Rape and morality in popular media

[KrayZ33]

Women by law carry less stuff in Germany? That's amazing. I've never heard of that in Australia.

Yes - though "by law" I mean it's more or less intertwined with the "duty of care" your employer has.
It's not like there is a paragraph in the legal code, but I'm pretty sure that was obvious

here's a guideline (Swiss Confederation), this is for "occasional lifting/moving". I remember seeing a similar chart back in professional school (I think that is the correct english term for that school)


---Age -----------Male-----Female-
14 to 16 Years ---≤ 15 kg --≤ 11 kg
16 to 18 Years---≤ 19 kg --≤ 12 kg
18 to 20 Years ---≤ 23 kg --≤ 14 kg
20 to 35 Years ---≤ 25 kg --≤ 15 kg (seriously, do people know how fucking annoying it is to lift 25kgs when you can't even grab the thing properly?)
35 to 50 Years ---≤ 21 kg --≤13 kg
Over 50 Years ---≤16 kg --≤ 10 kg

When you have to deal with this for more than 4 hours a day, I think it was somewhere around ~12kg vs 7kg. (so basically an increase of 70%). That means a male employee is under less harsh guidelines and can do "more" depending on the job. As silly as that may sound, that might even be the difference a company needs so that it may not need to modernize it's packing area for example.

This is a part out of the regulation in Germany (that is dedicated to handling/lifting weights at work)

"Section 3
Delegation of tasks
When delegating tasks involving the manual handling of loads where there is a risk to the
health and safety of workers, the employer shall take account of the physical capability of the
workers to perform those tasks."

So you can see how the first chart and this come together.

[Buffalobiian]

Yeah, I don't recall anything like that here at all.

When I did some hiking we were told to distribute weight such that we didn't carry more than % of our body mass, but that was a safety guideline not related to work performance - and certainly not categorised by sex.

Your above chart is in direct conflict with gender equality IMO.

[Ryllharu]

The pay gap argument as well as the "STE(A)M jobs need more women!" directive jives directly with the 1970s feminist thought that women should be able to do any job they want to do.

If they're choosing lower-paying jobs because that is the type of work they want to do...that's a different problem. Do you pay Early Education teachers the same amount you pay Financial Advisers? Do you pay Physician Assistants the same amount as Surgeons? What about event planners and people in manufacturing fields? Skilled Museum Staff and Chemical Engineers?

Within the same occupation and experience level, they better be paid the same within a standard deviation.

But you do not send underqualified people into jobs that they're not interested in anyway, just to even out the numbers. Might as well go right back to communism where everyone is paid the same regardless of what they do.

[MFauli]

Moderator note:
This post and the next six below it were copy/pasted from a recent discussion on another anime thread.

The gist of prior leadup is something like this:

-This character thought to be evil isn't all that evil.
-Sounds like they started off with good intentions and then did terrible things in the end.
-That's still evil.
-Evil is a subjective social construct. Some stuff is just immoral. (insert cloning, abortion)
-Immorality is a social construct
-Abortion is evil.

Note that the summary above is to provide context and not necessarily an accurate encapsulation of the respective poster's views.

-Buff.
-(Remainder of this post authored by MFauli)

----------------------------------------------------


Well, this is majorly offtopic imo, but abortion is pretty clear cut evil if you don't bullshit your way through it.

Unless you kill the zygote or later on the fetus, it will become a human being, accidents/diseases aside. Pro-choicers only get to claim moral superiority because they choose to ignore that fact, focus on societal issues (women's rights) over biological facts (the "cell clump" as they love to call it is a growing human being and you choose to kill it) and silence every opposition by screaching "misogynist!".

You can ignore all religious bs in all of that. From a scientific pov, pro-choice is evil, the villains being feminists here. But that can't be said in today's toxic society, so whatever.

[DarthEnderX]

You can ignore all religious bs in all of that. From a scientific pov, pro-choice is evil

From a purely scientific view, masturbating is evil. Cause every time you do it, you're killing millions of sperm that could have grown into human beings.

[MFauli]

From a purely scientific view, masturbating is evil. Cause every time you do it, you're killing millions of sperm that could have grown into human beings.

No, they couldn't. A sperm by itself would under no circumstances grow into a human being.

[KrayZ33]

abortion is pretty clear cut evil if you don't bullshit your way through it.

No it's not - lets proceed talking about this in the context of the anime now.

[DarthEnderX]

No, they couldn't. A sperm by itself would under no circumstances grow into a human being.

It would if you saved it and found a viable egg for it.

If you're not doing that for each of them, you're killing all of those people. You fucking monster.

Point being, your so-called "scientific" cutoff is actually has nothing to do with science and is just your own personal morality.

"This cell isn't a person. Okay, NOW it's a person."

[MFauli]

It would if you saved it and found a viable egg for it.

If you're not doing that for each of them, you're killing all of those people. You fucking monster.

Point being, your so-called "scientific" cutoff is actually has nothing to do with science and is just your own personal morality.

"This cell isn't a person. Okay, NOW it's a person."

No, what you're doing here is an argumentum ad absurdum. But it's easily refuted: A zygote *will* become a full-fledged human being, non-conditionally. A sperm requires lots of conditions, unless we lived in a world where women were readily available to allow themselves get impregnated by any guy who feels like busting a nut.

Again: Pro-choice supporters make up lots of bs definitions and terms to avoid the one central truth: abortion kills a human being.

I would have more respect for pro-choicers if they at least acknowledged that and then tried arguing from there. Of course, that's less pleasant to tell in public, "yes, it's murder, but I believe a woman's right to her body is more valuable than the life of a child".

[DarthEnderX]

No, what you're doing here is an argumentum ad absurdum.

So are you. You just refuse to see it.

But it's easily refuted: A zygote *will* become a full-fledged human being, non-conditionally.

Blatently false. Countless conditions still haveto be met in order for a zygote to become a fully formed human.

Again: Pro-choice supporters make up lots of bs definitions and terms to avoid the one central truth

Again: You're doing the exact same thing.

[Buffalobiian]

I do not think masturbation is evil.
I don't think abortion is evil.
You know, I think that there may even be valid arguments for abortion to be extended to POST BIRTH babies.


Let's lay some foundations.
I'm assuming that killing itself is not evil. My argument does not apply to vegetarians.
Actually scratch that, even vegetarians eat plant life, and that itself is killing.

What makes killing animals and humans seemingly worse than killing plants in my opinion, is that the former have some level of self awareness and are able to communicate this with us.
A "soul" if you will, but basically it comes down to them being higher life forms with more advanced nervous systems, and thought processes plus communication ability to go with it.

So we think "These things (animals and humans) seem to know they're living, and it'd be bad to end that for them."

I'd say that killing humans is more taboo than animals mainly because we display a higher order of the above again compared to animals.
I'm not in the sanctity school of thought that considers humans superior simply because they carry human genes, or are of the genetic group called Homo Sapiens.

If the above thought processes haven't turned you off this post completely, what happens when you introduce a human, or cell that isn't capable of thought yet?

DEX mentioned sperm. And would certainly NOT argue that if you stomped on my chopped off finger that you'd be murdering my bone cells of their otherwise long and happy life.
(Note: sperm have a limited lifespan too in the testicles so they die and get recycled anyway when you don't jack off but we'll leave that for now).

Later on, sperm joins ovum, and now you have a bunch of cells which don't think, feed off another entity, and pretty much fits the definition of a parasite.
Is this living thing, incapable of thought or any higher function sacred? To the point where its rights trump that of the established human carrying it?
Because really that's what it comes down to - killing babies aside in abortion, it's about whose rights matter more. And what's so special about this organism that it has rights in the first place?

Babies soon post birth aren't all that different to those prior, mind you. Their nerves are still undeveloped. They have very limited thought process.
So if you were to "abort" this baby 1 week after birth compared to 14 weeks gestation, what's really changed?


The same applies at the other end of the time continuum.
We lose brain function when we get old. Some don't even seem to be able to communicate or show any signs that they comprehend the concept of life. Keeping someone alive on life support indefinitely (until pressure injuries and infections ultimately take them) is possible with modern medicine.

Food for thought. If you do not believe that humans are superior simply because of genetics, then there's something else that factors into it. Which factors are those? And what happens when they don't apply to our entire lifespan?

[shinta|hikari]

To me, human existence is about logic and beauty.

Necessity and aesthetic, if you will.

Logically, morals, right or wrong, they all mean nothing. It is merely a system that we need to help us survive, such as helping each other, empathy, fairness, etc. None of that means anything outside of the human race. Other organisms don't have morals, but they do have instincts and evolutionary survival tools. In a sense, our logical thinking is our primary resource to survive, just like claws, fangs, poison, sheer resilience, served other organisms.

Aesthetic is another thing only humans observably have. We like art, beauty, and a lot of other abstract concepts. Morals also derive from this. We arbitrarily choose/accept what is pleasing to our perceptions depending on culture, era, and environmental factors. Samurai saw value in death. Other cultures value the individual, others the collective. None of it is "correct". There is no right answer. It is relative to the conditions. At times, this aesthetic is also fueled by necessity. The samurai valued death because otherwise, the noble families wouldn't choose to fight at all, and their society would collapse.

As for the abortion issue, I really think it's just a matter of aesthetic without necessity. Does it really affect humanity in the long run? Not at all. We don't abort enough babies to affect our future survival or our comfort/prosperity. And we probably never will.

It's not a priority.

Food for thought. If you do not believe that humans are superior simply because of genetics, then there's something else that factors into it. Which factors are those? And what happens when they don't apply to our entire lifespan?

This intrigued me, so I wanted to reply.

I don't believe humans are superior because of genetics. We are superior because we are proven superior. We subjugated every other organism (coronavirus pending, if viruses are even considered organisms) on Earth. The value of every other creature under our control is decided by us. That is fact. Vegans, meat lovers, etc. are all just using that privilege to play a game of aesthetics (because we can still eat meat while reducing climate change drastically by just not being fucking gluttonous).

[Buffalobiian]

You bring up a good point about morality being a product of survival necessity. Culture (which I interpret as a higher collective term encompassing various things including morality and social practices) seems to stem from survival necessity as well.

[DarthEnderX]

For the record, I don't think masturbation is evil. I was taking MFauli's argument to a hyperbolic extreme to accentuate how ridiculous it is.