Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane? - Page 7

mijopaalmc · 27th April 2012, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

We elect our leaders democratically.

As our legislative representatives. In general, the people can't abrogate the law simply by voting.

brodski · 27th April 2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Could you do a bit more than just gainsay? The UK has no codified Constitution. The Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and years of legislation limited the govt and were instrumental to providing for individual liberty but they did not codify it. To this day there is no constitutional guarantee of individual liberty. Right?

Wrong, those things you list are part of the British constitution, the fact that is is not a single codified document is irrelevant, oh and you can add Echr/hra to the list, ad well as the bill of rights (the original one).

RandFan · 27th April 2012, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

As our legislative representatives. In general, the people can't abrogate the law simply by voting.

One does not need to abrogate the law simply by voting to be a Democracy.

Originally Posted by wiki

Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people.[61] Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.[61] The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature. While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead, but most countries in the Americas, including the USA, use this system.

RandFan · 27th April 2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

Wrong, those things you list are part of the British constitution, the fact that is is not a single codified document is irrelevant, oh and you can add Echr/hra to the list, ad well as the bill of rights (the original one).

? this has already been acknowledged. This doesn't advance the discussion. But what do you think I'm wrong about?

Originally Posted by wiki

Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.

TubbaBlubba · 27th April 2012, 05:07 PM

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?

Basically, I mean it's something most people very much agree on, and that it as such should be more difficult to change the laws surrounding it.

mijopaalmc · 27th April 2012, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

One does not need to abrogate the law simply by voting to be a Democracy.

So you think that we live in a democracy?

RandFan · 27th April 2012, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

So you think that we live in a democracy?

Not a "pure" democracy. A "presidential" democracy.

Originally Posted by wiki

Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people.[61] Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.[61] The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature. While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead, but most countries in the Americas, including the USA, use this system.

brodski · 27th April 2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

? this has already been acknowledged. This doesn't advance the discussion. But what do you think I'm wrong about?

You claimed that the various documents no not codify personal liberty, they do. Each of them in various ways are all codifications. This is a seperate issue from having a single codified constitution.

The original claim was that the us constitution was unique in respect of a codifed list of liberties, a quick glance at the 1689 bill of rights will show that's not true.

RandFan · 27th April 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

You claimed that the various documents no not codify personal liberty, they do. Each of them in various ways are all codifications. This is a seperate issue from having a single codified constitution.

The original claim was that the us constitution was unique in respect of a codifed list of liberties, a quick glance at the 1689 bill of rights will show that's not true.

Okay, I was wrong. Thank you.

fishbob · 27th April 2012, 06:04 PM

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?"

Tom also needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.

varwoche · 27th April 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply.

The same mistaken assumption others have made.

This house is located in Libertopia.

In Libertopia, irrationality is par for the course.

RandFan · 27th April 2012, 06:22 PM

The stuff of moral philosophy for 2,600 years.

It's okay, no one is really going to be raped.

Crying baby dilemma, trolley problem, ticking time bomb, etc.. These are meant to challenge our preconceptions and they often make us uncomfortable. That's the nature of moral questioning.

If you take a course in ethics you are going to have to deal with these and attacking the hypotheticals won't get you a passing grade.

For a taste with these very hypotheticals see www.justiceharvard.org

tyr_13 · 27th April 2012, 06:22 PM

Bob and Tom will have to stop rolling a 1 sometime...

mijopaalmc · 27th April 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The stuff of moral philosophy for 2,600 years.

It's okay, no one is really going to be raped.

Crying baby dilemma, trolley problem, ticking time bomb, etc.. These are meant to challenge our preconceptions and they often make us uncomfortable. That's the nature of moral questioning.

If you take a course in ethics you are going to have to deal with these and attacking the hypotheticals won't get you a passing grade.

For a taste with these very hypotheticals see www.justiceharvard.org

There's a difference between a hypothetical and analogy. The OP was the latter, and a false one at.

RandFan · 27th April 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

There's a difference between a hypothetical and analogy. The OP was the latter, and a false one at.

Actually it is a hypothetical. It's intended use was also to be an analogy. The analogy failed. But there was no reason not to address the hypothetical. Doing so made it quite easy to attack the analogy. One just need understand that the answer to the hypothetical and the analogy are the same. It's in the best interest of everyone to protect the disadvantaged. In the case of the three roommates it is in their best interest to protect Jane. In the case of society it's in the best interest of the rich to ensure the health and well being of the poor and disadvantaged.

rustypouch · 27th April 2012, 07:27 PM

Can we stop all this politics talk and get back to the rape?

fuelair · 27th April 2012, 07:37 PM

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?

"You each get to vote on this option: Do you want it in the head or the heart?
Choose quick I don't have time to waste here."

balrog666 · 27th April 2012, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply.

No, this is the USA.

Foolmewunz · 27th April 2012, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob and Tom are temporarily convinced by Bob's argument in the original post that they have the right to do it. They decided that it will make most of the house happy, Jane can afford to spare the few minutes, she owes society for her fitness and attractiveness and as a fit and attractive person she must be willing contribute a bit more, and sex is necessary for the survival of the species. So they voted 2-to-1 to help themselves to Jane. But they are of course willing to hear your thoughts on their conclusion.

Bolded Part: Well, no. Apparently,~~you're~~ they're not willing to hear Biscuit's or anyone's thoughts. You have been presented the reasons that the OP is a farce as an analogy, and to keep the little charade going you just keep returning to "But they voted!"

I'm reminded of an after-dinner speech that Bennet Cerf once gave. A kindergarten teacher was introducing her wards to the class pet - a hamster which they'd just been given. One of the kids asked if it was a girl or a boy, something the teacher hadn't been informed. She told them that she didn't know and one kid said, "Oooh, I know how we can tell if it's a girl or a boy!" Fearing that she's about to have to do a birds-and-bees explanation with five year olds, the teacher reluctantly asks, "Er, how's that, Timmy?"

"We can vote!", says Timmy.

Some things are not up to a vote. In said story, we're talking about facts of science/biology. In your strawman, strawlady, strawplot we're talking about broadly accepted rights and moral standards in a community, country or civilization. And to mix analogies and get a separate lick in,... You can no more vote to commit violence on a minority or your society than you can vote to raise a pack of wolves on the 17th floor of your council flats.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

...Not all get the best services. As a society we spend the most on healthcare.

All citizens of our society are in the market.
As a society we spend the most per capita.
As a society we get the least.

From a utilitarian standpoint, ObamaCare is nothing like voting to abuse citizens.

He repeats this without addressing the objections:
1. Different countries count expenses differently. For example is hospice care a medical expense? Does the British total include money paid to private providers? Does it include medical tourism to private clinics in Spain or Costa Rica?
2. Aggregate costs and aggregate performance say little about the care an individual will receive. If per operation costs are really cheaper in the UK, the British government could make money selling operations to Americans. They don't. Therefore...
3. "We get the least" is flat false. Depending on the diagnosis, some US care (e.g., cancer treatment) is among the best.

rustypouch · 27th April 2012, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

He repeats this without addressing the objections:
1. Different countries count expenses differently. For example is hospice care a medical expense? Does the British total include money paid to private providers? Does it include medical tourism to private clinics in Spain or Costa Rica?
2. Aggregate costs and aggregate performance say little about the care an individual will receive. If per operation costs are really cheaper in the UK, the British government could make money selling operations to Americans. They don't. Therefore...
3. "We get the least" is flat false. Depending on the diagnosis, some US care (e.g., cancer treatment) is among the best.

Cute.

psionl0 · 27th April 2012, 09:53 PM

Presumably Bob, Tom and Jane set up a constitution when they formed their union and that constitution should deal with what laws they can set up between them.

If there is no such union (ie they are 3 separate individuals) then Bob and Tom can form any deal they like but they can't make any such deal binding on Jane.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th April 2012, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by stokes234

Actually, I consider "would you want to live in a society where...?" to be a valid thought experiment when considering utilitarianism, but perhaps Rawl's Veil of Ignorance is a better tool here. Would you implement this rule of allowing women to be drugged and raped for the pleasure of a larger number of men, if you didn't know which party of the deal you would be in this society?

Rawls is not helpful. That thought experiment imagines impossible conditions. How are those ghosts motivated? Are ghosts of tigers or sociopaths among them? Are they strict vegetarians? Or maybe they are plants that do not want to be eaten by herbivores. Rawls ignores the evolutionary basis of morality. A better starting point is Ridley, The Origins of Virtue, and Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. There is also a good discussion of evolving morality in Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty.

I prefer a compromise between "would you want to live in a society where...?" and the Rawls' veil of ignorance: "would you want your great grandchildren to live in a society where...?", since social turbulence renders calculation about their status uncertain.

All activity occurs in the present. People differ in the rate at which they discount time. They weigh short term and long term costs and benefits differently. When people are starving (or addicted, or desperately horny), long term considerations fade into insignificance. During the seige of Leningrad, some people killed other people for their flesh. Today, we take the first steps on the path to our grandchildren's society.

Bill Thompson · 28th April 2012, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Jomante

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. In a representative republic the people grant government the power. The government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just the best interests of the majority.

Jane is welcome to leave whenever she wants to avoid tyranny of a pure democratic system.

But what really happened was this. After Bob & Tom voted to make rape legal, Jane got with Bob and convinced him to vote to have Toms manhood removed. And then Jane got with a very upset Tom who was more than eager to extract revenge on Bob and voted to have Bobs manhood removed. Thus the problem resolved itself.

By the way, did you notice that I did not say we live in a democracy?

While we do live in a republic, we still elect leaders through a somewhat democratic process where the majority of flaming idiots pick our leaders. And that process usually fails to pick the best candidate for president.

Jimmy Carter was a bad pick for president and it got us in trouble.
Bill Clinton was a bad pick for president and it got us in trouble.
Obama was a bad pick for president and it got us in trouble.

Most Americans are too stupid to know what qualities a Commander in Chief should have. So we pick the best looking and smoothest talker.

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

So Bob and Tom don't believe in personal liberties, possessions, and in fact, just want to rape, and steal willy-nilly?

No. They believe in their own personal liberties and their own possessions, but not those of a certain minority (in this case, Jane), because Jane has things they would like to take from her. They are not raping and stealing willy-nilly, they want to use the democratic process to rape and steal from her by making up spurious logic that dictates that she can spare those things (possessions, time to be raped etc) and that it will make them, the majority, happy, and then outvoting her using their superior numbers.

How would you explain to them that they can't do this?

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

Is your nickname "Stretch"? You're very good at it.

This is the most childish thread I've seen in this subforum in quite awhile. And most of your posts involve setting new conditions for Bob and Tom, and being generally dodgy.

No they don't...

Originally Posted by shemp

I'm just hanging around to see the moment when this whole thread gets tossed into AAH.

...and no you won't. You are going to participate in the discussion as framed or you are not going to post in the thread. You are not going to sit here and derail, flame or post non-content. A moderator has already been posted warnings here.

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I would say to them "I'm calling the police now."

Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply. There is is no such thing as being a "citizen" of a house. Houses are not democracies. They are subject to the laws of the country in which they live.

Originally Posted by fishbob

Tom also needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.

Appeals to force are not solutions. Bob has proposed logic, however wrong it may actually be and Tom, not being much of a thinker, has bought into it. This is the same way that the Bolsheviks took over Russia. They had their communist manifesto, and the current rulers did not have any logic to fight it. Eventually, the Bolsheviks gained enough support to take over the entire country by force, since there was no ideological counterpoint.

So, you call the police, and when the police get there, they read Bob's argument as presented in the first post, and they say "actually, he's got a point." They are still looking at you to logically challenge him. If you don't, they are going to join Bob and Tom.

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I don't think he thought this through all the way and now he just repeats the opening argument. We have gone from voting for rape, to voting for assault, to voting for theft. I assume arson and shining a laser pointer at a planes cockpit are coming up soon all under the guise that 2 people have "voted" for it. One of these people is hapless twit willing to go along with whatever his sociopathic rapist of friend wants to do.

But don't worry its all an analogy for big government and how liberals hate freedom.

Then why don't you explain the difference to Bob. You're constantly trying to avoid the discussion and declare yourself correct by bald assertion. That doesn't fly.

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Basically, I mean it's something most people very much agree on, and that it as such should be more difficult to change the laws surrounding it.

Now, as far as the thought experiment goes, Bob and Tom are confused again. "But we ARE most people in the house. So don't we get to rape her, since most people currently in the house agree on it?"

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Bolded Part: Well, no. Apparently,~~you're~~ they're not willing to hear Biscuit's or anyone's thoughts. You have been presented the reasons that the OP is a farce as an analogy, and to keep the little charade going you just keep returning to "But they voted!"

No. Bob and Tom keep returning to that. If your reason that they shouldn't rape Jane is that most people don't think it's a good idea, then you haven't actually proposed anything, since Bob and Tom ARE most people in the house. If your reason is that Jane doesn't like it, Bob and Tom will say that they will like it, and she doesn't have to fight, so in their eyes it will help the majority of people in the house and she can go along with it.

There is certain logic that fails to convince them because it does not account for what Bob said in the original post. You need to address their actual misunderstanding of democratic power, not reinforce it by using the same spurious arguments.

Quote:

Some things are not up to a vote. In said story, we're talking about facts of science/biology. In your strawman, strawlady, strawplot we're talking about broadly accepted rights and moral standards in a community, country or civilization. And to mix analogies and get a separate lick in,... You can no more vote to commit violence on a minority or your society than you can vote to raise a pack of wolves on the 17th floor of your council flats.

"Why?"

Bob and Tom are getting impatient at your lack of an argument, and Jane is getting very scared.

stokes234 · 28th April 2012, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

"Why?"

I've already explained that it's not utilitarian. Why won't you address that?

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Presumably Bob, Tom and Jane set up a constitution when they formed their union and that constitution should deal with what laws they can set up between them.

If there is no such union (ie they are 3 separate individuals) then Bob and Tom can form any deal they like but they can't make any such deal binding on Jane.

This is the type of thing that will make Bob and Tom reconsider their logic. (and obviously if they don't have a constitution, it can be explained to them that any one of them can be robbed, raped, or killed at the whim of the majority, so their society doesn't do much to help any of them as individuals, unless they set-up some basic rights that can't be voted away).

I would hope though, that it also follows from this logic that just like they can't rape Jane because they are attracted to her, they also can't rob Jane just because they want to have her possessions, or they think she's not a nice person, or they decide that she doesn't need the things she owns.

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

I've already explained that it's not utilitarian. Why won't you address that?

The last I saw, you proposed that it would psychologically scar Jane, and Bob said that they could drug her and do it gently so that she wouldn't even remember that it happened. And the great joy Bob and Tom would get from this, in their eyes, would make it utilitarian.

From there, you don't seem to have offered any other argument to slow them down or save Jane. But I may have missed it so by all means point me to it or tell me how you reply.

Distracted1 · 28th April 2012, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

This is the type of thing that will make Bob and Tom reconsider their logic. (and obviously if they don't have a constitution, it can be explained to them that any one of them can be robbed, raped, or killed at the whim of the majority, so their society doesn't do much to help any of them as individuals, unless they set-up some basic rights that can't be voted away).

I would hope though, that it also follows from this logic that just like they can't rape Jane because they are attracted to her, they also can't rob Jane just because they want to have her possessions, or they think she's not a nice person, or they decide that she doesn't need the things she owns.

Please clear up some things here.

Does the house these three occupy represent a sovereign nation for the purposes of this "thought experiment"? If so, more details as to the operation of this nation need to be provided to make a ruling.

Do you mean "can" two of the residents rape a third, or "should" two of the residents rape a third? I will concede that it is possible in every instance for two to rape one, negating any differences in fighting ability, strength or speed among the residents for the sake of this argument.

lionking · 28th April 2012, 05:57 AM

Rape fantasies. Disgusting.

tyr_13 · 28th April 2012, 06:18 AM

Bob and Tom have shown themselves to be very stupid, cravenly indifferent to the well being and agency of others, cruel, flippant, and possibly psychopathic. They are no longer people that need 'reasoned' with, but fought against. If they reject reasons for not raping someone and justify it with a 'vote', then they are being dishonest, to understate it, in pretending they want to discuss it at all.

Which I'm sure they'll respond to with, "Oh, we're not being dishonest, you can really convince us and we want to discuss this." That's of course a lie. They've predetermined the outcome they want and justification be damned. They might as well answer every reasoned argument with, "but I've got a goldfish, so it's ok."

As an analogy it would apply to basically no other situation besides faux democracy dictatorships using 'voting' as a poor justification for whatever horror or bad policy they wish to inflict. It isn't an analogy that applies to US politics. As a hypothetical it's the equivalent of that kid on the playground who wouldn't stop giving themselves more and more pretend powers. This argument is Eric Cartman.

Foolmewunz · 28th April 2012, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

No. Bob and Tom keep returning to that. If your reason that they shouldn't rape Jane is that most people don't think it's a good idea, then you haven't actually proposed anything, since Bob and Tom ARE most people in the house. If your reason is that Jane doesn't like it, Bob and Tom will say that they will like it, and she doesn't have to fight, so in their eyes it will help the majority of people in the house and she can go along with it.

There is certain logic that fails to convince them because it does not account for what Bob said in the original post. You need to address their actual misunderstanding of democratic power, not reinforce it by using the same spurious arguments.

Bob and Tom are a majority in a construct. Would they have even taken such a vote if there were three Janes (women) present. What, aside for their pathetic misunderstanding of democracy, is the basis for their vote? Are there house rules in this nation-state you've constructed or is this "just a couple of guys sitting around talking"? If there were rules at the outset that a simple majority to vote to take away the money, violate, or physically harm the third person, would anyone have joined this "society" in the first place?

Your analogy is still pathetic, regardless that you and a couple of our other Don Quixotes seem to think that it's oh-so-clever. Taxation is nothing close to rape. (Although I'm leaning towards your idea of doping up the water supply of the 1% with Prozac so that it'll be a less traumatic experience for them. Thanks for that idea.)

Quote:

"Why?"

Bob and Tom are getting impatient at your lack of an argument, and Jane is getting very scared.

I know you're not this dumb so I have to ask if Bob and Tom are a couple of droolers? They're not familiar with the Constitution? The Rights of Man? The Magna Carta? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How about the U.S. Code? Local codes?

I gave Jane my mobile and she called 911. Unlike your imaginary Libertopian cops, the real deal will take a dim view of Bob and Tom's little adventure.

stokes234 · 28th April 2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

The last I saw, you proposed that it would psychologically scar Jane, and Bob said that they could drug her and do it gently so that she wouldn't even remember that it happened. And the great joy Bob and Tom would get from this, in their eyes, would make it utilitarian.

From there, you don't seem to have offered any other argument to slow them down or save Jane. But I may have missed it so by all means point me to it or tell me how you reply.

I'm not "offering arguments to save Jane", i'm disputing your ridiculous points. And i'm doing it by pointing out that rape isn't utilitarian. Either you agree with me and we can move on to discuss whether or not progressive taxation is utilitarian, or you disagree with me and we can discuss whether it's safe to allow you to roam the streets.

EGarrett · 28th April 2012, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Please clear up some things here.

Does the house these three occupy represent a sovereign nation for the purposes of this "thought experiment"? If so, more details as to the operation of this nation need to be provided to make a ruling.

Yes, you can essentially view it as Bob and Tom deciding to act as their own little government. Say Bob happens to have just read a book about government while not really getting most of it.

Quote:

Do you mean "can" two of the residents rape a third, or "should" two of the residents rape a third? I will concede that it is possible in every instance for two to rape one, negating any differences in fighting ability, strength or speed among the residents for the sake of this argument.

The discussion is really whether they logically can, not whether they actually could by force, so maybe "should" is the better word. The initial wording is unclear about that. The notion of force is meant to be beside the point, instead it's a question of whether Bob and Tom's logic makes it justified or okay for them to do it.

shemp · 28th April 2012, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

No they don't...

...and no you won't. You are going to participate in the discussion as framed or you are not going to post in the thread. You are not going to sit here and derail, flame or post non-content. A moderator has already been posted warnings here.

As of this moment, I have not been issued any notification of warning. Also, not being a moderator, you will not tell me whether or not I can post in your thread. And, not being a moderator, you will not be the arbiter of whether or not a post is derailment, flaming or non-content.

Answer these questions, and maybe I'll keep playing: What are the external conditions in this scenario? Do Bob, Tom and Jane live on a planet with no other people, or do they live in the real world U.S.A., or in some other situation, such as a libertarian ~~hellhole~~ utopia. And, is this scenario an allegory of the Buffett Rule?

27th April 2012, 05:00 PM	#241
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by RandFan We elect our leaders democratically. As our legislative representatives. In general, the people can't abrogate the law simply by voting.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

27th April 2012, 05:01 PM	#242
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by RandFan Could you do a bit more than just gainsay? The UK has no codified Constitution. The Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and years of legislation limited the govt and were instrumental to providing for individual liberty but they did not codify it. To this day there is no constitutional guarantee of individual liberty. Right? Wrong, those things you list are part of the British constitution, the fact that is is not a single codified document is irrelevant, oh and you can add Echr/hra to the list, ad well as the bill of rights (the original one).
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

27th April 2012, 05:03 PM	#243
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc As our legislative representatives. In general, the people can't abrogate the law simply by voting. One does not need to abrogate the law simply by voting to be a Democracy. Originally Posted by wiki Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people.[61] Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.[61] The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature. While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead, but most countries in the Americas, including the USA, use this system.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 27th April 2012 at 05:09 PM.

27th April 2012, 05:06 PM	#244
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by brodski Wrong, those things you list are part of the British constitution, the fact that is is not a single codified document is irrelevant, oh and you can add Echr/hra to the list, ad well as the bill of rights (the original one). ? this has already been acknowledged. This doesn't advance the discussion. But what do you think I'm wrong about? Originally Posted by wiki Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th April 2012, 05:07 PM	#245
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,410	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? Basically, I mean it's something most people very much agree on, and that it as such should be more difficult to change the laws surrounding it.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

27th April 2012, 05:07 PM	#246
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by RandFan One does not need to abrogate the law simply by voting to be a Democracy. So you think that we live in a democracy?
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

27th April 2012, 05:11 PM	#247
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc So you think that we live in a democracy? Not a "pure" democracy. A "presidential" democracy. Originally Posted by wiki Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people.[61] Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.[61] The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature. While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead, but most countries in the Americas, including the USA, use this system.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th April 2012, 05:13 PM	#248
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by RandFan ? this has already been acknowledged. This doesn't advance the discussion. But what do you think I'm wrong about? You claimed that the various documents no not codify personal liberty, they do. Each of them in various ways are all codifications. This is a seperate issue from having a single codified constitution. The original claim was that the us constitution was unique in respect of a codifed list of liberties, a quick glance at the 1689 bill of rights will show that's not true.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

27th April 2012, 05:17 PM	#249
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by brodski You claimed that the various documents no not codify personal liberty, they do. Each of them in various ways are all codifications. This is a seperate issue from having a single codified constitution. The original claim was that the us constitution was unique in respect of a codifed list of liberties, a quick glance at the 1689 bill of rights will show that's not true. Okay, I was wrong. Thank you.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th April 2012, 06:04 PM	#250
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	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?" Tom also needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
	__________________ 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.

27th April 2012, 06:09 PM	#251
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,232	Originally Posted by Puppycow Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply. The same mistaken assumption others have made. This house is located in Libertopia. In Libertopia, irrationality is par for the course.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

27th April 2012, 06:22 PM	#252
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	It was a hypothetical folks The stuff of moral philosophy for 2,600 years. It's okay, no one is really going to be raped. Crying baby dilemma, trolley problem, ticking time bomb, etc.. These are meant to challenge our preconceptions and they often make us uncomfortable. That's the nature of moral questioning. If you take a course in ethics you are going to have to deal with these and attacking the hypotheticals won't get you a passing grade. For a taste with these very hypotheticals see www.justiceharvard.org
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th April 2012, 06:22 PM	#253
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,662	Bob and Tom will have to stop rolling a 1 sometime...
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

27th April 2012, 07:05 PM	#254
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	Originally Posted by RandFan The stuff of moral philosophy for 2,600 years. It's okay, no one is really going to be raped. Crying baby dilemma, trolley problem, ticking time bomb, etc.. These are meant to challenge our preconceptions and they often make us uncomfortable. That's the nature of moral questioning. If you take a course in ethics you are going to have to deal with these and attacking the hypotheticals won't get you a passing grade. For a taste with these very hypotheticals see www.justiceharvard.org There's a difference between a hypothetical and analogy. The OP was the latter, and a false one at.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

27th April 2012, 07:18 PM	#255
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc There's a difference between a hypothetical and analogy. The OP was the latter, and a false one at. Actually it is a hypothetical. It's intended use was also to be an analogy. The analogy failed. But there was no reason not to address the hypothetical. Doing so made it quite easy to attack the analogy. One just need understand that the answer to the hypothetical and the analogy are the same. It's in the best interest of everyone to protect the disadvantaged. In the case of the three roommates it is in their best interest to protect Jane. In the case of society it's in the best interest of the rich to ensure the health and well being of the poor and disadvantaged.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th April 2012, 07:27 PM	#256
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,135	Can we stop all this politics talk and get back to the rape?

27th April 2012, 07:37 PM	#257
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,946	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? "You each get to vote on this option: Do you want it in the head or the heart? Choose quick I don't have time to waste here."
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,946	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

27th April 2012, 08:04 PM	#258
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,529	Originally Posted by Puppycow Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply. No, this is the USA.
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote

27th April 2012, 08:18 PM	#259
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,519	Originally Posted by EGarrett Bob and Tom are temporarily convinced by Bob's argument in the original post that they have the right to do it. They decided that it will make most of the house happy, Jane can afford to spare the few minutes, she owes society for her fitness and attractiveness and as a fit and attractive person she must be willing contribute a bit more, and sex is necessary for the survival of the species. So they voted 2-to-1 to help themselves to Jane. But they are of course willing to hear your thoughts on their conclusion. Bolded Part: Well, no. Apparently,~~you're~~ they're not willing to hear Biscuit's or anyone's thoughts. You have been presented the reasons that the OP is a farce as an analogy, and to keep the little charade going you just keep returning to "But they voted!" I'm reminded of an after-dinner speech that Bennet Cerf once gave. A kindergarten teacher was introducing her wards to the class pet - a hamster which they'd just been given. One of the kids asked if it was a girl or a boy, something the teacher hadn't been informed. She told them that she didn't know and one kid said, "Oooh, I know how we can tell if it's a girl or a boy!" Fearing that she's about to have to do a birds-and-bees explanation with five year olds, the teacher reluctantly asks, "Er, how's that, Timmy?" "We can vote!", says Timmy. Some things are not up to a vote. In said story, we're talking about facts of science/biology. In your strawman, strawlady, strawplot we're talking about broadly accepted rights and moral standards in a community, country or civilization. And to mix analogies and get a separate lick in,... You can no more vote to commit violence on a minority or your society than you can vote to raise a pack of wolves on the 17th floor of your council flats.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

27th April 2012, 09:22 PM	#260
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	This belongs in another thread. Originally Posted by RandFan ...Not all get the best services. As a society we spend the most on healthcare. All citizens of our society are in the market. As a society we spend the most per capita. As a society we get the least. From a utilitarian standpoint, ObamaCare is nothing like voting to abuse citizens. He repeats this without addressing the objections: 1. Different countries count expenses differently. For example is hospice care a medical expense? Does the British total include money paid to private providers? Does it include medical tourism to private clinics in Spain or Costa Rica? 2. Aggregate costs and aggregate performance say little about the care an individual will receive. If per operation costs are really cheaper in the UK, the British government could make money selling operations to Americans. They don't. Therefore... 3. "We get the least" is flat false. Depending on the diagnosis, some US care (e.g., cancer treatment) is among the best.
	Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 27th April 2012 at 09:22 PM. Reason: spelling typo.

27th April 2012, 09:33 PM	#261
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,135	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick He repeats this without addressing the objections: 1. Different countries count expenses differently. For example is hospice care a medical expense? Does the British total include money paid to private providers? Does it include medical tourism to private clinics in Spain or Costa Rica? 2. Aggregate costs and aggregate performance say little about the care an individual will receive. If per operation costs are really cheaper in the UK, the British government could make money selling operations to Americans. They don't. Therefore... 3. "We get the least" is flat false. Depending on the diagnosis, some US care (e.g., cancer treatment) is among the best. Cute.

27th April 2012, 09:53 PM	#262
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,776	Presumably Bob, Tom and Jane set up a constitution when they formed their union and that constitution should deal with what laws they can set up between them. If there is no such union (ie they are 3 separate individuals) then Bob and Tom can form any deal they like but they can't make any such deal binding on Jane.

27th April 2012, 10:21 PM	#263
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	Originally Posted by stokes234 Actually, I consider "would you want to live in a society where...?" to be a valid thought experiment when considering utilitarianism, but perhaps Rawl's Veil of Ignorance is a better tool here. Would you implement this rule of allowing women to be drugged and raped for the pleasure of a larger number of men, if you didn't know which party of the deal you would be in this society? Rawls is not helpful. That thought experiment imagines impossible conditions. How are those ghosts motivated? Are ghosts of tigers or sociopaths among them? Are they strict vegetarians? Or maybe they are plants that do not want to be eaten by herbivores. Rawls ignores the evolutionary basis of morality. A better starting point is Ridley, The Origins of Virtue, and Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. There is also a good discussion of evolving morality in Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty. I prefer a compromise between "would you want to live in a society where...?" and the Rawls' veil of ignorance: "would you want your great grandchildren to live in a society where...?", since social turbulence renders calculation about their status uncertain. All activity occurs in the present. People differ in the rate at which they discount time. They weigh short term and long term costs and benefits differently. When people are starving (or addicted, or desperately horny), long term considerations fade into insignificance. During the seige of Leningrad, some people killed other people for their flesh. Today, we take the first steps on the path to our grandchildren's society.

28th April 2012, 01:39 AM	#264
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by Jomante We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. In a representative republic the people grant government the power. The government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just the best interests of the majority. Jane is welcome to leave whenever she wants to avoid tyranny of a pure democratic system. But what really happened was this. After Bob & Tom voted to make rape legal, Jane got with Bob and convinced him to vote to have Toms manhood removed. And then Jane got with a very upset Tom who was more than eager to extract revenge on Bob and voted to have Bobs manhood removed. Thus the problem resolved itself. By the way, did you notice that I did not say we live in a democracy? While we do live in a republic, we still elect leaders through a somewhat democratic process where the majority of flaming idiots pick our leaders. And that process usually fails to pick the best candidate for president. Jimmy Carter was a bad pick for president and it got us in trouble. Bill Clinton was a bad pick for president and it got us in trouble. Obama was a bad pick for president and it got us in trouble. Most Americans are too stupid to know what qualities a Commander in Chief should have. So we pick the best looking and smoothest talker.
	Last edited by Bill Thompson; 28th April 2012 at 01:41 AM.

28th April 2012, 04:39 AM	#265
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Shalamar So Bob and Tom don't believe in personal liberties, possessions, and in fact, just want to rape, and steal willy-nilly? No. They believe in their own personal liberties and their own possessions, but not those of a certain minority (in this case, Jane), because Jane has things they would like to take from her. They are not raping and stealing willy-nilly, they want to use the democratic process to rape and steal from her by making up spurious logic that dictates that she can spare those things (possessions, time to be raped etc) and that it will make them, the majority, happy, and then outvoting her using their superior numbers. How would you explain to them that they can't do this?
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 04:43 AM	#266
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by shemp Is your nickname "Stretch"? You're very good at it. This is the most childish thread I've seen in this subforum in quite awhile. And most of your posts involve setting new conditions for Bob and Tom, and being generally dodgy. No they don't... Originally Posted by shemp I'm just hanging around to see the moment when this whole thread gets tossed into AAH. ...and no you won't. You are going to participate in the discussion as framed or you are not going to post in the thread. You are not going to sit here and derail, flame or post non-content. A moderator has already been posted warnings here.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 04:46 AM	#267
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Puppycow I would say to them "I'm calling the police now." Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply. There is is no such thing as being a "citizen" of a house. Houses are not democracies. They are subject to the laws of the country in which they live. Originally Posted by fishbob Tom also needs to be beaten with a baseball bat. Appeals to force are not solutions. Bob has proposed logic, however wrong it may actually be and Tom, not being much of a thinker, has bought into it. This is the same way that the Bolsheviks took over Russia. They had their communist manifesto, and the current rulers did not have any logic to fight it. Eventually, the Bolsheviks gained enough support to take over the entire country by force, since there was no ideological counterpoint. So, you call the police, and when the police get there, they read Bob's argument as presented in the first post, and they say "actually, he's got a point." They are still looking at you to logically challenge him. If you don't, they are going to join Bob and Tom.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 04:51 AM	#268
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Biscuit I don't think he thought this through all the way and now he just repeats the opening argument. We have gone from voting for rape, to voting for assault, to voting for theft. I assume arson and shining a laser pointer at a planes cockpit are coming up soon all under the guise that 2 people have "voted" for it. One of these people is hapless twit willing to go along with whatever his sociopathic rapist of friend wants to do. But don't worry its all an analogy for big government and how liberals hate freedom. Then why don't you explain the difference to Bob. You're constantly trying to avoid the discussion and declare yourself correct by bald assertion. That doesn't fly.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 04:54 AM	#269
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba Basically, I mean it's something most people very much agree on, and that it as such should be more difficult to change the laws surrounding it. Now, as far as the thought experiment goes, Bob and Tom are confused again. "But we ARE most people in the house. So don't we get to rape her, since most people currently in the house agree on it?"
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 05:02 AM	#270
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Bolded Part: Well, no. Apparently,~~you're~~ they're not willing to hear Biscuit's or anyone's thoughts. You have been presented the reasons that the OP is a farce as an analogy, and to keep the little charade going you just keep returning to "But they voted!" No. Bob and Tom keep returning to that. If your reason that they shouldn't rape Jane is that most people don't think it's a good idea, then you haven't actually proposed anything, since Bob and Tom ARE most people in the house. If your reason is that Jane doesn't like it, Bob and Tom will say that they will like it, and she doesn't have to fight, so in their eyes it will help the majority of people in the house and she can go along with it. There is certain logic that fails to convince them because it does not account for what Bob said in the original post. You need to address their actual misunderstanding of democratic power, not reinforce it by using the same spurious arguments. Quote: Some things are not up to a vote. In said story, we're talking about facts of science/biology. In your strawman, strawlady, strawplot we're talking about broadly accepted rights and moral standards in a community, country or civilization. And to mix analogies and get a separate lick in,... You can no more vote to commit violence on a minority or your society than you can vote to raise a pack of wolves on the 17th floor of your council flats. "Why?" Bob and Tom are getting impatient at your lack of an argument, and Jane is getting very scared.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 05:10 AM	#271
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by EGarrett "Why?" I've already explained that it's not utilitarian. Why won't you address that?
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

28th April 2012, 05:16 AM	#272
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by psionl0 Presumably Bob, Tom and Jane set up a constitution when they formed their union and that constitution should deal with what laws they can set up between them. If there is no such union (ie they are 3 separate individuals) then Bob and Tom can form any deal they like but they can't make any such deal binding on Jane. This is the type of thing that will make Bob and Tom reconsider their logic. (and obviously if they don't have a constitution, it can be explained to them that any one of them can be robbed, raped, or killed at the whim of the majority, so their society doesn't do much to help any of them as individuals, unless they set-up some basic rights that can't be voted away). I would hope though, that it also follows from this logic that just like they can't rape Jane because they are attracted to her, they also can't rob Jane just because they want to have her possessions, or they think she's not a nice person, or they decide that she doesn't need the things she owns.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 05:19 AM	#273
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by stokes234 I've already explained that it's not utilitarian. Why won't you address that? The last I saw, you proposed that it would psychologically scar Jane, and Bob said that they could drug her and do it gently so that she wouldn't even remember that it happened. And the great joy Bob and Tom would get from this, in their eyes, would make it utilitarian. From there, you don't seem to have offered any other argument to slow them down or save Jane. But I may have missed it so by all means point me to it or tell me how you reply.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

28th April 2012, 05:28 AM	#274
Distracted1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 475	Originally Posted by EGarrett This is the type of thing that will make Bob and Tom reconsider their logic. (and obviously if they don't have a constitution, it can be explained to them that any one of them can be robbed, raped, or killed at the whim of the majority, so their society doesn't do much to help any of them as individuals, unless they set-up some basic rights that can't be voted away). I would hope though, that it also follows from this logic that just like they can't rape Jane because they are attracted to her, they also can't rob Jane just because they want to have her possessions, or they think she's not a nice person, or they decide that she doesn't need the things she owns. Please clear up some things here. Does the house these three occupy represent a sovereign nation for the purposes of this "thought experiment"? If so, more details as to the operation of this nation need to be provided to make a ruling. Do you mean "can" two of the residents rape a third, or "should" two of the residents rape a third? I will concede that it is possible in every instance for two to rape one, negating any differences in fighting ability, strength or speed among the residents for the sake of this argument.

28th April 2012, 05:57 AM	#275
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,654	Rape fantasies. Disgusting.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill