Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane?

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:08 AM

Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority.

Jane disputes this result.

Bob and Tom argue the following:

1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes.

2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary.

3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy.

4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off.

5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated.

6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime.

Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate.

What do you say to them?

DrDave · 27th April 2012, 05:17 AM

Wouldn't it be like murder. If it's legalised it's no longer rape.

Why is this in USA politics?

stokes234 · 27th April 2012, 05:18 AM

Are you trying to make this look equivalent to taxing the rich? Because if so, it's worth pointing out that on the one hand you've got someone being forced to go through a painful, traumatic, sometimes life-destroying experience for the benefit of others, whereas on the other hand you've got some of the most well-off people on the planet being forced to not be quite so well-off. Those are different.

If you were literally just proposing it as a straight-out thought experiment with no hidden meaning, i'd still say no because it's a horrible, horrible idea.

angrysoba · 27th April 2012, 05:20 AM

Most democracies say they support certain rights and try to make it difficult for a simple majority to overturn those rights. In the case of Jane, she may or may not be protected from rape depending upon the country/state.

Rape is probably a less clear-cut example than you might think, in fact.

But in other cases such as taking someone's life it might be even less so.

In some ways this ends up being a good thing. In some ways this ends up being a bad thing. While it is wrong to murder people, many countries and states are given the power to do so depending upon the judicial system.

Life is complicated and political systems that work well tend to be complicated too.

DavidJames · 27th April 2012, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

Are you trying to make this look equivalent to taxing the rich?

Either that or "socialized" health care mandate.

Regardless, it's pathetic and probably should have been started in the AAH section.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

Are you trying to make this look equivalent to taxing the rich? Because if so, it's worth pointing out that on the one hand you've got someone being forced to go through a painful, traumatic, sometimes life-destroying experience for the benefit of others, whereas on the other hand you've got some of the most well-off people on the planet being forced to not be quite so well-off. Those are different.

Bob listens to you, strokes his chin, and replies that if Jane goes through it willingly and doesn't fight so much, it's just a matter of laying down for a few minutes and she may even enjoy the experience.

They're still looking at you. Jane is starting to tremble in fear.

Skepticemea · 27th April 2012, 05:29 AM

WTF?

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Either that or "socialized" health care mandate.

Regardless, it's pathetic and probably should have been started in the AAH section.

Bob says it's not pathetic, it's very relevant to the household as he has shown, and if that's all you have to say then he feels their logic stands and if you don't mind, please go away so they can get on with their rape.

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority.

Jane disputes this result.

Bob and Tom argue the following:

1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes.

2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary.

3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy.

4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off.

5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated.

6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime.

Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate.

What do you say to them?

Can I ask what you're trying to draw a false equivalency to?

BenBurch · 27th April 2012, 05:31 AM

Would still be a violation of federal civil rights and your law falls.

Also a really stupid way to try to make the point you appear to have been trying to make. A point which itself was pretty much illogical.

TubbaBlubba · 27th April 2012, 05:31 AM

A democracy that does not protect basic rights is not a very useful democracy.

stokes234 · 27th April 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob listens to you, strokes his chin, and replies that if Jane goes through it willingly and doesn't fight so much, it's just a matter of laying down for a few minutes and she may even enjoy the experience.

They're still looking at you. Jane is starting to tremble in fear.

Is bob... is bob in the room with us right now, garett?

DrDave · 27th April 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

WTF?

You've summed up the thread very nicely there!

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

Is bob... is bob in the room with us right now, garett?

For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it.

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it.

No, seriously, what are you planning on comparing this too that won't be at all like it? I want to know now. It's like the Xfactor and that bit before the adverts when they do 'COMING UP!!' etc.

I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the metaphorical rabbit to come out of theslightly wonky hat.

Unfortunately I believe that what's going to come out of the hat is going to be an otter, but you're going to insist it's a rabbit.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Would still be a violation of federal civil rights and your law falls.

Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy?

Quote:

Also a really stupid way to try to make the point you appear to have been trying to make. A point which itself was pretty much illogical.

I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it.

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy?

I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it.

Did the bolded bit come with dramatic music?

BStrong · 27th April 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority.

Jane disputes this result.

Bob and Tom argue the following:

1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes.

2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary.

3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy.

4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off.

5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated.

6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime.

Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate.

What do you say to them?

No.

The definition of rape is the act of forcible sexual contact with a person against that person's will.

"Voting" that rape is legal doesn't change the nature of the act.

If I were to encounter an individual or a group of individuals in an act of rape, I'd act within the scope of my training and experience to stop the act.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

A democracy that does not protect basic rights is not a very useful democracy.

Ah, this piques their interest. You might even have made a light-bulb go off over their heads. Bob needs a tiny bit more though. They can't vote on whether to rape someone? What do you mean when you say that it's a basic right?

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Did the bolded bit come with dramatic music?

You can participate in the thread, or you can leave the thread. Those are your options. Posting non-content or derailing the thread is not one of them.

BenBurch · 27th April 2012, 05:48 AM

Egarret, I'll debate you when you start being honest.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

No.

The definition of rape is the act of forcible sexual contact with a person against that person's will.

"Voting" that rape is legal doesn't change the nature of the act.

If I were to encounter an individual or a group of individuals in an act of rape, I'd act within the scope of my training and experience to stop the act.

Another good reply.

Bob: "So even if most of us vote to do it, it's not okay? Even if 2 out of 3 us think it will make us happier, or if she owes us because of society allowing her to be so healthy? We still can't rape her?"

stokes234 · 27th April 2012, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it.

I would say no, because he's wrong. And if you don't know this, you've got problems. What is your point, exactly?

BStrong · 27th April 2012, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Another good reply.

Bob: "So even if most of us vote to do it, it's not okay? Even if 2 out of 3 us think it will make us happier, or if she owes us because of society allowing her to be so healthy? We still can't rape her?"

Unless your hypothetical Jane agrees to the act, the act is illegal.

You cannot by vote legalize forcible sexual contact against an unwilling individual.

Skepticemea · 27th April 2012, 05:57 AM

I'm really hoping that this is a some sort of dodgy allegory. Otherwise, it's just pretty dodgy.

Carnivore · 27th April 2012, 06:00 AM

I would explain to Bob and Tom why rape is wrong, the nature of the evil they seek to perpetrate and why they must protect Janes's right to physical safety if they wish their own to be respected.

Then, when they start bleating false analogies relating to economic issues I would bitchslap them, just to larn 'em.

TheL8Elvis · 27th April 2012, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy?

I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it.

RenaissanceBiker · 27th April 2012, 06:02 AM

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the vote."
Ben Franklin

ETA: I would say, "Jane, would you mind holding my gun for me?"

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

You can participate in the thread, or you can leave the thread. Those are your options. Posting non-content or derailing the thread is not one of them.

Well, apparently you only respond to non-content.

The post I made with a question in it seems to have been ignored.

jhunter1163 · 27th April 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Did the bolded bit come with dramatic music?

And I'll tell you once, that if you guys start making personal attacks on each other, there'll be consequences that neither of you will enjoy.

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

And I'll tell you once, that if you guys start making personal attacks on each other, there'll be consequences that neither of you will enjoy.

I'm somewhat offended at that. I haven't made a personal attack.

mhaze · 27th April 2012, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Ah, this piques their interest. You might even have made a light-bulb go off over their heads. Bob needs a tiny bit more though. They can't vote on whether to rape someone? What do you mean when you say that it's a basic right?

NOW you will find the bigoted and prejudiced small minds of the internet tubes launch attacks on you, ad hominem, ridicule being the most that can be launched at once from brains with 2 cells, but third and forth logical errors being shuffled out lamely in sequence.

But may I suggest adding a further and very interesting requirement for Jane? The majority vote to compel Jane to go buy a 24 pack of beer each time before she is raped. With her own money. For the common good and to inspire the collectivist spirit.

jhunter1163 · 27th April 2012, 06:11 AM

I apologize for the offense. For the record (and this applies to all thread participants):

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Posted By:jhunter1163

bjornart · 27th April 2012, 06:14 AM

Households are not democracies. Bob and Tom are bound by the laws of the country where they live.

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I apologize for the offense. For the record (and this applies to all thread participants):

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Posted By:jhunter1163

My apologies. I probably wasn't helping, I admit.

I shall remain quiet and wait for the otter.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Unless your hypothetical Jane agrees to the act, the act is illegal.

You cannot by vote legalize forcible sexual contact against an unwilling individual.

You're making them think. They say, okay, we understand. We can't vote to initiate forcible sexual contact even if the majority of us want to do it. They seem very close to understanding something.

Bob apologizes and says he understands. But now, Jane has a proposal. She wants both she and Tom want to beat Bob up. They vote by a 2-to-1 majority to beat Bob into unconsciousness. It's not sexual contact, it's just pounding him to a pulp. Can they do that, they ask?

They obviously are a bit confused about the principle involved. Although they're close.

mhaze · 27th April 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Unless your hypothetical Jane agrees to the act, the act is illegal.

You cannot by vote legalize forcible sexual contact against an unwilling individual.

Why, my friend, is your thinking clogged up with those out of fashion, conservative ideas? Think progressive!

It's obviously consensual sex. Now I grant you that some wingnut could allege it was unconstitutional. But (snicker snicker) he'd have to have that case snake it's way through the courts to the Supreme Court and have it heard. If they even took the case. So don't you want to get in on the fun? It could go on for years before it was decided. And then the federal Justice Dept, you know they've been playing ball pretty nicely. Even with a SC decision, Justice would have to act to enforce. And you know they've been pretty busy lately. So many things to do, so little budget <wink wink>
And didn't you notice? That Jane, she pretty h4wt.

crimresearch · 27th April 2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy?

I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it.

In the US, the laws are not voted in by the majority of those affected by them. Neither are the policies.

Even if you extend your shaky analogy to account for the courts, society, et al. this has nothing to do with US Politics.

And pointing out obvious logical fallacies is in no wise a 'personal attack'.

Careyp74 · 27th April 2012, 06:19 AM

OK, the obvious answer to the OP is NO. No, Bob and Tom can't vote to rape Jane.

Now, what is the analogy?

Foolmewunz · 27th April 2012, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority.

Jane disputes this result.

Bob and Tom argue the following:

1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes.

2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary.

3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy.

4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off.

5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated.

6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime.

Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate.

What do you say to them?

I say to them, "Gosh fellas, have you been listening to too much Reactionary Radio? Abject pluralism is the worst variation on Democracy known. This is why no single government enacts its legislation on the basis of plebiscites. Democracy doesn't quite work like this, and here's my friend Officer Killeen of the County Sheriff's Office (Local Constabulary to you, I guess) with his trusty Glock to explain why."

It am against the law. Thanks for playing.

And Jane presses charges and Bob and Tom spend fifteen years incarcerated.

27th April 2012, 05:08 AM	#1
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane? Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority. Jane disputes this result. Bob and Tom argue the following: 1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes. 2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary. 3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy. 4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off. 5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated. 6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime. Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate. What do you say to them?
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG Last edited by EGarrett; 27th April 2012 at 05:16 AM.

27th April 2012, 05:18 AM	#3
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Are you trying to make this look equivalent to taxing the rich? Because if so, it's worth pointing out that on the one hand you've got someone being forced to go through a painful, traumatic, sometimes life-destroying experience for the benefit of others, whereas on the other hand you've got some of the most well-off people on the planet being forced to not be quite so well-off. Those are different. If you were literally just proposing it as a straight-out thought experiment with no hidden meaning, i'd still say no because it's a horrible, horrible idea.
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

27th April 2012, 05:24 AM	#5
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085	Originally Posted by stokes234 Are you trying to make this look equivalent to taxing the rich? Either that or "socialized" health care mandate. Regardless, it's pathetic and probably should have been started in the AAH section.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand. Last edited by DavidJames; 27th April 2012 at 05:26 AM.

27th April 2012, 05:27 AM	#6
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by stokes234 Are you trying to make this look equivalent to taxing the rich? Because if so, it's worth pointing out that on the one hand you've got someone being forced to go through a painful, traumatic, sometimes life-destroying experience for the benefit of others, whereas on the other hand you've got some of the most well-off people on the planet being forced to not be quite so well-off. Those are different. Bob listens to you, strokes his chin, and replies that if Jane goes through it willingly and doesn't fight so much, it's just a matter of laying down for a few minutes and she may even enjoy the experience. They're still looking at you. Jane is starting to tremble in fear.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:29 AM	#7
Skepticemea Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,277	WTF?
	__________________ Eat ****, coprophage!

27th April 2012, 05:17 AM	#2
DrDave Guest Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Geneva Posts: 3,110	Wouldn't it be like murder. If it's legalised it's no longer rape. Why is this in USA politics?

27th April 2012, 05:20 AM	#4
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,520	Most democracies say they support certain rights and try to make it difficult for a simple majority to overturn those rights. In the case of Jane, she may or may not be protected from rape depending upon the country/state. Rape is probably a less clear-cut example than you might think, in fact. But in other cases such as taking someone's life it might be even less so. In some ways this ends up being a good thing. In some ways this ends up being a bad thing. While it is wrong to murder people, many countries and states are given the power to do so depending upon the judicial system. Life is complicated and political systems that work well tend to be complicated too.

27th April 2012, 05:30 AM	#8
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by DavidJames Either that or "socialized" health care mandate. Regardless, it's pathetic and probably should have been started in the AAH section. Bob says it's not pathetic, it's very relevant to the household as he has shown, and if that's all you have to say then he feels their logic stands and if you don't mind, please go away so they can get on with their rape.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:30 AM	#9
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority. Jane disputes this result. Bob and Tom argue the following: 1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes. 2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary. 3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy. 4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off. 5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated. 6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime. Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate. What do you say to them? Can I ask what you're trying to draw a false equivalency to?
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th April 2012, 05:31 AM	#10
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,145	Would still be a violation of federal civil rights and your law falls. Also a really stupid way to try to make the point you appear to have been trying to make. A point which itself was pretty much illogical.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

27th April 2012, 05:31 AM	#11
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,408	A democracy that does not protect basic rights is not a very useful democracy.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

27th April 2012, 05:33 AM	#12
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob listens to you, strokes his chin, and replies that if Jane goes through it willingly and doesn't fight so much, it's just a matter of laying down for a few minutes and she may even enjoy the experience. They're still looking at you. Jane is starting to tremble in fear. Is bob... is bob in the room with us right now, garett?
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

27th April 2012, 05:33 AM	#13
DrDave Guest Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Geneva Posts: 3,110	Originally Posted by Skepticemea WTF? You've summed up the thread very nicely there!

27th April 2012, 05:36 AM	#14
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by stokes234 Is bob... is bob in the room with us right now, garett? For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:41 AM	#15
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	Originally Posted by EGarrett For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it. No, seriously, what are you planning on comparing this too that won't be at all like it? I want to know now. It's like the Xfactor and that bit before the adverts when they do 'COMING UP!!' etc. I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the metaphorical rabbit to come out of theslightly wonky hat. Unfortunately I believe that what's going to come out of the hat is going to be an otter, but you're going to insist it's a rabbit.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th April 2012, 05:41 AM	#16
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by BenBurch Would still be a violation of federal civil rights and your law falls. Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy? Quote: Also a really stupid way to try to make the point you appear to have been trying to make. A point which itself was pretty much illogical. I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:42 AM	#17
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy? I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it. Did the bolded bit come with dramatic music?
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th April 2012, 05:43 AM	#18
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,808	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority. Jane disputes this result. Bob and Tom argue the following: 1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes. 2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary. 3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy. 4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off. 5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated. 6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime. Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate. What do you say to them? No. The definition of rape is the act of forcible sexual contact with a person against that person's will. "Voting" that rape is legal doesn't change the nature of the act. If I were to encounter an individual or a group of individuals in an act of rape, I'd act within the scope of my training and experience to stop the act.

27th April 2012, 05:44 AM	#19
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba A democracy that does not protect basic rights is not a very useful democracy. Ah, this piques their interest. You might even have made a light-bulb go off over their heads. Bob needs a tiny bit more though. They can't vote on whether to rape someone? What do you mean when you say that it's a basic right?
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:46 AM	#20
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by 3point14 Did the bolded bit come with dramatic music? You can participate in the thread, or you can leave the thread. Those are your options. Posting non-content or derailing the thread is not one of them.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:48 AM	#21
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,145	Egarret, I'll debate you when you start being honest.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

27th April 2012, 05:48 AM	#22
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by BStrong No. The definition of rape is the act of forcible sexual contact with a person against that person's will. "Voting" that rape is legal doesn't change the nature of the act. If I were to encounter an individual or a group of individuals in an act of rape, I'd act within the scope of my training and experience to stop the act. Another good reply. Bob: "So even if most of us vote to do it, it's not okay? Even if 2 out of 3 us think it will make us happier, or if she owes us because of society allowing her to be so healthy? We still can't rape her?"
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 05:49 AM	#23
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by EGarrett For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it. I would say no, because he's wrong. And if you don't know this, you've got problems. What is your point, exactly?
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

27th April 2012, 05:53 AM	#24
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,808	Originally Posted by EGarrett Another good reply. Bob: "So even if most of us vote to do it, it's not okay? Even if 2 out of 3 us think it will make us happier, or if she owes us because of society allowing her to be so healthy? We still can't rape her?" Unless your hypothetical Jane agrees to the act, the act is illegal. You cannot by vote legalize forcible sexual contact against an unwilling individual.

27th April 2012, 05:57 AM	#25
Skepticemea Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,277	I'm really hoping that this is a some sort of dodgy allegory. Otherwise, it's just pretty dodgy.
	__________________ Eat ****, coprophage!

27th April 2012, 06:00 AM	#26
Carnivore Salad Dodger Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,383	I would explain to Bob and Tom why rape is wrong, the nature of the evil they seek to perpetrate and why they must protect Janes's right to physical safety if they wish their own to be respected. Then, when they start bleating false analogies relating to economic issues I would bitchslap them, just to larn 'em.
	__________________ "It's backwards thinking like this that made me leave Manchester. You Guinness swilling, Marmite blaspheming animal." - Malfie Henpox

27th April 2012, 06:01 AM	#27
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy? I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515

27th April 2012, 06:02 AM	#28
RenaissanceBiker Eats shoots and leaves. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,803	"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the vote." Ben Franklin ETA: I would say, "Jane, would you mind holding my gun for me?"
	__________________ "Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine "Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker Last edited by RenaissanceBiker; 27th April 2012 at 06:09 AM.

27th April 2012, 06:03 AM	#29
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	Originally Posted by EGarrett You can participate in the thread, or you can leave the thread. Those are your options. Posting non-content or derailing the thread is not one of them. Well, apparently you only respond to non-content. The post I made with a question in it seems to have been ignored.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th April 2012, 06:06 AM	#30
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,576	Originally Posted by 3point14 Did the bolded bit come with dramatic music? And I'll tell you once, that if you guys start making personal attacks on each other, there'll be consequences that neither of you will enjoy.

27th April 2012, 06:09 AM	#31
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 And I'll tell you once, that if you guys start making personal attacks on each other, there'll be consequences that neither of you will enjoy. I'm somewhat offended at that. I haven't made a personal attack.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th April 2012, 06:10 AM	#32
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,388	Originally Posted by EGarrett Ah, this piques their interest. You might even have made a light-bulb go off over their heads. Bob needs a tiny bit more though. They can't vote on whether to rape someone? What do you mean when you say that it's a basic right? NOW you will find the bigoted and prejudiced small minds of the internet tubes launch attacks on you, ad hominem, ridicule being the most that can be launched at once from brains with 2 cells, but third and forth logical errors being shuffled out lamely in sequence. But may I suggest adding a further and very interesting requirement for Jane? The majority vote to compel Jane to go buy a 24 pack of beer each time before she is raped. With her own money. For the common good and to inspire the collectivist spirit.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

27th April 2012, 06:14 AM	#34
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,395	Households are not democracies. Bob and Tom are bound by the laws of the country where they live.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,395	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

27th April 2012, 06:17 AM	#36
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by BStrong Unless your hypothetical Jane agrees to the act, the act is illegal. You cannot by vote legalize forcible sexual contact against an unwilling individual. You're making them think. They say, okay, we understand. We can't vote to initiate forcible sexual contact even if the majority of us want to do it. They seem very close to understanding something. Bob apologizes and says he understands. But now, Jane has a proposal. She wants both she and Tom want to beat Bob up. They vote by a 2-to-1 majority to beat Bob into unconsciousness. It's not sexual contact, it's just pounding him to a pulp. Can they do that, they ask? They obviously are a bit confused about the principle involved. Although they're close.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 06:18 AM	#38
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob wants to know what you mean? They voted 2-to-1 to do it. He asks you, isn't law established by democracy? I will tell you once. If you try to make personal attacks toward me, you will receive personal attacks, and you won't enjoy it. In the US, the laws are not voted in by the majority of those affected by them. Neither are the policies. Even if you extend your shaky analogy to account for the courts, society, et al. this has nothing to do with US Politics. And pointing out obvious logical fallacies is in no wise a 'personal attack'.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618