Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane? - Page 3

RenaissanceBiker · 27th April 2012, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob also says that if that's not good enough for you, he can go get hired by some other government and be a government worker, or he can get 1,000 other men to join the house along with 999 women and also vote by majority to rape all of them, and would that then make it okay?

He's listening for your response.

Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other."

ETA: Bob quickly exclaims, "Let's vote on whether women are allowed to move out! I vote NO!" Tom quickly follows, "I vote NO!"

Jane looks down at RB's gun in her hand then turns to him and asks, "Can I really get one of these for less than one month's rent?" RB nods.

ETA: Bob desperately adds, "Lets vote on whether women can have guns! I vote NO!" Tom nervously follows, "I ... I vote no."

Jane has had enough. She says "Anyone trying to stop me gets a bullet in the face." and begins packing.

Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."

Ladewig · 27th April 2012, 07:59 AM

I would explain that harming non-willing participants is always wrong. Both being beaten up and being raped often end with a hospital visit, therefore there is no doubt that either of these actions cause harm. The Jane-should-give-it-up is not valid because any criminal could justify his or her actions through through a similar argument. E.g. if the homeowner had just given me the TV and stereo he wouldn't have been traumatized; if the other motorist simply agreed to be in front of my car while I was drunk and speeding, then it would have been less traumatic.

On the other hand, I think that until you make your real point, this thread is a waste and most assurdely does not belong on US politics. Please tie the thread to US politics or abandon it.

My backup plan was to shoot all three of them, take their money, and give it to the government to spend on abortions. These people are too stupid to live. I would be doing society a favor.

ETA: a better plan. Show up with the cops and let the chuckleheads tell their plan to them. Encourage the cops to arrest them on conspiracy charges, request a formal evaluation by a court-appointed psychiatrist, and have them involuntarily committed to a mental asylum because they cannot distinguish right from wrong and they would be an imminent threat to others if they were released.

As the craps shooter said after throwing six 7s, I'm looking for a point here.

AlBell · 27th April 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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.

Charged with at minimum Conspiracy (to commit assault and battery?) and/or civil rights violation, and if VAWA Violence Aginst Women Act was Law, that too.

Hopefully they serve time in a tough fmita fed prison where no one stops group decisions to rape or otherwise molest an individual.

Biscuit · 27th April 2012, 08:24 AM

I am going to go ahead and say that rape is never a good analogy. If you have been raped or know some one who has been raped you could understand this. I apologize for taking a high ground here but this "thought experiment" disgusts me.

Why don't you change your thought experiment a little and you might find people are more willing to play along? Perhaps Jane could make more money than the other two and they vote that she has to pay for more of the bills?

If you insist on your absurd and offensive rape fantasy then I would tell Jane to come with me as we are going to file a police report. This would fall under domestic violence laws and as the victim Jane would be granted a restraining order and the other two would be banned from the property, now under police watch, while Jane retrieved her things. If she had no place else to go she could crash on my couch for a few days while I help her sort things out.

After a few days Jane learns what a great cook I am and finds the early morning dips in my swimming pool refreshing. I find her to be a witty and intelligent person. We spend long hours playing chess, checkers, and card games. Like turns to longing, longing to love and one night we make the metaphorical "beast with two backs."

The next day while walking the dogs Jane goes into a gas station store to buy some water and recalling my long rants about the "lottery is a tax on people who cant do math!" She buys a lottery ticket to tease me. Jane is feisty like that. Two days later we win over 100 million off that lottery ticket. We live happily ever after.

Bob and Tom, two obviously confused and morally bankrupt losers, never find another room mate and instead rape each other to death.

Fin.

fishbob · 27th April 2012, 08:40 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.

Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Every day.
For the rest of the century.

A Laughing Baby · 27th April 2012, 08:41 AM

The OP is a bill of attainder, and shouldn't be considered in the first place under the Constitution.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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

Now, what is the analogy?

Obviously, they can. If the stakes are high enough, they will. Morality (including civic morality) is a product of biological and cultural evolution. Long-term self-interest moderates short-term self-interest. If the short-term gain is great enough, long-term considerations fail to constrain predatory behavior.

Now add to the model the process that selects decision-makers in a representative democracy, which preferentially selects arrogant, power-mad sociopaths and you will find yourself voting for rape quite often.

bookitty · 27th April 2012, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other."

ETA: Bob quickly exclaims, "Let's vote on whether women are allowed to move out! I vote NO!" Tom quickly follows, "I vote NO!"

Jane looks down at RB's gun in her hand then turns to him and asks, "Can I really get one of these for less than one month's rent?" RB nods.

ETA: Bob desperately adds, "Lets vote on whether women can have guns! I vote NO!" Tom nervously follows, "I ... I vote no."

Jane has had enough. She says "Anyone trying to stop me gets a bullet in the face." and begins packing.

Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I am going to go ahead and say that rape is never a good analogy. If you have been raped or know some one who has been raped you could understand this. I apologize for taking a high ground here but this "thought experiment" disgusts me.

Why don't you change your thought experiment a little and you might find people are more willing to play along? Perhaps Jane could make more money than the other two and they vote that she has to pay for more of the bills?

If you insist on your absurd and offensive rape fantasy then I would tell Jane to come with me as we are going to file a police report. This would fall under domestic violence laws and as the victim Jane would be granted a restraining order and the other two would be banned from the property, now under police watch, while Jane retrieved her things. If she had no place else to go she could crash on my couch for a few days while I help her sort things out.

After a few days Jane learns what a great cook I am and finds the early morning dips in my swimming pool refreshing. I find her to be a witty and intelligent person. We spend long hours playing chess, checkers, and card games. Like turns to longing, longing to love and one night we make the metaphorical "beast with two backs."

The next day while walking the dogs Jane goes into a gas station store to buy some water and recalling my long rants about the "lottery is a tax on people who cant do math!" She buys a lottery ticket to tease me. Jane is feisty like that. Two days later we win over 100 million off that lottery ticket. We live happily ever after.

Bob and Tom, two obviously confused and morally bankrupt losers, never find another room mate and instead rape each other death.

Fin.

Originally Posted by fishbob

Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Every day.
For the rest of the century.

So I come into this thread first thing in the morning. First coffee and all that. And it's rape, violent forced rape being used as an extremely poor analogy for...something. (that I suspect the OP is now afraid to divulge because of massive fail.)

The responses I've quoted are the ones that will keep me from loading my own gun before ever leaving my house.

000063 · 27th April 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

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

Maybe we should look behind that troll in the corner.

I have some issues with the idea of taxing the rich because they are rich, but the two situations are not comparable.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by fishbob

Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Every day.
For the rest of the century.

THat's the point of the second amendment to the US Constitution.

mijopaalmc · 27th April 2012, 08:55 AM

What is it with the proliferation of threads about rape?

Do people really not understand the basics of individual liberty?

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

To what end?

Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What I'm actually confused about is your point. Either this is an analogy for something or it is mental masterbation. If it is the former, you need to explain how this analogy is valid and to what it relates. If it is the latter, it belongs in R&P, not Politics.

It's a thought-experiment about democratic governments that is crucial to the current US political debate.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Well, considering "Jane" is the one who evidently possesses that which "Bob and Tom" feel should rightly be shared among themselves, perhaps there's a way to settle on a compromise.

What might be helpful is to know if this is their first such scenario. Perhaps "Bob and Tom" have previously attempted to persuade "Jane" with the logic of their viewpoint, and her response has been to hold them at arm's length, adding that if they'd only be patient, any moment now she would begin to "trickle down."

Please explain to Bob and Tom what's wrong with their thought process. Jane would appreciate it, as she's in a tough spot.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

You've just asked the question to a whole forum. I ask you and suddenly that's not cool?

Address your points to the issue, not to made-up accusations about other posters. When you left off, you were telling Bob that raping Jane would psychologically scar her, and Bob replied to you that he would do it in a way that she wouldn't remember.

Do you have anything left to say to him? He's ready to exercise his democratic-given powers over Jane...

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

That's a libertarian's argument.

I'm seeing precious little actual argument anywhere to suggest that a majority of people sitting around, rubbing their chins and deciding something is fine, shouldn't have a priori assumption of the validiy of their decisions.

Someone said it violates people's rights at the federal level. Fair enough. What if a judge rubbed his chin and decided times had changed and the majority of people don't feel that way so it is no longer Constitutionally protected?

Bob and Tom believe that they are justified because they represent the majority of the population, in this case. According to Bob, they democratically outvoted Jane 2-to-1, and decided on their own, on her behalf, that, among other things, she could spare the time, sex was necessary for the survival of the species, and she owed society for her health and attractiveness.

The issue is how people explain to Bob and Tom that they are wrong, and exactly what Bob and Tom are misunderstanding about what a democracy can and can't do.

bookitty · 27th April 2012, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.

Really? That's what this is about. So. much. wrong.

Going back to jr. high civics, the US is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. So might (in this case merely outnumbering) does not make right and weaker minorities (in this case, Jane) are protected. The majority mob does not get to stomp all over the minorities rights.

To claim that the wealthiest people of this country are somehow a protected minority because their numbers are small is ridiculous, only possible if you completely overlook their vast financial influence.

Raising taxes on the rich does not raise taxes on all their wealth, only that income which is higher than 95% of the population earns. You are comparing taxation which will have no practical effect on their standard of living to on-going daily violent rape. Either you think the rich are fragile creatures who will be traumatized by merely looking at a bank account statement or you believe that rape is no big deal.

Biscuit · 27th April 2012, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.

Finally I agree with you. The U.S. government should not make it legal for men to rape women! Even if, and let me be very clear on this point, even if they really really want to rape a woman.

The polling on this issue be damned! I am against the legalization of rape in all scenarios and I don't care who knows it.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other."

ETA: Bob quickly exclaims, "Let's vote on whether women are allowed to move out! I vote NO!" Tom quickly follows, "I vote NO!"

Jane looks down at RB's gun in her hand then turns to him and asks, "Can I really get one of these for less than one month's rent?" RB nods.

ETA: Bob desperately adds, "Lets vote on whether women can have guns! I vote NO!" Tom nervously follows, "I ... I vote no."

Jane has had enough. She says "Anyone trying to stop me gets a bullet in the face." and begins packing.

Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."

A gun is fine if the people won't listen to reason. But in this thought-experiment, Bob and Tom will listen, and they believe they are acting on valid bases.

Obviously, also, having a gun does not make you right or wrong. It does not justify or unjustify any line of reasoning. So, while it is useful when you are attacked, in this case it's beside the point.

Shalamar · 27th April 2012, 09:18 AM

So, Bob proposes a Vote, wherein the result would be physical and Mental harm against another in the household. Specifically, a woman. And Tom goes along with this idea.

Obviously, they are conservatives, voting to deny a woman her sexual freedoms. The only thing missing is a third person ranting about a mythical person named 'Bamster'.

People like this can never be convinced. They only care about their own tiny worlds, and how they themselves can get what they want. Not how others feel. In this case, Jane, who obviously doesn't want to be forced into being harmed physically or mentally.

What would be next? voting so that in this household, only Bob and Tom have the right to vote, since Jane doesn't follow in lockstep with them? Because Jane might be a 'progressive', since she wants her own freedoms? A very conservative thing, it seems these days.

I would inform them that they are borderline Sociopaths, that this has no bearing on the 'general well being' of the household, since they have to hurt another person.

Then I set Bob and Tom on fire, since they are obvious strawmen.

Biscuit · 27th April 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

The issue is how people explain to Bob and Tom that they are wrong, and exactly what Bob and Tom are misunderstanding about what a democracy can and can't do.

As has been pointed out a domestic living situation is not a scaled down version of any government I can think of. Further more "rape" is not one the enumerated powers of any government I can think of.

If Tom and Bob can't see the problem with their thinking than it may be to late for them. I doubt a civics lesson is going to be of much good.

Professor Yaffle · 27th April 2012, 09:22 AM

If Jane is a straw lady, I have no objections. Scarecrows are not protected by our human laws.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Really? That's what this is about. So. much. wrong.

Going back to jr. high civics, the US is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. So might (in this case merely outnumbering) does not make right and weaker minorities (in this case, Jane) are protected. The majority mob does not get to stomp all over the minorities rights.

That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?

Biscuit · 27th April 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by egarrett

obviously, also, having a ~~gun~~ majority does not make you right ~~or wrong~~.

ftfy

3point14 · 27th April 2012, 09:28 AM

Oooh, it's like a lecture, with someone all professorial at the front

Can I just read someone else's notes later?

mhaze · 27th April 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?

It's not surprising that none of the collectivist minions have yet grasped the center of your argument. A few suggested that a "greater power" such as the gun of a cop would be a solution, others suggested "law", and one or two "rights".

But none grasped that it was and is the presence of the US Constitution that stands fairly alone in history, as a block against abuse of power of the sort suggested in this thought experiment. And which is being disregarded by the current administration in as many ways as it may suit them. But if Bob, Tom and Jane were forced by the government to buy healthcare, and then were forced buy guns and bibles, then many other forcings can follow, all to the benefit of some preferred group or another.

bookitty · 27th April 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?

Back to Jr. High - it is helpful if one reads the entire assignment.

RenaissanceBiker · 27th April 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

ftfy

That's what Ben Franklin said.

brodski · 27th April 2012, 09:40 AM

Do Bob and Tom represent various US state governments, and is Jane seekign an abortion? What kind of ultrasound equipment do they have?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.

"Can't" or "shouldn't"? They can, and do.

Biscuit · 27th April 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

It's not surprising that none of the collectivist minions have yet grasped the center of your argument. A few suggested that a "greater power" such as the gun of a cop would be a solution, others suggested "law", and one or two "rights".

But none grasped that it was and is the presence of the US Constitution that stands fairly alone in history, as a block against abuse of power of the sort suggested in this thought experiment. And which is being disregarded by the current administration in as many ways as it may suit them. But if Bob, Tom and Jane were forced by the government to buy healthcare, and then were forced buy guns and bibles, then many other forcings can follow, all to the benefit of some preferred group or another.

So the point he is trying to make is what?

That the only thing that stops people from committing rape is the fact that the U.S. constitution sets limits on federal powers?

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

As has been pointed out a domestic living situation is not a scaled down version of any government I can think of. Further more "rape" is not one the enumerated powers of any government I can think of.

If Tom and Bob can't see the problem with their thinking than it may be to late for them. I doubt a civics lesson is going to be of much good.

Okay, you've told Bob and Tom that governments don't normally have the power of rape.

They've stopped to listen to you. They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Back to Jr. High - it is helpful if one reads the entire assignment.

I did read your entire post. Answer the question and it will lead to an explanation of your second point.

What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?

rustypouch · 27th April 2012, 09:53 AM

You seem to really like rape.

bookitty · 27th April 2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I did read your entire post. Answer the question and it will lead to an explanation of your second point.

What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?

No, answering the question as you pose it relies on my support of your flawed premise. If you were to state that premise clearly and support it with something other than a violent rape fantasy, perhaps it would be possible to discuss it.

RenaissanceBiker · 27th April 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Okay, you've told Bob and Tom that governments don't normally have the power of rape.

They've stopped to listen to you. They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"

Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral or your laws just.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?

Better: "What limits the majority mob's power?" Consequences. Rape enough women (or taxpayers) and they leave the country.

Where is the line drawn? Wherever the political process, informed by memory of consequences, calculations of self-interest, and interest group pressure, draws it.

The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more altruistic, better-informed, or more intelligent when they enter the State's employ. Quite the opposite, State power attracts thugs.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

No, answering the question as you pose it relies on my support of your flawed premise. If you were to state that premise clearly and support it with something other than a violent rape fantasy, perhaps it would be possible to discuss it.

My premise is that it's not okay for 51% of the population to vote to rape 49% of the population. If you disagree with this premise that's fine. But assuming you do agree, please explain what the 51% can or can't do and what sets the limit.

EGarrett · 27th April 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral.

Bob and Tom are thinking hard, and scratching their heads. Bob asks for some clarification. "So you're saying that we can't use our democratic or government power to do immoral things to other people in our group?"

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Originally Posted by EGarrett

...They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"

Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral.

That's why they shouldn't, not why they can't.

27th April 2012, 07:58 AM	#81
RenaissanceBiker Eats shoots and leaves. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,810	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob also says that if that's not good enough for you, he can go get hired by some other government and be a government worker, or he can get 1,000 other men to join the house along with 999 women and also vote by majority to rape all of them, and would that then make it okay? He's listening for your response. Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other." ETA: Bob quickly exclaims, "Let's vote on whether women are allowed to move out! I vote NO!" Tom quickly follows, "I vote NO!" Jane looks down at RB's gun in her hand then turns to him and asks, "Can I really get one of these for less than one month's rent?" RB nods. ETA: Bob desperately adds, "Lets vote on whether women can have guns! I vote NO!" Tom nervously follows, "I ... I vote no." Jane has had enough. She says "Anyone trying to stop me gets a bullet in the face." and begins packing. Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."
	__________________ "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 08:35 AM.

27th April 2012, 07:59 AM	#82
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	I would explain that harming non-willing participants is always wrong. Both being beaten up and being raped often end with a hospital visit, therefore there is no doubt that either of these actions cause harm. The Jane-should-give-it-up is not valid because any criminal could justify his or her actions through through a similar argument. E.g. if the homeowner had just given me the TV and stereo he wouldn't have been traumatized; if the other motorist simply agreed to be in front of my car while I was drunk and speeding, then it would have been less traumatic. On the other hand, I think that until you make your real point, this thread is a waste and most assurdely does not belong on US politics. Please tie the thread to US politics or abandon it. My backup plan was to shoot all three of them, take their money, and give it to the government to spend on abortions. These people are too stupid to live. I would be doing society a favor. ETA: a better plan. Show up with the cops and let the chuckleheads tell their plan to them. Encourage the cops to arrest them on conspiracy charges, request a formal evaluation by a court-appointed psychiatrist, and have them involuntarily committed to a mental asylum because they cannot distinguish right from wrong and they would be an imminent threat to others if they were released. As the craps shooter said after throwing six 7s, I'm looking for a point here.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board. Last edited by Ladewig; 27th April 2012 at 08:04 AM.

27th April 2012, 08:18 AM	#83
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,505	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz 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. Charged with at minimum Conspiracy (to commit assault and battery?) and/or civil rights violation, and if VAWA Violence Aginst Women Act was Law, that too. Hopefully they serve time in a tough fmita fed prison where no one stops group decisions to rape or otherwise molest an individual.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,505

27th April 2012, 08:24 AM	#84
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	I am going to go ahead and say that rape is never a good analogy. If you have been raped or know some one who has been raped you could understand this. I apologize for taking a high ground here but this "thought experiment" disgusts me. Why don't you change your thought experiment a little and you might find people are more willing to play along? Perhaps Jane could make more money than the other two and they vote that she has to pay for more of the bills? If you insist on your absurd and offensive rape fantasy then I would tell Jane to come with me as we are going to file a police report. This would fall under domestic violence laws and as the victim Jane would be granted a restraining order and the other two would be banned from the property, now under police watch, while Jane retrieved her things. If she had no place else to go she could crash on my couch for a few days while I help her sort things out. After a few days Jane learns what a great cook I am and finds the early morning dips in my swimming pool refreshing. I find her to be a witty and intelligent person. We spend long hours playing chess, checkers, and card games. Like turns to longing, longing to love and one night we make the metaphorical "beast with two backs." The next day while walking the dogs Jane goes into a gas station store to buy some water and recalling my long rants about the "lottery is a tax on people who cant do math!" She buys a lottery ticket to tease me. Jane is feisty like that. Two days later we win over 100 million off that lottery ticket. We live happily ever after. Bob and Tom, two obviously confused and morally bankrupt losers, never find another room mate and instead rape each other to death. Fin.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson Last edited by Biscuit; 27th April 2012 at 08:45 AM.

27th April 2012, 08:40 AM	#85
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	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. Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat. Every day. For the rest of the century.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots. Last edited by fishbob; 27th April 2012 at 08:41 AM.

27th April 2012, 08:41 AM	#86
A Laughing Baby A baby. Goo goo ga ga Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,992	The OP is a bill of attainder, and shouldn't be considered in the first place under the Constitution.
	__________________ Plorate, omnes virgines!!

27th April 2012, 08:49 AM	#87
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	Originally Posted by Careyp74 OK, the obvious answer to the OP is NO. No, Bob and Tom can't vote to rape Jane. Now, what is the analogy? Obviously, they can. If the stakes are high enough, they will. Morality (including civic morality) is a product of biological and cultural evolution. Long-term self-interest moderates short-term self-interest. If the short-term gain is great enough, long-term considerations fail to constrain predatory behavior. Now add to the model the process that selects decision-makers in a representative democracy, which preferentially selects arrogant, power-mad sociopaths and you will find yourself voting for rape quite often.

27th April 2012, 08:50 AM	#88
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other." ETA: Bob quickly exclaims, "Let's vote on whether women are allowed to move out! I vote NO!" Tom quickly follows, "I vote NO!" Jane looks down at RB's gun in her hand then turns to him and asks, "Can I really get one of these for less than one month's rent?" RB nods. ETA: Bob desperately adds, "Lets vote on whether women can have guns! I vote NO!" Tom nervously follows, "I ... I vote no." Jane has had enough. She says "Anyone trying to stop me gets a bullet in the face." and begins packing. Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom." Originally Posted by Biscuit I am going to go ahead and say that rape is never a good analogy. If you have been raped or know some one who has been raped you could understand this. I apologize for taking a high ground here but this "thought experiment" disgusts me. Why don't you change your thought experiment a little and you might find people are more willing to play along? Perhaps Jane could make more money than the other two and they vote that she has to pay for more of the bills? If you insist on your absurd and offensive rape fantasy then I would tell Jane to come with me as we are going to file a police report. This would fall under domestic violence laws and as the victim Jane would be granted a restraining order and the other two would be banned from the property, now under police watch, while Jane retrieved her things. If she had no place else to go she could crash on my couch for a few days while I help her sort things out. After a few days Jane learns what a great cook I am and finds the early morning dips in my swimming pool refreshing. I find her to be a witty and intelligent person. We spend long hours playing chess, checkers, and card games. Like turns to longing, longing to love and one night we make the metaphorical "beast with two backs." The next day while walking the dogs Jane goes into a gas station store to buy some water and recalling my long rants about the "lottery is a tax on people who cant do math!" She buys a lottery ticket to tease me. Jane is feisty like that. Two days later we win over 100 million off that lottery ticket. We live happily ever after. Bob and Tom, two obviously confused and morally bankrupt losers, never find another room mate and instead rape each other death. Fin. Originally Posted by fishbob Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat. Every day. For the rest of the century. So I come into this thread first thing in the morning. First coffee and all that. And it's rape, violent forced rape being used as an extremely poor analogy for...something. (that I suspect the OP is now afraid to divulge because of massive fail.) The responses I've quoted are the ones that will keep me from loading my own gun before ever leaving my house.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

27th April 2012, 08:51 AM	#89
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,736	Originally Posted by stokes234 Is bob... is bob in the room with us right now, garett? Maybe we should look behind that troll in the corner. I have some issues with the idea of taxing the rich because they are rich, but the two situations are not comparable.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

27th April 2012, 08:51 AM	#90
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	Originally Posted by fishbob Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat. Every day. For the rest of the century. THat's the point of the second amendment to the US Constitution.

27th April 2012, 08:55 AM	#91
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	What is it with the proliferation of threads about rape? Do people really not understand the basics of individual liberty?
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

27th April 2012, 09:00 AM	#92
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Upchurch To what end? Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:02 AM	#93
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Upchurch What I'm actually confused about is your point. Either this is an analogy for something or it is mental masterbation. If it is the former, you need to explain how this analogy is valid and to what it relates. If it is the latter, it belongs in R&P, not Politics. It's a thought-experiment about democratic governments that is crucial to the current US political debate.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:04 AM	#94
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin Well, considering "Jane" is the one who evidently possesses that which "Bob and Tom" feel should rightly be shared among themselves, perhaps there's a way to settle on a compromise. What might be helpful is to know if this is their first such scenario. Perhaps "Bob and Tom" have previously attempted to persuade "Jane" with the logic of their viewpoint, and her response has been to hold them at arm's length, adding that if they'd only be patient, any moment now she would begin to "trickle down." Please explain to Bob and Tom what's wrong with their thought process. Jane would appreciate it, as she's in a tough spot.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:09 AM	#95
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by stokes234 You've just asked the question to a whole forum. I ask you and suddenly that's not cool? Address your points to the issue, not to made-up accusations about other posters. When you left off, you were telling Bob that raping Jane would psychologically scar her, and Bob replied to you that he would do it in a way that she wouldn't remember. Do you have anything left to say to him? He's ready to exercise his democratic-given powers over Jane...
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:13 AM	#96
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Beerina That's a libertarian's argument. I'm seeing precious little actual argument anywhere to suggest that a majority of people sitting around, rubbing their chins and deciding something is fine, shouldn't have a priori assumption of the validiy of their decisions. Someone said it violates people's rights at the federal level. Fair enough. What if a judge rubbed his chin and decided times had changed and the majority of people don't feel that way so it is no longer Constitutionally protected? Bob and Tom believe that they are justified because they represent the majority of the population, in this case. According to Bob, they democratically outvoted Jane 2-to-1, and decided on their own, on her behalf, that, among other things, she could spare the time, sex was necessary for the survival of the species, and she owed society for her health and attractiveness. The issue is how people explain to Bob and Tom that they are wrong, and exactly what Bob and Tom are misunderstanding about what a democracy can and can't do.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:15 AM	#97
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by EGarrett Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else. Really? That's what this is about. So. much. wrong. Going back to jr. high civics, the US is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. So might (in this case merely outnumbering) does not make right and weaker minorities (in this case, Jane) are protected. The majority mob does not get to stomp all over the minorities rights. To claim that the wealthiest people of this country are somehow a protected minority because their numbers are small is ridiculous, only possible if you completely overlook their vast financial influence. Raising taxes on the rich does not raise taxes on all their wealth, only that income which is higher than 95% of the population earns. You are comparing taxation which will have no practical effect on their standard of living to on-going daily violent rape. Either you think the rich are fragile creatures who will be traumatized by merely looking at a bank account statement or you believe that rape is no big deal.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

27th April 2012, 09:18 AM	#99
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other." ETA: Bob quickly exclaims, "Let's vote on whether women are allowed to move out! I vote NO!" Tom quickly follows, "I vote NO!" Jane looks down at RB's gun in her hand then turns to him and asks, "Can I really get one of these for less than one month's rent?" RB nods. ETA: Bob desperately adds, "Lets vote on whether women can have guns! I vote NO!" Tom nervously follows, "I ... I vote no." Jane has had enough. She says "Anyone trying to stop me gets a bullet in the face." and begins packing. Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom." A gun is fine if the people won't listen to reason. But in this thought-experiment, Bob and Tom will listen, and they believe they are acting on valid bases. Obviously, also, having a gun does not make you right or wrong. It does not justify or unjustify any line of reasoning. So, while it is useful when you are attacked, in this case it's beside the point.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:18 AM	#100
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	So, Bob proposes a Vote, wherein the result would be physical and Mental harm against another in the household. Specifically, a woman. And Tom goes along with this idea. Obviously, they are conservatives, voting to deny a woman her sexual freedoms. The only thing missing is a third person ranting about a mythical person named 'Bamster'. People like this can never be convinced. They only care about their own tiny worlds, and how they themselves can get what they want. Not how others feel. In this case, Jane, who obviously doesn't want to be forced into being harmed physically or mentally. What would be next? voting so that in this household, only Bob and Tom have the right to vote, since Jane doesn't follow in lockstep with them? Because Jane might be a 'progressive', since she wants her own freedoms? A very conservative thing, it seems these days. I would inform them that they are borderline Sociopaths, that this has no bearing on the 'general well being' of the household, since they have to hurt another person. Then I set Bob and Tom on fire, since they are obvious strawmen.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

27th April 2012, 09:22 AM	#101
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	Originally Posted by EGarrett The issue is how people explain to Bob and Tom that they are wrong, and exactly what Bob and Tom are misunderstanding about what a democracy can and can't do. As has been pointed out a domestic living situation is not a scaled down version of any government I can think of. Further more "rape" is not one the enumerated powers of any government I can think of. If Tom and Bob can't see the problem with their thinking than it may be to late for them. I doubt a civics lesson is going to be of much good.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson Last edited by Biscuit; 27th April 2012 at 09:24 AM.

27th April 2012, 09:22 AM	#102
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,356	If Jane is a straw lady, I have no objections. Scarecrows are not protected by our human laws.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

27th April 2012, 09:23 AM	#103
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by bookitty Really? That's what this is about. So. much. wrong. Going back to jr. high civics, the US is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. So might (in this case merely outnumbering) does not make right and weaker minorities (in this case, Jane) are protected. The majority mob does not get to stomp all over the minorities rights. That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:26 AM	#104
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	Originally Posted by egarrett obviously, also, having a ~~gun~~ majority does not make you right ~~or wrong~~. ftfy
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

27th April 2012, 09:28 AM	#105
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,600	Oooh, it's like a lecture, with someone all professorial at the front Can I just read someone else's notes later?
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th April 2012, 09:33 AM	#106
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,395	Originally Posted by EGarrett That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn? It's not surprising that none of the collectivist minions have yet grasped the center of your argument. A few suggested that a "greater power" such as the gun of a cop would be a solution, others suggested "law", and one or two "rights". But none grasped that it was and is the presence of the US Constitution that stands fairly alone in history, as a block against abuse of power of the sort suggested in this thought experiment. And which is being disregarded by the current administration in as many ways as it may suit them. But if Bob, Tom and Jane were forced by the government to buy healthcare, and then were forced buy guns and bibles, then many other forcings can follow, all to the benefit of some preferred group or another.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

27th April 2012, 09:33 AM	#107
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by EGarrett That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn? Back to Jr. High - it is helpful if one reads the entire assignment.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

27th April 2012, 09:37 AM	#108
RenaissanceBiker Eats shoots and leaves. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,810	Originally Posted by Biscuit ftfy That's what Ben Franklin said.
	__________________ "Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine "Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker

27th April 2012, 09:40 AM	#109
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Do Bob and Tom represent various US state governments, and is Jane seekign an abortion? What kind of ultrasound equipment do they have?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

27th April 2012, 09:40 AM	#110
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	Originally Posted by EGarrett Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else. "Can't" or "shouldn't"? They can, and do.

27th April 2012, 09:40 AM	#111
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	Originally Posted by mhaze It's not surprising that none of the collectivist minions have yet grasped the center of your argument. A few suggested that a "greater power" such as the gun of a cop would be a solution, others suggested "law", and one or two "rights". But none grasped that it was and is the presence of the US Constitution that stands fairly alone in history, as a block against abuse of power of the sort suggested in this thought experiment. And which is being disregarded by the current administration in as many ways as it may suit them. But if Bob, Tom and Jane were forced by the government to buy healthcare, and then were forced buy guns and bibles, then many other forcings can follow, all to the benefit of some preferred group or another. So the point he is trying to make is what? That the only thing that stops people from committing rape is the fact that the U.S. constitution sets limits on federal powers?
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

27th April 2012, 09:48 AM	#112
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Biscuit As has been pointed out a domestic living situation is not a scaled down version of any government I can think of. Further more "rape" is not one the enumerated powers of any government I can think of. If Tom and Bob can't see the problem with their thinking than it may be to late for them. I doubt a civics lesson is going to be of much good. Okay, you've told Bob and Tom that governments don't normally have the power of rape. They've stopped to listen to you. They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:50 AM	#113
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by bookitty Back to Jr. High - it is helpful if one reads the entire assignment. I did read your entire post. Answer the question and it will lead to an explanation of your second point. What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

27th April 2012, 09:53 AM	#114
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,143	You seem to really like rape.

27th April 2012, 09:57 AM	#115
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by EGarrett I did read your entire post. Answer the question and it will lead to an explanation of your second point. What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote? No, answering the question as you pose it relies on my support of your flawed premise. If you were to state that premise clearly and support it with something other than a violent rape fantasy, perhaps it would be possible to discuss it.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

27th April 2012, 10:00 AM	#116
RenaissanceBiker Eats shoots and leaves. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,810	Originally Posted by EGarrett Okay, you've told Bob and Tom that governments don't normally have the power of rape. They've stopped to listen to you. They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?" Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral or your laws just.
	__________________ "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 10:10 AM.