-taking to a minimum.

And as I also said, the general Academy population shouldn't be forced to take drugs just in case an Orion or Deltan MIGHT, theoretically, be assigned to them.

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Though I will point out that some people would consider being exposed to potent pheromones itself an imposition, no different from some people finding propositions to mate offensive. Getting a free pass on being sexually aggressive because it's biology not a choice is precisely the problem.

I still object to your insistence on confusing biological reflex with behavioral choice. Secreting pheromones is instinctive. What you do with that secretion is a choice. As I explained (in an edit to my post that you may have missed, since you didn't quote anything from it), it would be entirely possible for an Orion woman to control how much influence her pheromones had on other people by whether or not she chose to get close to them or expose certain areas of her skin. The behavior is distinct from the biology.

To make a real-world analogy, there's a huge difference between a woman who dresses revealingly to go to a party and actively attempts to seduce a man she likes and a woman who dresses revealingly to go to a party but merely hangs out with her ladyfriends (or, say, a woman who dresses revealingly as cosplay at a convention). In the former case, she's actively pursuing a sexual encounter; in the latter, she isn't. This is a distinction that too many men ignore, making them think they're entitled to harass or assault women just because of how they're dressed or how attractive they look. That's why it's so important to keep differences of behavior in mind. Being sexy is not automatically the same thing as pursuing or inviting sex.

So it's very, very wrong to say that an Orion woman is choosing to be sexually aggressive just because her apocrine glands are secreting a naturally occurring hormone. It's what she does about that secretion that determines whether she's aggressive or not.

Yes, but the point is that to use greater physical strength requires action; in other words, for someone else to be affected by that strength requires the person act, whereas to be affected by the pheromones is automatic, no action needed, and therefore considered acceptable.

Please read the edit to my post above. I've explained why this assumption is completely and utterly wrong.

Given your apparent suggestion upthread that a male responding with sexual interest to a female is imposing even if he isn't assaulting her;

You're misrepresenting my words. If a man is responding with sexual interest to an uninterested female, one who hasn't invited such interest, then he's imposing. As I said above, a reasonable man should be able to tell the difference between a woman who wants to be attractive in general and a woman who wants to attract him. Reduce it to simply "a female," as if they were all the same, and that's when you risk imposition through the failure to make such distinctions. Which is the same principle underlying my objection to your assumption that all Orion pheromonal secretion is uniform and unchangeable.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Though I will point out that some people would consider being exposed to potent pheromones itself an imposition, no different from some people finding propositions to mate offensive. Getting a free pass on being sexually aggressive because it's biology not a choice is precisely the problem.

I still object to your insistence on confusing biological reflex with behavioral choice. Secreting pheromones is instinctive. What you do with that secretion is a choice. As I explained (in an edit to my post that you may have missed, since you didn't quote anything from it), it would be entirely possible for an Orion woman to control how much influence her pheromones had on other people by whether or not she chose to get close to them or expose certain areas of her skin. The behavior is distinct from the biology.

To make a real-world analogy, there's a huge difference between a woman who dresses revealingly to go to a party and actively attempts to seduce a man she likes and a woman who dresses revealingly to go to a party but merely hangs out with her ladyfriends (or, say, a woman who dresses revealingly as cosplay at a convention). In the former case, she's actively pursuing a sexual encounter; in the latter, she isn't.

...It's what she does about that secretion that determines whether she's aggressive or not.

A good point. I acknowledge it. Building on this, it would mean that objecting to the pheromones inherently, no matter how sympathetic that position might be, would be akin to what I mentioned above about deriding all unwanted attention as a threat or as predatory behaviour. In other words, the equivalent of deriding an Orion woman as inherently creepy. And thus, not, in my mind, reasonable.

In which case, any argument I've made on the basis that one might feel imposed upon simply by being in proximity to an Orion woman, I consider what you say here a strong counterpoint. I don't feel like I have a consistent argument if I rely any further on the idea that some people might find the pheromone ability imposing. They might, but it doesn't have any bearing.

If a man is responding with sexual interest to an uninterested female, one who hasn't invited such interest, then he's imposing. As I said above, a reasonable man should be able to tell the difference between a woman who wants to be attractive in general and a woman who wants to attract him. Reduce it to simply "a female," as if they were all the same, and that's when you risk imposition through the failure to make such distinctions. Which is the same principle underlying my objection to your assumption that all Orion pheromonal secretion is uniform and unchangeable.

Again, this I see. Of course, many men, many people, are not reasonable, but that's another story, I suppose.

I apologise, Christopher, if I have offended. Like I've said before, you and I overlap so much but we have very different positions in some cases and I feel like sometimes I get tangled.

 

[Jim Gamma]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

May I suggest another analogy here - slightly the opposite of the Orion situation, but in other ways not so much...

As a visually impaired person, if I am not wearing spectacles/using a guide dog/using a cane, I am unable to access the environment around me. I have a choice: Use the devices available to me so that I may interact in society without causing others inconvenience, or don't use them.

If I don't use them, it is still my responsibility to make sure my biological situation has no adverse impact on others - for example by not leading someone across the road, or by avoiding knocking into people - and not the responsibility of others to intuit that I have eyesight problems.

If I do use them, then my visual impairment is clearly visible to those around me. They can make adjustments if they are able - or warn me to make adjustments for those that are not able to make their own adjustments (such as someone using crutches who I don't notice, and would need to be alerted to their presence).

The "social responsibility" goes both ways here - it's on me to make sure that i alert people to the issue and do what I can to avoid causing a problem, and on those around me to warn me if I'm having an adverse impact that I've not noticed.

In the same way, I'd say the responsibility is twofold in the Orion/Deltan/whoever's situation... the individual needs to make sure others are aware (as Ilia did), and that they take actions to avoid adverse impact (in some situations this may mean altering biological responses, or suppressing/enhancing abilities through technology), but those around the individual also need to be aware and advise them (politely) if there is an adverse impact they may not be aware of. (There's a great deal of difference betwen "Are you ****in' blind?!" and "Excuse me, there's someone coming through on crutches, could you step aside for a moment and let them pass?".)

(And to the obvious individuals who'll note that in my situation it's an enhancement of the body's natural capabilities, why is that any better than a suppression of natural abilities for the benefit of others? We suppress our natural abilities all the time by way of deodorants etc.)

 

[Markonian]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Jim Gamma, I like your idea of regarding it as a twofold responsibility, for two reasons. Firstly, it solves the responsibility question neatly, and secondly because I like the thought of people within a society taking care of one another in such a way.

As for your example, it highlights that the "problem" is not only with pheromone-producing Orions but other biological aspects as well.

Christopher already referred to the Casciron upthread, whose venomous stingers were first removed as a safety precaution by the Vostigye Union, before the Delta Coalition considered reversing the law and providing inoculation against the venom.

Furthermore, the issue is not just about major abilities/disabilities of species but may include merely inconveniencing effects. A Vulcan on a Human shiop would take smell suppressant, whereas we could expect a Human (and other 'smelly' species) to take a pheromon suppressant when on Vulcan. The individual accepts a temporary restraint.

(For the record: I'm not saying people mustn't wear sexy attire to prevent assaults.)

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

^(To Jim Gamma) Right. The goal is to balance everyone's rights, with the understanding that everyone also has a responsibility to be aware of other people's rights as well as their own. The point of the "right to swing your fist" statement is that the rights of the individual cease to be absolute when -- and only when -- they infringe upon the rights or safety of other individuals. And the state's responsibility is to protect everyone's rights, which includes taking action against offenders, but also includes not taking action against those who haven't offended. You arrest people who swing their fists into other people's noses, but not people who swing their fists into punching bags or empty air. And even when people do swing their fists into people's noses, you don't immediately default to cutting off their arms -- because even offenders still have rights of their own. They forfeit certain rights when they commit offenses against others, but not all their rights. Individuals and the state have an equal responsibility to keep everyone's rights in mind.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

And once again, we are all, it seems, essentially in agreement. At least in terms of the ideal, though I question the practical application, since people are perfectly fine turning a blind eye to systematic violations of rights so long as acknowledging such violations would threaten their favoured agendas, or impose any sort of restriction upon certain classes in order to curb the abuses. Indeed, they're fine ignoring or downplaying, even excusing, direct assault on the foundations of these legal and moral codes they esteem if it helps keeps afloat the worldview they've sculpted. Which makes talk of rights and balance so much words with no substance. Some of the implications I've seen here come perilously close to flat-out apology for the threat narratives of liars and bigots, which are tearing apart the legal, educational and social systems across the western world and beyond, but because it's framed as itself protecting the rights of certain people, it wraps itself in a faux-righteousness, faux-"progressiveness" that pleads balance while actually sacrificing lives on the alter of approval.

As a final point: I may desire, hypothetically, to wander around naked, genitalia on display. Nakedness is not inherently sexual. And surely you do not suggest I should be ashamed of my body? I may just like the feel of a nice breeze over the nether regions. But many people are going to read it as sexual and thus complain, because they feel offended or threatened (indeed, in this case, I could be arrested). And there is the expectation, culturally and socially, that I not walk around with genitalia showing, regardless of what I think I am doing or what my intention is. Because it bothers other people, regardless of what I want, and regardless of whether I think them silly.

On top of that, and the most important point here, the women who hypothetically shriek that they're being sexually harassed by seeing my genitals on display, deciding that the intention is sexual - and sexually aggressive at that - are in most cases the very same people who would insist loudly that they can wear what or as little as they like and nobody else is permitted to read it as sexual unless they decide it is, yet alone be offended by it. And I know that while I have pretty much no reaction to such even when it is intended to provoke, there are many who find such things rude or a thoughtless imposition. I know there are, because many have said, though they rarely make a fuss of it, because they themselves don't think they have cause to. That's simply how they feel, and many of them seem to agree with me that it's just something you deal with, and that other people shouldn't be shamed or repressed or derided for failing to consider your feelings and responses the centre of their universe. The problem is, that too often those who want to be free from societal shaming or control double-down on keeping everyone else shamed and controlled so that they can experience total license and be shielded from any of the complications and risks that come with knocking up against other people.

There can be no liberty without responsibility. And I think I've said all I want to on the subject. I'll stop clogging up the thread now.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I will also point out that authoritarianism is based on the denial of a "right to swing your arms," while hard libertarianism and anarchism (and Chafee was known as a "civil libertarian" according to Wikipedia) is based on a denial of the "other man's nose" principle.

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I will also point out that authoritarianism is based on the denial of a "right to swing your arms," while hard libertarianism and anarchism (and Chafee was known as a "civil libertarian" according to Wikipedia) is based on a denial of the "other man's nose" principle.

The latter doesn't make any sense to me. How can you expect your own rights to be protected if other people's rights aren't equally protected? People who think of rights as something that applies only to themselves and that entitles them to trample over other people's rights are failing to consider that they're not the center of the universe, that if they're free to infringe on others, then others are free to infringe on them. Thus, the only way anyone can have absolute, unfettered rights is if they live entirely alone. As long as they're part of a community, their rights have to be balanced with everyone else's. Otherwise all you get is rule by the strong at the expense of the weak, and that's only beneficial for you if you happen to be the strongest one around.

And if you are the strongest one around, that doesn't mean there won't be someone stronger coming along later on to kick you out, in which case you won't find the system so appealing. I see all these privileged white people reacting with terror to the prospect that whites will eventually become a minority in the US, but the only reason they see that as a threat is because they've spent so long supporting and reinforcing a system that was biased against minorities. Those of us who believe in a society where everyone is equally protected don't see the loss of our majority status as a threat.

Anyway, I don't think "civil libertarianism" means the same thing as the kind of "libertarianism" you see so much of on the right these days. It means belief in civil liberties and individual rights, and can be found on both ends of the political spectrum. Personally, I believe strongly in civil liberties, but I believe the only way they can be ensured is if there's a strong enough central authority to enforce a uniform set of laws and protections. (Archer spelled out my views pretty well in his address to the Rigelian Trade Commission in Ch. 2 of Tower of Babel.)

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I think I got a little upset here.

There is fault here, and it is mine, and I know of what kind. I should have just left things as they stood, but I didn't. I apologise if I crossed any boundaries I shouldn't have.

 

[trampledamage]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Real world analogies and examples are good but everyone does need to remember to keep the conversation centred on the Trek universe, then everything will be good.

(which, by the way, I think you are all doing and keeping things very civil, so thank you - this is how good discussions can happen )

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I believe strongly in civil liberties, but I believe the only way they can be ensured is if there's a strong enough central authority to enforce a uniform set of laws and protections.

Well, here's something I never thought I'd say: I agree with Christopher.

And on that note, here's my philosophy of life:

Without government, there can be no law.
Without law, there can be no order.
Without order, there can be only chaos.
With chaos, there can be only fear.
With fear, there can be only death.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

FDR's Four Freedoms:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

^ You forgot the fifth one:

Freedom of Skyline Chili