Wednesday, May 30, 2007


A couple of brothers, in Kenosha Wisconsin, were convicted of child molestation and sent to prison, where they were cell mates. They were discovered in flagrante delicto, and are going to be sentenced to additional time for violating the State's incest laws. Why? They were mutually consenting adults. If one is to be fully consistent, using consent as the standard, one should strike down the incest laws.


Blogger Karl said...

I agree, but I don't necessarily blame the politicians for weighing the value of consistency less than the moral opinions of their constituents.

10:59 AM  
Blogger Octavo Dia said...

The demand for consistency always seems to be something that the opposite side of any debate demands, e.g., the pro-choice people demand consistency with regards to the death penalty. It's probably because one doesn't see the variations and subtleties in the other sides' views. Like the difference between "life" and "innocent life" in the example above.

10:48 PM  
Blogger Karl said...

Consistency is valued by both sides, but only the side that wants to change something has to appeal to it. By doing so they appropriate some of the legitimacy of the existing system to their own cause. Or in the case of existing policies they want to repeal, make it clear that they're attacking just one policy, not the whole system. This makes their arguments more appealing to the system.

5:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home