Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Autonomism

rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 10:19:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm thinking of using this as a value for my neg case for the LD November/Decamber topic (Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization) and I want some opinions on not just using autonomism as a value for this topic, but autonomy in general
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:03:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Isn't autonomy the same as freedom?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:10:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:03:05 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Isn't autonomy the same as freedom?

Not necessarily. Autonomy is basically the idea of "self law," which means that the individual person/nation/group creates their own morals, laws and rules based on what they believe is best. It doesn't mean that they are not under the pressure of a larger entity, such as the state, or a larger political entity, etc., but they are granted certain levels of autonomy in their decisions which are usually guaranteed through laws.

Freedom implies that no supra-entity exists which exerts some form of control over the smaller entity - freedom is out and out play-by-your-own-rules, while autonomy is play-by-your-own-rules-under-our-rules.

That is how I see it, anyways, and in relation to political thought, I think it is the same. In this case, the OP is probably meaning the individual's autonomy from the state; they have the choice against compulsory immunization because the state has laws which guarantee that autonomy.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:12:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If people are actively engaged in a society, the argument of autonomy becomes useless.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:13:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Autonomy, yes. Autonomism, however, is a Marxist movement that tries to have "class struggle" without the class organization (without help from the state, political parties, or trade unions). Collectivism without any way to make the illusion that the collective is making any decisions, in other words-- which means collectivism without a vision of its usual benificiary (it must rely solely on the consequences to each worker as a result of their strategy, which is good for us capitalists :) ), and without a coherent strategy for accomplishing anything.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:14:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
the "autonomy, yes" was directed at Rezz.

Srsly, two more posts, and neither knows how to use teh google?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:16:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:14:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
the "autonomy, yes" was directed at Rezz.

Srsly, two more posts, and neither knows how to use teh google?

Lol, I didn't even know. Woops.

But, good thing you brought it up. I don't think the OP means that Marxist ideology though, and just confused her words. At least, I think that is what happened; I don't see how you can argue for or against compulsory immunization with something pertaining to class struggles.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:20:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:10:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
[F]reedom is out and out play-by-your-own-rules, while autonomy is play-by-your-own-rules-under-our-rules.

Well then autonomy/autonomism is a meaningless phrase. It's kind of like what keithkroger (I believe it was him, if it was him, can't remember exactly the spelling or the numbers) said about hate speech:

Dude what do you think freedom of speech is for?
Freedom of speech protects "hate speech".
Speech that doesn't offend anybody does not need protection.

Also what speech will be considered hate speech? Will speaking out against Gay marriage be classified as hateful?

Banning hate speech is a very slippery slope.

Using the same format: what is autonomy for? Autonomy is for going against the rules and laws in place. Autonomy that can't (regardless of whether or not it desires to) ever break the norm does not need such a name,
autonomy is play-by-your-own-rules-under-our-rules.
autonomy would simply be "play-under-our-rules", autonomy would not be autonomous in any distinguishable way. Or, in other words, all that is called autonomy under that definition is simply an illusion.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:21:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Are you kidding? "The bourgeois stick us in their cities, then they want to profit off the vaccines they make? Pshaw! We will take the vaccine and shoot the bourgeois in the face if they do not produce it for free! And we will do the same if they do not pay for the medical care of those who would rather not be immunized! The bourgeois deserve nothing better, the disease is all their fault, for their factories and such."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:20:31 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
autonomy would simply be "play-under-our-rules", autonomy would not be autonomous in any distinguishable way. Or, in other words, all that is called autonomy under that definition is simply an illusion.

Since you retain the ability to go against the state, damned of the consequences, positive or not, you are 'autonomous' still. Your ability to make decisions separate from the entity that controls you is what defines you as autonomous.

But, it is kind of like the difference between 'sovereign' and 'separate' that so many Quebec nationalists put around. What is the real difference? Either way, Quebec is not apart of Canada, right? Well, the difference is that a sovereign Quebec can still technically exist under the Canadian federation, but have control over most, if not all, domestic and even international policies - separate means a completely different country separate from Canada.

Fuzzy difference, but there is a difference. And you may call it an illusion if you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it false.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:34:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:21:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Are you kidding? "The bourgeois stick us in their cities, then they want to profit off the vaccines they make? Pshaw! We will take the vaccine and shoot the bourgeois in the face if they do not produce it for free! And we will do the same if they do not pay for the medical care of those who would rather not be immunized! The bourgeois deserve nothing better, the disease is all their fault, for their factories and such."

Lol, I would sig that if it wasn't so long.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:37:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:33:45 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/17/2009 11:20:31 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
autonomy would simply be "play-under-our-rules", autonomy would not be autonomous in any distinguishable way. Or, in other words, all that is called autonomy under that definition is simply an illusion.

Since you retain the ability to go against the state, damned of the consequences, positive or not, you are 'autonomous' still. Your ability to make decisions separate from the entity that controls you is what defines you as autonomous.
Oh, so autonomy was the word for the fake freedom. I will keep that in mind.

Fuzzy difference, but there is a difference. And you may call it an illusion if you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it false.

lol okay, just like how not all cults are bad...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:38:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:37:04 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Oh, so autonomy was the word for the fake freedom. I will keep that in mind.

I call it 'Freedom Lite.'

lol okay, just like how not all cults are bad...

They aren't. Join us.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:42:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's called "Freedom FAIL."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:45:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:38:12 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/17/2009 11:37:04 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Oh, so autonomy was the word for the fake freedom. I will keep that in mind.

I call it 'Freedom Lite.'

Just like how light beer isn't beer except for people who know nothing about beer.

I like it. I like it a lot.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 11:56:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You know this all goes under the assumption that any of us are actually 'free' anyways, which is a tricky question in and of itself. You can easily have freedoms, or rights, but can you ever actually be free? And I don't just mean free from the control of the state. I mean free. Free from everything. Social qualms, the affects of other individuals on you, gravity, the need for oxygen to survive... basically, can you ever be free from reality?

I don't think so. Which makes us autonomous in regards to the reality outside our heads. But, that is for another time, another discussion, I suppose.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 12:02:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:56:17 AM, Volkov wrote:
You know this all goes under the assumption that any of us are actually 'free' anyways, which is a tricky question in and of itself. You can easily have freedoms, or rights, but can you ever actually be free? And I don't just mean free from the control of the state. I mean free. Free from everything. Social qualms, the affects of other individuals on you, gravity, the need for oxygen to survive... basically, can you ever be free from reality?

It is said that ignorance is bliss.
The only truly ignorant are the dead, because even the schizophrenics need to eat.
So yes, you can be free from reality. You get out of it. By dying.

But that's not what I mean when I say freedom.
It's probably why I'm not a romantic.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 12:11:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 12:02:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It is said that ignorance is bliss.
The only truly ignorant are the dead, because even the schizophrenics need to eat.
So yes, you can be free from reality. You get out of it. By dying.

Ah, but is that actually freedom? By dying, you're no longer able to exercise freedom, because you're dead; you're confined by your deceased state. It actually isn't even autonomy, because you can make zero decisions. I wouldn't call death freedom.

But that's not what I mean when I say freedom.

Ah, I know what you mean usually by 'freedom.' I was just going out on a line of weird thought.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 12:13:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Parents, quite rightly, do not enjoy complete "freedom" or "autonomy" over their children.

If they neglect them or abuse them, they will, quite rightly, been warned, advised and, ultimately, punished for their misdeeds.

Also, religious headcases such as Jehovah's Witnesses whose children have been injured have refused to give permission to doctors to supply them with urgent blood transfusions but, by time the courts have found against them, their kids have died. Total bastards! Those poor little tots didn't choose to be brought up by religious nutjobs and they certainly didn't deserve to die for their parents' misguided beliefs.

So isn't denying your kids vital vaccines as similar dereliction of parental duty? For once, let's put the children's' interests above their parents' "right" to autonomy.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 1:00:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 11:56:17 AM, Volkov wrote:
You know this all goes under the assumption that any of us are actually 'free' anyways, which is a tricky question in and of itself. You can easily have freedoms, or rights, but can you ever actually be free? And I don't just mean free from the control of the state. I mean free. Free from everything.
see, that's just it. None of this goes under that assumption because freedom from the control of the state is what we are talking about. A freedom from nature is meaningless.

So isn't denying your kids vital vaccines as similar dereliction of parental duty? For once, let's put the children's' interests above their parents' "right" to autonomy.
It's the children's right to autonomy I'm concerned with. The parents can bugger off if the kids can find a willing doctor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 1:12:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 1:00:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
see, that's just it. None of this goes under that assumption because freedom from the control of the state is what we are talking about. A freedom from nature is meaningless.

I wouldn't call it "meaningless" overall, but I'm quite aware we're just talking about political freedom. As I said, I went off on a different tangent because, well, its fun.

It's the children's right to autonomy I'm concerned with. The parents can bugger off if the kids can find a willing doctor.

This is assuming that the children can even exercise that right to autonomy properly. If they can't, who gets the proper say; the state, who are advocating a measure that is widely accepted as the best way to prevent this disease and possible death, or the parents who have both legal and moral justification for taking on responsibility for decision-making with regards to the child?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 4:10:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is assuming that the children can even exercise that right to autonomy properly
No, that's the whole point of calling it a right. That it doesn't particularly matter whether you think their decision proper or not, the decision remains theirs.

If they can't, who gets the proper say; the state, who are advocating a measure that is widely accepted as the best way to prevent this disease and possible death, or the parents who have both legal and moral justification for taking on responsibility for decision-making with regards to the child?
Neither. The parents have no such moral justification, and "wide acceptance" is a subjective term. The child gets the decision, whether they are good at making it or not-- and the consequences are to be laid at their feet, so they'd best learn to make it well. Such is justice.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 4:15:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 4:10:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, that's the whole point of calling it a right. That it doesn't particularly matter whether you think their decision proper or not, the decision remains theirs.

The problem with that is whether or not the "right" even exists. Children are guaranteed rights to protection from abuse, and all of that stuff, and if they're seen as competent enough, they can exercise even more rights - but I don't see where it necessarily says that a child has specific rights to have a say in certain things, especially when they're at a young age.

Neither. The parents have no such moral justification, and "wide acceptance" is a subjective term. The child gets the decision, whether they are good at making it or not-- and the consequences are to be laid at their feet, so they'd best learn to make it well. Such is justice.

Children don't understand the consequences of anything. Some might not get a flu shot on the basis that the needle looks sharp. You're placing a burden on someone that can't understand the burden.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 4:27:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 4:15:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/17/2009 4:10:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, that's the whole point of calling it a right. That it doesn't particularly matter whether you think their decision proper or not, the decision remains theirs.

The problem with that is whether or not the "right" even exists.
So a child should not be able to decide their future?

Children are guaranteed rights to protection from abuse
Protection? Who is to provide it, who is enslaving the right?

and if they're seen as competent enough, they can exercise even more rights
Someone who is completely incompetent has no rights, no interests, and their fate is no one's concern. If one has the faculty of reason, one has all the rights that entails. By what reason does one propose slicing them up? Why would anyone be concerned with any "rights" of a given person, if one does not submit that one has the right to subject one's own life to one's own mind?

Neither. The parents have no such moral justification, and "wide acceptance" is a subjective term. The child gets the decision, whether they are good at making it or not-- and the consequences are to be laid at their feet, so they'd best learn to make it well. Such is justice.

Children don't understand the consequences of anything.
Then why don't they stick their hands on a hot stove more than once? :P

You're placing a burden on someone that can't understand the burden.
It's not a burden, it's a power. They are quite free to blindly obey whoever they wish, if they wish. A burden would involve me telling them what they have to do.

If you mean the consequences, it's them that place that burden by their actions, and nature that enforces it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 4:40:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 4:27:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So a child should not be able to decide their future?

I never said that; I questioned whether the right exists right now, as it currently stands; or, if the right does exist, can it be exercised properly by a child?

Protection? Who is to provide it, who is enslaving the right?

If we're going to get into this no-one-should-protect-anyone-without-signed-contracts thing, I'm not going to even bother. You know the protections afforded to children - I don't think I need to continue on.

Someone who is completely incompetent has no rights, no interests, and their fate is no one's concern. If one has the faculty of reason, one has all the rights that entails. By what reason does one propose slicing them up? Why would anyone be concerned with any "rights" of a given person, if one does not submit that one has the right to subject one's own life to one's own mind?

That is a very dangerous position to take. It invalidates the idea that despite the circumstances, any individual has rights that they are afforded; are you saying that because someone is mentally handicapped, it is OK to harm them? How about children - they don't understand, so is it OK for people to molest them?

Despite the fact that some individuals cannot act upon their rights in their full capacity, does not mean that those rights are any less available. They still exist regardless - they just may be acted upon in different manners, which is why we have the guardianship laws. Those that are not capable have individuals that are capable and deemed the best fit to further the interests of the non-capable to make the decisions concerning their rights, until they are deemed able to make their own decisions competently. It seems fair to me, as long as abuse is weeded out as best it can.

Then why don't they stick their hands on a hot stove more than once? :P

Many children do. But you're talking about two different things; one is an immediate and simple consequence, and the other is a much more complicated, long term and possibly never-realized consequence.

It's not a burden, it's a power. They are quite free to blindly obey whoever they wish, if they wish. A burden would involve me telling them what they have to do.

I disagree. Having a "power" is a burden in and of itself; you're responsible for your actions and the consequences if you're competent enough to understand them. Children aren't, unless they're extremely mature.

If you mean the consequences, it's them that place that burden by their actions, and nature that enforces it.

Again - they do not understand the burden, or "the power" as you call it, so how can you expect them to understand the consequences? This is the kind of idea where, if a woman wears a short skirt, she better be prepared for the possible consequence of being raped. Discredited, immoral, and abhorrent.