Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9743474" data-attributes="member: 86653">It seems like there's two factors at play. The intended outcome and the question of consent. Without consent, good intent. You'd have to make an incredibly strong case for the intended outcome being overwhelmingly good to warrant a lack of consent. Most people view having their free will violated as such an egregious personal harm that even doctors and nurses who perform beneficial surgery or dispense medicine without consent can and often are charged with a crime. Something like the only way to stop a serial killer is with mind control, so it's justified. A kid about to step out into the street and be hit by a car, so it's justified. Etc. The contention here is where the line for justification sits. Without consent, bad intent. Taking over someone's mind to hurt them or others. The only point of contention here seems to be the label, i.e. whether to call it "extremely wrong" or "pure evil." With consent, good intent. Helping someone quit smoking or elective surgery, etc. No point discussing it as there's no real objection here. With consent, bad intent. Consenting to be harmed. This would be the squick factor. Jessica Jones consenting to be controlled by Kilgrave. Think some extreme BDSM subcultures and we'll leave it there.</blockquote>