Conster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >And what is the medical basis of this statement. There are many people >who have awakened from prolong comas who remember what was happening >around them, but had no ability to communicate.
Then by definition they were not comatose. They may have been merely stuporous or anesthetized. >>>the woman had no way to consent in a >>>comatose state. >>But also no way to notice, and therefore no way to be harmed, any more than >>the condom had. >Wrong again. There simply is no evidence that the woman's being is >equal to that of latex. I didn't say anything about her BEING, only about her state of consciousness, which is the relevant point. It is impossible for an unconscious person to be bothered about anything, or to have any opinions or make any evaluations or choices whatsoever. All valuation requires consciousness. >>>This is the same argument that might suggest that an absentee >>>landlord's land could be violated, stolen, or used without his or >>>her own consent, since such landlord wasn't present at the time >>>that such property was used or abused. >>I was going to bring up that very example myself, for the opposite opinion. >> If someone uses your land without your ever finding out about it, and puts >>everything back so you never know the difference, how can you be said to >>have been harmed? What are your damages? >Damn.. this woman isn't a piece of property. I didn't claim she was, but that was the basis of another poster's argument. > Do you realize by saying >so.. or even the analogy, it's the same as saying the government can >do anything they want, as long as we don't find out about it. I think anyone should be allowed to do anything, as long as nobody is harmed in the process. All harms are subjective. An entity without consciousness cannot be harmed, because if you're not conscious you cannot compare the "before" condition to the "after" condition to judge the latter to be worse. Comparisons require consciousness. >>All values are subjective; all subjectivity requires consciousness. >Says who???? Me. I don't believe it's possible to harm, for instance, a carrot, because the carrot doesn't mind whatever you do to it. As to the statement that all values are subjective, that's a commonplace in economics, especially the schools of economics usually cited by libertarians. What does "subjective" mean? It means it's based on someone's thinking. How can anyone or anything think that's not conscious? In Your Sly Tribe, Robert in the Bronx _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
