Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by shemp

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.

Now come on, don't you find it cute when libertarians get all authoritarian and bossy.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

I have addressed this and once again you just fly back to your opening argument with slight tweeks. (i.e. Bob has now read a book on government and they are now a sovereign nation)

We have moved past the rape, the assault, and the theft fantasies so why don't you get to your point.

To summarize.

1. 2 or more people voting does not a government make. No one has invested Bob, Tom, and Jane with the power to represent them or society as a whole. No one is legally allowed to get one friend and force their neighbor to have sex with them by vote. Nor can they vote to rob, assault, or dress the person as a clown.

2. To do so would not be in their own best interest as other voting blocks could be made forcing the same or worse on the original voters.

3. No government in a democracy has EVER held the authority to rape women. Why should Bob and Tom's make believe democracy have this authority? What empowers them to have this authority?

4. The only democracy I can think of that comes close to having a majority vote up or down by the citizens would be the meeting of the keys on the isle of Man. Even there a vote to violate another human being could not occur as the representative government does not have that authority. Otherwise democracy are not run by every idea being voted on by every member of a society with a majority rule no matter the subject.

Ok? Can we move on now?


(eta: I feel like Bob and Tom and egarrette need to watch "school house rocks - how a bill becomes a law.)

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

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.

Although you didn't answer my first question specifically, I am choosing to view your response as a yes- the residents of the house represent a sovereign nation, and are not subject to any laws or punishments determined by an outside agent.

That being the case, turning the minority resident of the house into chattel is something they definitely can do. It is the most logical course of action given the situation, as it frees the majority residents from sexual tension, and allows them to persue the improvement of their nation without distraction. Further, since Jane is now chattel, she might as well be made to perform the other menial tasks that are deemed necessary to the efficient functioning of the house.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have addressed this and once again you just fly back to your opening argument with slight tweeks. (i.e. Bob has now read a book on government and they are now a sovereign nation)

We have moved past the rape, the assault, and the theft fantasies so why don't you get to your point.

To summarize.

1. 2 or more people voting does not a government make. No one has invested Bob, Tom, and Jane with the power to represent them or society as a whole. No one is legally allowed to get one friend and force their neighbor to have sex with them by vote. Nor can they vote to rob, assault, or dress the person as a clown.

2. To do so would not be in their own best interest as other voting blocks could be made forcing the same or worse on the original voters.

3. No government in a democracy has EVER held the authority to rape women. Why should Bob and Tom's make believe democracy have this authority? What empowers them to have this authority?

4. The only democracy I can think of that comes close to having a majority vote up or down by the citizens would be the meeting of the keys on the isle of Man. Even there a vote to violate another human being could not occur as the representative government does not have that authority. Otherwise democracy are not run by every idea being voted on by every member of a society with a majority rule no matter the subject.

Ok? Can we move on now?


(eta: I feel like Bob and Tom and egarrette need to watch "school house rocks - how a bill becomes a law.)

Your third pint is clearly in error. see: the United States prior to 1863

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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."

Several people in the thread have already "saved Jane" through a few separate methods of argument.

Quote:

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.

It is an analogy because it mirrors justification that is used for several illogical and dangerous policies that certain people in the U.S. government and certain groups want to implement. Look at Bob's list of arguments in the OP.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by stokes234

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.

You failed to save Jane. By extension, you've also failed to stop a whole lot of other crimes against humanity that have been committed in the past through misuse of political power. If you want to acknowledge your lack of argument then we can move on.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I understand your concern. However, these types of questions can be very helpful to find the limits of moral philosophies and ethical policies. What is important, IMHO, is to understand that it's fairly easy to defend against exploiting the vulnerable. Because we are an evolved social species, in the long run, it's not in our best interest to do so. This is born out through historical observation and can be predicted by game theory and demonstrated experimentally. In short, a model that is against the exploitation of the vulnerable has explanatory and predictive power. It's a damn good model (it is because it was the result of evolution).

I understand the use of extreme analogy in philosophical debate. However, the analogy must be congruous. In this case the analogy is comparing obvious lasting harm to a situation with no practical change. (Rape vs. paying 5% more taxes on income over $1 million? C'mon now, that's just stupid.)

In addition the premise - that the US works as a pure democracy and all voting is based on random ideas which are not subject to a rigorous process - is so flawed as to make this particular debate nothing more than than a flailing interpretive dance of hyperbole. With rape thrown in as titillation. oh. joy.

If this is modeling anything, it is the adult version of a two-year old repeating "Why?" not because they want answers but because the question brings them attention.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

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.

I think this is one of the finest threads yet on JREF. As for how to handle the unruly mob yelling at the three players on the stage, they should continue to be butt kicked off their bar stools UNTIL...

someone comes up and explains the matter from first principles.

Until then, it's gonna be some good comedy.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Several people in the thread have already "saved Jane" through a few separate methods of argument.

It is an analogy because it mirrors justification that is used for several illogical and dangerous policies that certain people in the U.S. government and certain groups want to implement. Look at Bob's list of arguments in the OP.

The only policy your analogy mirrors is one of a Democracy that practices slavery. In which a human being can be the property of another (or group of others), and that was a pretty logical practice when it was used.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by bookitty

I understand the use of extreme analogy in philosophical debate. However, the analogy must be congruous. In this case the analogy is comparing obvious lasting harm to a situation with no practical change. (Rape vs. paying 5% more taxes on income over $1 million? C'mon now, that's just stupid.)

In addition the premise - that the US works as a pure democracy and all voting is based on random ideas which are not subject to a rigorous process - is so flawed as to make this particular debate nothing more than than a flailing interpretive dance of hyperbole. With rape thrown in as titillation. oh. joy.

If this is modeling anything, it is the adult version of a two-year old repeating "Why?" not because they want answers but because the question brings them attention.

Understood. I've no problem with the hypo or the analogy. I think the deficiencies you list, and others, work quite well against the purpose of the OP. But I do understand your points and respect your opinion.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Bob and Tom are a majority in a construct. Would they have even taken such a vote if there were three Janes (women) present.

It's beside the point. The three Janes could vote to kill Bob and Tom for various whimsical reasons and the thought experiment still applies.

Quote:

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?

Jane may have joined because she didn't realize this was possible or likely to happen. Or she was just lied to. That's the way most people end up in totalitarian nightmares, actually.

Bob and Tom's basis is Bob's list of arguments given in the OP, which are a horrible a misunderstanding of democratic power. But in order to "save Jane," you have to explain what their misunderstanding is...

Quote:

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.

Attacking me, appealing to consequences, or trying to insult me for proposing the thought experiment are not going to answer the question. If anyone is a Don Quixote fighting a fruitless battle, it is you for using logical fallacies in this manner.

Quote:

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.)

The thought experiment says nothing about taxation. You're trying to jump past the issue and declare yourself correct. That is another Don-Quixote-style fruitless endeavor. This thought experiment is analogous to many situations that have occurred in human history, including the Russian Revolution, where Communists overthrew the Russian Government, since they were able to gather support with what appeared to be a logical philosophy in communism, and the Czarists had nothing to say in return.

Threatening Bob and Tom does not work. Using bald assertions that they are wrong, or logical fallacies, will not work either. You need to battle Bob's logic with better logic.

Quote:

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.

See above. Trying to declare that Bob and Tom should know better will not get you anywhere. They don't, and neither have millions of other misguided people in human history. If you don't counter their ideology, their numbers will grow. Jane is in trouble and so far you haven't done much to help.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

It is an analogy because it mirrors justification that is used for several illogical and dangerous policies that certain people in the U.S. government and certain groups want to implement. Look at Bob's list of arguments in the OP.

In my opinion, the OP is constructed as a diversion in order to provoke gotcha responses.

Naturally, there are those who will immediately sympathize with Jane and offer words in her defense based on logical grounds. In addition, by asking posters to direct much of their reasoning towards Bob and Tom in an effort to convince them of the errors in their thinking...well, the phrase "digging your own grave" comes to mind.

As many have surmised, "Jane" is a stand-in for the wealthy and what they possess. "Bob and Tom" are the envious masses who want some o' those Jane goodies, attempting to achieve as much by way of vote, laws, tax codes, etc. Unless I'm much mistaken.

I fail to see how the basic thinking, represented by the stand-ins, is "illogical and dangerous." Perhaps because the whole thing is a whopper of a false analogy.

[KoihimeNakamura]

EGaraett: Move on and make your point. None of us care about your thought experiment except for a few of us feeding the troll.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by shemp

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.

You can post in my thread. You cannot derail my thread, spam my thread, post non-content to my thread, or attack or insult anyone posting in my thread, including me.

Quote:

Answer these questions, and maybe I'll keep playing:

You can participate in the discussion or you can not post in the thread. If you believe that I care if you participate or not, or that it is only out of the goodness of your heart that you don't spam or mess up the thread, you are mistaken.

Quote:

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?

You can put Bob, Tom and Jane anywhere you like. If you want to base your counter-argument on an explanation of the US government and how it's democratic powers are limited, that's fine. If you want to put them on a desert island and go purely from a logical standpoint of what's necessary for them to co-exist, that is fine too. But appealing to force or trying to post strawmen or bald assertions or empty attacks on tangential ideas will not work. Bob and Tom believe they are right and will act on their belief unless told otherwise, with decent clarity and logic.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

The police are bound by law to execute the law as it is written at the current moment. If someone is violating the law, they must take the approopriate action, which, bu the way, is not saying that the criminal "has a point". Your thought experiment bear no resemblence, even in analogg, to the operation of the real world.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have addressed this and once again you just fly back to your opening argument with slight tweeks. (i.e. Bob has now read a book on government and they are now a sovereign nation)

You can place Bob, Tom and Jane anywhere you want for the purposes of explaining things to them. The thought experiment is analogous to many things that are currently happening in US politics, but if you want them to just be on a desert island, that's fine. Several others in thread have responded as though Bob and Tom are American and explained things about how democratic power is limited in the United States. That's fine too.

Quote:

We have moved past the rape, the assault, and the theft fantasies so why don't you get to your point.

To summarize.

1. 2 or more people voting does not a government make. No one has invested Bob, Tom, and Jane with the power to represent them or society as a whole. No one is legally allowed to get one friend and force their neighbor to have sex with them by vote. Nor can they vote to rob, assault, or dress the person as a clown.

Why? You have to explain why they can't do it. You can't just baldly assert it. Fortunately, you appear to have answered below.

Quote:

2. To do so would not be in their own best interest as other voting blocks could be made forcing the same or worse on the original voters.

Okay, that works. That's logic-based. This is what makes Bob and Tom back off and reconsider. And you have said they can't rob her, but I would like you to specifically acknowledge, that just like they can't rape Jane just because they desire her and decide she can spare the time, they can't rob Jane because they envy her, and have decided on her behalf that she "has more than she needs."

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

In my opinion, the OP is constructed as a diversion in order to provoke gotcha responses.

Naturally, there are those who will immediately sympathize with Jane and offer words in her defense based on logical grounds. In addition, by asking posters to direct much of their reasoning towards Bob and Tom in an effort to convince them of the errors in their thinking...well, the phrase "digging your own grave" comes to mind.

As many have surmised, "Jane" is a stand-in for the wealthy and what they possess. "Bob and Tom" are the envious masses who want some o' those Jane goodies, attempting to achieve as much by way of vote, laws, tax codes, etc. Unless I'm much mistaken.

You are not mistaken. I want to point out though, that this is not an argument against ALL taxation, it is an argument against using democratic power to try to rape, kill, hurt or rob some minority of the population because you decide on their behalf what they should or shouldn't have. Many arguments on behalf of "taxing the rich" take that form.

Quote:

I fail to see how the basic thinking, represented by the stand-ins, is "illogical and dangerous." Perhaps because the whole thing is a whopper of a false analogy.

You fail to see how a governmental system that can let 51% of people kill the other 49% is illogical and dangerous?

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by bookitty

I understand the use of extreme analogy in philosophical debate. However, the analogy must be congruous. In this case the analogy is comparing obvious lasting harm to a situation with no practical change. (Rape vs. paying 5% more taxes on income over $1 million? C'mon now, that's just stupid.)

Bob says "Ooh I see, so as long as Tom and I, the majority, decide that there will be no practical change in Jane's life, we can do whatever we want to her? Like grab her boobs!?"

Quote:

In addition the premise - that the US works as a pure democracy and all voting is based on random ideas which are not subject to a rigorous process - is so flawed as to make this particular debate nothing more than than a flailing interpretive dance of hyperbole. With rape thrown in as titillation. oh. joy.

There are numbers between 0% and 100%, you should try including them in your thinking.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by bookitty

I understand the use of extreme analogy in philosophical debate. However, the analogy must be congruous. In this case the analogy is comparing obvious lasting harm to a situation with no practical change. (Rape vs. paying 5% more taxes on income over $1 million? C'mon now, that's just stupid.)

In addition the premise - that the US works as a pure democracy and all voting is based on random ideas which are not subject to a rigorous process - is so flawed as to make this particular debate nothing more than than a flailing interpretive dance of hyperbole. With rape thrown in as titillation. oh. joy.

If this is modeling anything, it is the adult version of a two-year old repeating "Why?" not because they want answers but because the question brings them attention.

Agreed.

I'm sure this answer will not make anyone happy, but you can take every government generated or religion generated or moral theorizing generated piece of paper and wipe your ass with it - some things - rape absolutley being one - are wrong, period.

Trying to make a correlation between rape and taxation is bush league philosophy at it's best.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I'm sure this answer will not make anyone happy, but you can take every government generated or religion generated or moral theorizing generated piece of paper and wipe your ass with it - some things - rape absolutley being one - are wrong, period.

Like god, it just is. We don't need no stinking reasoning.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob says "Ooh I see, so as long as Tom and I, the majority, decide that there will be no practical change in Jane's life, we can do whatever we want to her? Like grab her boobs!?"

There are numbers between 0% and 100%, you should try including them in your thinking.

So you admit to not know what a false analogy is?

How is taking part of someone's income comparable in degree and/or kind to violating someone's bodily integrity?

Have you shared your ideas on rape with JJM 777?

I'm sure he'd enjoy them.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

You failed to save Jane. By extension, you've also failed to stop a whole lot of other crimes against humanity that have been committed in the past through misuse of political power. If you want to acknowledge your lack of argument then we can move on.

I'll happily acknowledge your impressive victory in this weeks shark-jumping contest. I've explained that they shouldn't be allowed to vote this in because it's not utilitarian, and all you're doing in response is heavily implying that you can't see the problem with raping someone who was drugged first.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

And my point was that if you accept vox populi vox dei, you can have no objection to this.


That is you accept "times have changed" and therefore we can re-interpret the Constitution rather than go through the laborious process of amending it, you can have no objection to this.

In other words, that attitude, which works so fine and lovingly as it is forcing the latest and greatest, golly, bestest way for people to live, down everybody's throat, can backfire bigtime.


Evidence? All of human history, the vast, vast majority of which had different attitudes. So the utter, sheer arrogance of those about me in this forum and elsewhere who think they've finally, gosh, finally, perfected human thought and The Way Things Should Be will, not might, eventually get popped in the nose big time, as attitudes shift again.


And without recognizing the protections of the Constitution (or, more accurately, to only acknowledge what "we" think are important, and claim not protected things we don't like aren't forbidden to government control) this, too, will rise up to bite huge chunks out of your ass someday.

Evidence? All of human history.

[Biscuit]

[quote=EGarrett;8239459]You can place Bob, Tom and Jane anywhere you want for the purposes of explaining things to them. The thought experiment is analogous to many things that are currently happening in US politics, but if you want them to just be on a desert island, that's fine. Several others in thread have responded as though Bob and Tom are American and explained things about how democratic power is limited in the United States. That's fine too.
[\quote]

Fine then lets put them on krypton moments before the explosion or as characters in Kurt vonneguts "time quake." what do Tom bob and Jane represent in your analogy? Others have guessed but you just keep going flapping about.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Your third pint is clearly in error. see: the United States prior to 1863

The Elected representatives had power derived from the constitution to force specific or even general populations to be raped? What amendment took away the power of rape?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by bookitty

(Rape vs. paying 5% more taxes on income over $1 million? C'mon now, that's just stupid.)

Has it been established that this idiocy is about the Buffett rule?

We already have progressive taxation, Buffett rule or no. So if the Buffett rule is akin to rape, the current system is akin to rape.


I assumed this was about the health care mandate, because that would be slightly less idiotic of an analogy.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob says "Ooh I see, so as long as Tom and I, the majority, decide that there will be no practical change in Jane's life, we can do whatever we want to her? Like grab her boobs!?"

There are numbers between 0% and 100%, you should try including them in your thinking.

Oh FFS, rape apologetics. Really? (and why am I even faintly surprised?)

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Has it been established that this idiocy is about the Buffett rule?

We already have progressive taxation, Buffett rule or no. So if the Buffett rule is akin to rape, the current system is akin to rape.


I assumed this was about the health care mandate, because that would be slightly less idiotic of an analogy.

Until he spills the beans we will never know what his analogy is.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Has it been established that this idiocy is about the Buffett rule?

We already have progressive taxation, Buffett rule or no. So if the Buffett rule is akin to rape, the current system is akin to rape.


I assumed this was about the health care mandate, because that would be slightly less idiotic of an analogy.

The OP is too busy wanking to his own pseudo-intellectualism to establish anything concrete but his rhetoric is straight out of the libertarian playbook of general grievances.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by bookitty

The OP is too busy wanking to his own pseudo-intellectualism to establish anything concrete but his rhetoric is straight out of the libertarian playbook of general grievances.

I will bet 10 dollars to egarrette's favorite non profit charity that he never ever reveals the analogy in full.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

At first I thought the people saying to give Jane a gun were being pithy, but I think it is a good answer.

I think the hypothetical/analogy is too broad. Are we discussing the legitimacy of a government to use force? Are we debating the strawman of "democracies are always Right"?

[Bri]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I want to point out though, that this is not an argument against ALL taxation, it is an argument against using democratic power to try to rape, kill, hurt or rob some minority of the population because you decide on their behalf what they should or shouldn't have.

Who has advocated raping, killing, hurting, or robbing some minority of the population because they decided on their behalf what they should or shouldn't have?

Quote:

Many arguments on behalf of "taxing the rich" take that form.

They do? Who has made such an argument? It sounds like a straw man to me, but if anyone has made that argument I agree with you that it's a weak argument.

So that's what the whole thread was about? You could have saved everyone a lot of reading if you had just made the point in the OP. Everyone would have agreed with you and said "so what?"

-Bri

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

At first I thought the people saying to give Jane a gun were being pithy, but I think it is a good answer.

I think the hypothetical/analogy is too broad. Are we discussing the legitimacy of a government to use force? Are we debating the strawman of "democracies are always Right"?

Looks to me like he's trying to do a leap from "can't vote for rape" to "can't vote for robbery" to "taxation is robbery, can't vote for progressive taxation", with a sprinkling of "liberals only want to tax the rich because they're mad jelly". But the linkups have fallen by the wayside because the original analogy was so poor, and because the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. I could be wrong, but good luck getting a straight answer out of this guy either way.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Looks to me like he's trying to do a leap from "can't vote for rape" to "can't vote for robbery" to "taxation is robbery, can't vote for progressive taxation", with a sprinkling of "liberals only want to tax the rich because they're mad jelly". But the linkups have fallen by the wayside because the original analogy was so poor, and because the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. I could be wrong, but good luck getting a straight answer out of this guy either way.

I think he's going 'can't vote for rape' -> 'can't use the majority power to rule over the minority'.

In overly broad terms ignoring the fact we already have such protections and no one is really wanting to remove it.

I think there's even a set of Federalist papers about this subject.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by Beerina

And my point was that if you accept vox populi vox dei, you can have no objection to this.

Strawman.

Quote:

That is you accept "times have changed" and therefore we can re-interpret the Constitution rather than go through the laborious process of amending it, you can have no objection to this.

False equivalence, assertion without evidence.

Quote:

In other words, that attitude, which works so fine and lovingly as it is forcing the latest and greatest, golly, bestest way for people to live, down everybody's throat, can backfire bigtime.

Strawman, Excluded Middle.

Quote:

Evidence? All of human history, the vast, vast majority of which had different attitudes. So the utter, sheer arrogance of those about me in this forum and elsewhere who think they've finally, gosh, finally, perfected human thought and The Way Things Should Be will, not might, eventually get popped in the nose big time, as attitudes shift again.

Strawman, poisoning the well, Assertion without Evidence.

Quote:

And without recognizing the protections of the Constitution (or, more accurately, to only acknowledge what "we" think are important, and claim not protected things we don't like aren't forbidden to government control) this, too, will rise up to bite huge chunks out of your ass someday.

See above.

Quote:

Evidence? All of human history.

That's not evidence, also overly broad; General to specific fallacy.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob says "Ooh I see, so as long as Tom and I, the majority, decide that there will be no practical change in Jane's life, we can do whatever we want to her? Like grab her boobs!?"

There are numbers between 0% and 100%, you should try including them in your thinking.

IMPORTANT COMMENT ON BOB, TOM AND JANE.

They clearly do not exist in my alternative-future-post-Bamster-Obamacare-is-okay world where the Repubs have forced everyone to have guns and bibles.

Because if Jane had guns....

[shemp]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

You can post in my thread. You cannot derail my thread, spam my thread, post non-content to my thread, or attack or insult anyone posting in my thread, including me.

You can participate in the discussion or you can not post in the thread. If you believe that I care if you participate or not, or that it is only out of the goodness of your heart that you don't spam or mess up the thread, you are mistaken.

You can put Bob, Tom and Jane anywhere you like. If you want to base your counter-argument on an explanation of the US government and how it's democratic powers are limited, that's fine. If you want to put them on a desert island and go purely from a logical standpoint of what's necessary for them to co-exist, that is fine too. But appealing to force or trying to post strawmen or bald assertions or empty attacks on tangential ideas will not work. Bob and Tom believe they are right and will act on their belief unless told otherwise, with decent clarity and logic.

I have another option. I can stop feeding the troll and put him on iggy. Buh-bye.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by shemp

I have another option. I can stop feeding the troll and put him on iggy. Buh-bye.

is that iggyrant, iggypoo, or iggynord? Enquirer minds want to know!!

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Agreed.

I'm sure this answer will not make anyone happy, but you can take every government generated or religion generated or moral theorizing generated piece of paper and wipe your ass with it - some things - rape absolutley being one - are wrong, period.

Trying to make a correlation between rape and taxation is bush league philosophy at it's best.

This is the white flag of intellectual defeat.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

So you admit to not know what a false analogy is?

How is taking part of someone's income comparable in degree and/or kind to violating someone's bodily integrity?

Have you shared your ideas on rape with JJM 777?

I'm sure he'd enjoy them.

Here you are declaring that it is an invalid analogy, without actually offering any explanation as to why. This is a non-argument.

Originally Posted by stokes234

I'll happily acknowledge your impressive victory in this weeks shark-jumping contest. I've explained that they shouldn't be allowed to vote this in because it's not utilitarian, and all you're doing in response is heavily implying that you can't see the problem with raping someone who was drugged first.

I told you that Bob doesn't see it. You failed to be able to provide another argument, even in your own utilitarian framework. It seems to be the elephant-in-the-room that the logic of your worldview has reached a dead-end.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Originally Posted by Beerina

And my point was that if you accept vox populi vox dei, you can have no objection to this.

Strawman.

Incorrect.

Quote:

Quote:

That is you accept "times have changed" and therefore we can re-interpret the Constitution rather than go through the laborious process of amending it, you can have no objection to this.

False equivalence, assertion without evidence.

Incorrect.

Quote:

Quote:

In other words, that attitude, which works so fine and lovingly as it is forcing the latest and greatest, golly, bestest way for people to live, down everybody's throat, can backfire bigtime.

Strawman, Excluded Middle.

Incorrect.

Quote:

Quote:

Evidence? All of human history, the vast, vast majority of which had different attitudes. So the utter, sheer arrogance of those about me in this forum and elsewhere who think they've finally, gosh, finally, perfected human thought and The Way Things Should Be will, not might, eventually get popped in the nose big time, as attitudes shift again.

Strawman, poisoning the well, Assertion without Evidence.

Incorrect.

Quote:

Quote:

And without recognizing the protections of the Constitution (or, more accurately, to only acknowledge what "we" think are important, and claim not protected things we don't like aren't forbidden to government control) this, too, will rise up to bite huge chunks out of your ass someday.

See above.

Quote:

Evidence? All of human history.

That's not evidence, also overly broad; General to specific fallacy.

And yet again, incorrect.