Unconditional surrender...?

[Roses]

And my point is that although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable.

There are plenty of similar examples from the past.

I agree.

[Nearly Sane]

The comments of the woman and the various photos of the incident are completely consistent - whether or not we wish to describe it as an assault - what we are seeing is a man kissing an unwilling woman who is trying to extract herself from the situation.

On the discussion about her not reporting it or needing to understand the time, we should reflect that there is a difference between something that was accepted at a particular time and whether that was acceptable. I would suggest that a man forcing himself on a woman by kissing her without her agreement was certainly accepted at the time, however it is not and was not acceptable.

To an extent yes, but there are plenty of peopke who now will not report assault because they see the prevalent attitude as still being dismissive.

[ProfessorDavey]

To an extent yes, but there are plenty of peopke who now will not report assault because they see the prevalent attitude as still being dismissive.

I'm not disagreeing on that at all. Certainly these types of incident are far less accepted than they were in the past, but that isn't universal and we still have some way to go in our society.

Whether or not someone reports an assault is a completely different issue than whether it is an assault - an unreported assault is every bit as much an assault as a reported one.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not disagreeing on that at all. Certainly these types of incident are far less accepted than they were in the past, but that isn't universal and we still have some way to go in our society.

Whether or not someone reports an assault is a completely different issue than whether it is an assault - an unreported assault is every bit as much an assault as a reported one.

Agreed, it's the idea that not reporting it is indicative of it not being a real assault, or not fighting enough that have in various ways being put forward on here which is pernicious.

[Roses]

Agreed, it's the idea that not reporting it is indicative of it not being a real assault, or not fighting enough that have in various ways being put forward on here which is pernicious.

Pernicious is a good word for it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Pernicious is a good word for it.

It is.

[jeremyp]

And my point is that although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable.

That's complete nonsense. If it was accepted at the time, it was, at least once, acceptable.

I think what you probably meant was that, even though it was accepted at the time, it was still wrong.

How would you have punished the sailor  for his wrong doing?

[ProfessorDavey]

That's complete nonsense. If it was accepted at the time, it was, at least once, acceptable.

So do you think slavery is acceptable JP - it was certainly accepted once.

How about human sacrifice, also accepted at a time.

Both were once accepted, neither were acceptable.

[ProfessorDavey]

How would you have punished the sailor  for his wrong doing?

That is a different question, you are confusing legality with acceptability (which is an ethical and social construct). The sailor, according to the law of the time, may not have done anything illegal - that doesn't mean what he did was acceptable.

[Udayana]

The photograph is the photograph of a spontaneous assault. Although the sailor's actions were overlooked at the time given the historical nature of the VJ event, it does not mean that it was generally acceptable for a man to just grab and kiss any woman on the street without consent.

So, although it is a "good" picture it can also be tagged as #MeToo.

The statue(s) are less impressive as they attempt to build on the original idea, but the title does capture the complete collapse of what was left of the Japanese war machine following the two devastating nuclear strikes.

Anyone wanting see what a real kiss looks like should go and see one of Rodin's Le Baiser.

[Robbie]

Such as:-

This

Moderator: long URL replaced.

[ippy]

And I thought at times that I'd lead a sheltered life when I see or hear about some of the goings on in the news like Andrew yet another useless royal  gallivanting about, and not sweating what's that all about?

Reading some of the posts here on this thread I'm no longer so sure I have lead the sheltered life that I thought I had.   

ippy.

[jeremyp]

So do you think slavery is acceptable JP - it was certainly accepted once.

How about human sacrifice, also accepted at a time.

Both were once accepted, neither were acceptable.

I think you need to engage your brain. If it was accepted, then, at that time, it was acceptable by definition.

We weren't around back then to sit in moral judgement over them.

[jeremyp]

That is a different question

Well spotted.

you are confusing legality with acceptability

No I'm not, I'm asking you a question, which you have failed to answer.

(which is an ethical and social construct). The sailor, according to the law of the time, may not have done anything illegal - that doesn't mean what he did was acceptable.

I wasn't asking how he should have been punished under the law prevailing at the time, I was asking how you would punish him. You think what he has done is wrong (which I agree with) so what would you do to him?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you need to engage your brain. If it was accepted, then, at that time, it was acceptable by definition.

We weren't around back then to sit in moral judgement over them.

Nope - accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable to a more general view on the ethics of a particular act which is therefore embedded in the present just as much as the past.

Human sacrifice was accepted in certain societies at certain times - it is not acceptable.

Or do you disagree that human sacrifice is not acceptable.

[jeremyp]

Nope - accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable to a more general view on the ethics of a particular act which is therefore embedded in the present just as much as the past.

Bullshit. You said "it was never acceptable". That implies a temporal quality.

Human sacrifice was accepted in certain societies at certain times - it is not acceptable.

But it wasn't never acceptable.

Or do you disagree that human sacrifice is not acceptable.

Of course not. But if you time travel back to a civilisation where human sacrifice was practised and ask somebody from that civilisation "is human sacrifice acceptable?" what answer do you think you will get?

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course not.

Therefore it is not acceptable, as I've already said.

But if you time travel back to a civilisation where human sacrifice was practised and ask somebody from that civilisation "is human sacrifice acceptable?" what answer do you think you will get?

That it was accepted at that time - that doesn't mean it is (or was) acceptable.

All sorts of things we recognise to be acceptable were once accepted.

[ProfessorDavey]

Bullshit. You said "it was never acceptable". That implies a temporal quality.

Which again is exactly what I said, hence:

'Nope - accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable to a more general view on the ethics of a particular act which is therefore embedded in the present just as much as the past.'

Accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable refers to a more general position across time and place.

Human sacrifice was once accepted in certain cultures at a particular time - human sacrifice isn't now acceptable nor was then.

[Sriram]

Prof D

What are you going on about 'accepted' but 'unacceptable'?!  Are you speaking with reference to some Absolute morality that is valid for all time and for all people?

Morality (as we know it) is dependent on the time and social group.....not independent of it.  'Accepted' and 'acceptable' are the same thing with reference to a specific time and place.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree with the above. What Prof D considers "acceptable" today from his very limited view based on his nature, nurture and geographical location may well be considered "unacceptable" to future generations here or in other geographical locations. I would think what is acceptable depends on new information / knowledge that comes to light as time passes.

[jeremyp]

That it was accepted at that time - that doesn't mean it is (or was) acceptable.

If it was accepted then it was acceptable. It's not now  but it was then to the societies that accepted it.

All sorts of things we recognise to be acceptable were once accepted.

And were therefore acceptable at the time.

You seem to be making the claim that there is some sort of absolute standard of acceptability and your assumption is that we are the ultimate arbiters of what is acceptable or not. That's rather arrogant.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it was accepted then it was acceptable.

Nope they are different things - just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it is acceptable.

[Sriram]

Nope they are different things - just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it is acceptable.

'does not imply  that it is acceptable'.......to whom?

[ProfessorDavey]

'does not imply  that it is acceptable'.......to whom?

To those beyond the narrow group who accepted human sacrifice at a particular time and a particular place.

[jeremyp]

Nope they are different things

Nope. It was acceptable by definition if people accepted it. "Accepted" and "acceptable" are both derived from the same verb "to accept". |Sorry you don't like it, but you don't get to define the English language.

just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it is acceptable.

That's true but you are glossing over the fact that you used two different tenses in that sentence.

"just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it was acceptable.

"just because something is accepted does not imply that it is acceptable.

The above two sentences are both false (I omitted "at a particular time" because when you use the present tense, the particular time is now). Your sentence quoted above is true because attitudes have changed.