I didn't consent to that!

By -
Generally, a fatuous complaint.

Among the things I didn't consent to:
  • The law of gravity
  • The number of planets
  • The fact I speak English
  • My birth
  • Males can't bear children
  • Sunrise in the east
  • Having two legs
  • Being mortal
  • Electro-magnetic attraction
  • The evolution of species
  • Having to eat
  • Needing to excrete
  • Nose hairs
  • Needing air
  • Subject-verb agreement
  • Driving on the right
  • Toenail growth
Etc., etc. It is nonsense to complain about, say, the nature of sin as something "I didn't consent to!" and ignore all of these other things one didn't consent to!


Comments

  1. Samson Corwell10:17 AM

    Most of those are bad examples since people have no control over them. Here is a better example: "I did not consent to needing your consent.".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:11 PM

      Why would that make them bad examples? We have no control over the nature of sin, either.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell11:54 PM

      What is the "nature of sin" and why do you use it as an example?

      The rest are bad examples because it makes no sense to speak of consent or the lack thereof with respect to them.

      Delete
    3. gcallah9:32 AM

      " what is the nature of sIn?"

      You might read St. Paul or St. Augustine on this.

      I use it as an example because I recently saw someone on Murphy's blog arguing "I didn't consent to that being a sin," as if that mattered.

      As far as your second point: BS. It makes perfect sense. Did you agree with God or the universe that the law of gravity should apply to you? If not, then you did not consent to it.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more