Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane?

[Beerina]

Waaaaiiit! What if they were the only three on the planet, and they needed to recreate humanity!


There you go, with no principles, and "I have an awesome argument...to me!" you can do it!


Rape away!

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by mhaze

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.

It certainly seems to have revealed some useful information, in many ways. I actually think I managed to reach the conclusion I intended as well, in many cases.

Originally Posted by Beerina

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.

This post is unclear. By "if you accept," are you referring to me, Bob, or someone else? Are you arguing against some implication you think I am making, or are you hypothetically speaking to Bob and Tom? I'm not sure who these arguments are addressed to and in what-context.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

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.

You can do that if you want, but I don't see what it accomplishes aside from trying to avoid the discussion. I have answered many questions about the analogy in many ways, but I am not going to answer questions about what it represents if I think someone is doing so in order to try to avoid the thought-experiment. The point of the thought-experiment is to shed new light on certain arguments people try to make, and to make it difficult for them to trot out their old cliches or turn off their brains.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

And yet again, incorrect.

Automatic gainsaying.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

It certainly seems to have revealed some useful information, in many ways. I actually think I managed to reach the conclusion I intended as well, in many cases.

.....The point of the thought-experiment is to shed new light on certain arguments people try to make, and to make it difficult for them to trot out their old cliches or turn off their brains.

and yet so vainly, and valiantly, they trot out the tried and true, and struggle to reframe the argument in terms of those they were rote trained to parrot answers for...

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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?"

Yeah. It's a pretty terrible house. The neighbours should intervene.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

This is the white flag of intellectual defeat.

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

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.

The problem is you see it as a phiosophical argument and we don't. I in specific will freely state that I find philosophy - especially as played here - a joke. When you get to redefine terms/usages, etc. randomly/arbitrarily to get to a point you are merely replacing reality with your constructs. The mind can come up with gigantic numbers of things that have no reality in any real world we know of, but which can be described perfectly in non-worlds. At this point in this world's history and in any civilized part of it the scenario described will lead to a charge of rape when found out or a reaction like mine (and I assure you that is what my reaction would be). It is not a valid equivalent of whatever silliness you are trying to find an excuse for and, attaching the name philosophy to.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by bookitty

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

You are rapidly losing the debate with Bob and Tom, and Jane is apparently in deep trouble. Based on what you've said to Bob, it's okay to steal from or rape or otherwise violate Jane as long as the majority decides on her behalf that it will cause "no practical difference to her life." Bob has responded by asking you if that means he and Tom can touch her boobies to their hearts content, since they feel that would make no difference. 5% of income taken from a minority, which you have decided, on their behalf, that they can spare with no difference in their life, just like the sexual fondling of Jane, which Bob and Tom decide, on Jane's behalf, that she can spare with no difference to hers.

I strongly suggest you come up with a logical difference, and not empty assertions or appeals to consequences for challenging you. Time is running out for Jane.

Originally Posted by Bri

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?

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.

Google it. You can find hundreds of thousands of message board posts and political arguments about what the rich can afford to spare.

Quote:

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.

...and saved everyone a lot of hard thought.

Originally Posted by mhaze

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....

If the "majority" actually did go insane in a Bob and Tom manner, guns are the only line of defense. Fortunately, at least for this example, Bob and Tom will listen to reason.

Originally Posted by shemp

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

Here's the final option. No one gives a damn what you do or don't "iggy," and you get lost.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by fuelair

The problem is you see it as a phiosophical argument and we don't. I in specific will freely state that I find philosophy - especially as played here - a joke. When you get to redefine terms/usages, etc. randomly/arbitrarily to get to a point you are merely replacing reality with your constructs. The mind can come up with gigantic numbers of things that have no reality in any real world we know of, but which can be described perfectly in non-worlds. At this point in this world's history and in any civilized part of it the scenario described will lead to a charge of rape when found out or a reaction like mine (and I assure you that is what my reaction would be). It is not a valid equivalent of whatever silliness you are trying to find an excuse for and, attaching the name philosophy to.

Except that if you know a little bit about democratic power and how it is defined in modern first-world countries, the question is easy to answer. Several people of several different political philosophies have "saved Jane" successfully. Handwaving and ducking and dodging and baldly asserting and insulting are not going establish that you have a logical grasp of the situation. Only actually demonstrating that grasp will establish it.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

...and saved everyone a lot of hard thought.

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Except that if you know a little bit about democratic power and how it is defined in modern first-world countries, the question is easy to answer.

So is it hard or easy then?

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

So is it hard or easy then?

If you know a little about democratic power, it is easy. If you don't, or have no logical basis at the core of your political beliefs, it may be very hard indeed.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

If you know a little about democratic power, it is easy. If you don't, or have no logical basis at the core of your political beliefs, it may be very hard indeed.

Well, pretty much everyone knows a little bit about democratic power, so it's easy. In that case what is the point of this thread?

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Well, pretty much everyone knows a little bit about democratic power, so it's easy.

Apparently not.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

So is it hard or easy then?

It's long and hard for the short and easy.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Google it. You can find hundreds of thousands of message board posts and political arguments about what the rich can afford to spare.

Ah, but that would simply be akin to the analogy that Jane makes more money and therefore should pay more rent, which wasn't even suggested in the OP, mainly because it's not nearly as incendiary as rape or blatant theft. Also, many people would agree that if Jane makes more money, particularly if her income is dependent on Bob and Tom and therefore might be considerably lower were she to move out in favor of other living arrangements, that she should pay more rent. Under an analogy that is closer to an argument that people might actually use, Jane is free to leave but she chooses to stay (even if it means paying more than her poorer roommates) because there are substantial benefits (financial and otherwise) of living in that house. It's beneficial to all three of them, none of who would likely have access to those benefits elsewhere (including Jane, who arguably has the most to lose from seeking other living arrangements).

It's a vastly different argument than advocating "the use of 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." Or "Jane doesn't really need her car" or "it would serve the public good to forcefully take away Jane's bicycle" or "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" or they want to "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" or "because they envy her" or any of the other arguments that Bob and Tom have used to justify stealing from Jane but nobody that I know of has actually used to advocate raising taxes on the wealthy.

Quote:

...and saved everyone a lot of hard thought.

Your attempt to convince everyone that your analogy has some relevance to reality may have taken a lot of hard thought, but unfortunately it turned out to be an analogy of some silly arguments that are so obviously flawed that I doubt anybody really uses any of them to justify raising taxes on the wealthy or anything else.

But I agree, if someone did try to use them, they would obviously be poor arguments. So, good job expending a lot of hard thought to point out the obvious.

-Bri

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

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?

The Emancipation Proclamation.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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.

And now you're forgetting your own analogy. I don't care what "bob" sees - you wanted an explanation as to why majorities shouldn't vote to abuse minorities, and i've given you one, and a perfectly valid one at that. You're just pissed that it doesn't cover rich minorities seeking protection from paying taxes.

[mijopaalmc]

One of the biggest problems with the OP is that the attributes of Jane that Bob and Tom use to justify voting to rape her are not attributes that Bob and Tom can take from Jane and redistribute amongst themselves. Bob and Tom claim that Jane can "spare" being raped by saying that she is young, beautiful and fit. Youth, beauty, and fitness are not qualities that Bob and Tom can take from Jane and redistribute amongst themselves, as wealth can be redistributed from the rich to the poor.

What Bob and Tom are asking for is sex or, more accurately, sexual power over Jane and using irrelevant qualities of Jane to demand such power.

[rustypouch]

I still don't understand why Jane doesn't move, or find roommates who'll promise not to rape her.

[Foolmewunz]

Seeing that it's a slow weekend at the JREF I'm taking the over at 20+ pages. Anybody got a sawbuck to put on the under?

Essentially, it's an argument that will go no where because the thought experiment relies on everyone accepting that 2 of 3 individuals in a house somehow equals a microcosm of a democratic republic.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

I still don't understand why Jane doesn't move, or find roommates who'll promise not to rape her.

That would defeat the purpose of creating imaginary people, controlling both their motivations and responses, and then asking other people to interact with them in an honest way to "prove" a point that everyone gets right off the bat and generally considers false.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

5% of income taken from a minority, which you have decided, on their behalf, that they can spare with no difference in their life, just like the sexual fondling of Jane, which Bob and Tom decide, on Jane's behalf, that she can spare with no difference to hers.

You think money and bodily integrity are interchangeable? How much will you take for your right middle finger?

This thread has been moved to R&P after a discussion of specific American political questions failed to materialize. As is, this thread appears to be mostly about the philosophical underpinnings of democratic thought.

Posted By:Loss Leader

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Apparently not.

Well, BRAVO for this thread; I look forward to reading your next one.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

You think money and bodily integrity are interchangeable? How much will you take for your right middle finger?

Maybe Egarrette has BIID.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

You can post in my thread. You cannot derail my thread,

The main reason he can't derail your thread i9s because you refuse to state what your thread is about. You derailed it yourself with your first post and have gone progressively farther into the weeds since.

If you want a short answer toy your OP, it's that they cannot "vote to rape her" because it's against the law. If they tried the government would arrest them and send them to jail.

[BStrong]

OP onto the ignore list.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

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

No they haven't. They've presented some of the arguments you wanted to hear or were not able to argue against. Bob, Tom, and Jane are not sources of data, they are reflections or your opinions and the arguments you wish to make. It is a masturbatory exercise that's premise is outright flawed.

Quote:

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.

No it doesn't. You saying it is true doesn't make it so. They mirror your straw men of arguments against policies you don't like, and you have not show to be dangerous or illogical, making them not like rape.

The argument that Bob and Tom present is psychopathic. More importantly, the analogy itself is psychopathic. Rape is unlike any of the policies you could be talking about. Does a 5% tax rate leave you feeling violated and yet ashamed, feeling that you could have done more to stop it? That you must have really wanted it? Does a tax rate like that under Reagan or Clinton make you associate sexual desire with quilt and pain, feeling guilty with any arousal? Does it make you seek out relationships that are unsavory so that at least you can rationalize the feeling of guilt you get for even having sexual desires at all, something you can tell yourself when you've laying in bed sweating and crying, staring at the ceiling? Does it carry the risk of sexually transited disease? Is there social stigma attached to it? Does paying some more tax make you hate yourself for not doing more to stop it? Do you avoid more attractive people because you don't feel like you deserve them because someone might get 'free' health care? Believing those things is psychopathic. The analogy is invalid. Saying that my penis is like the nuclear bomb is a better analogy because there are more things in common there.

You're going to try to latch onto my use of the term 'psychopathic', probably calling it a personal insult. But I've used it accurately.

[Myriad]

Bob and Tom cannot rape Jane because Jane rolled her saving throw (15, and she saves v. rape on 12+).

What happens next, Dungeon Master?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Bob and Tom cannot rape Jane because Jane rolled her saving throw (15, and she saves v. rape on 12+).

What happens next, Dungeon Master?

Far too pointed and too context-driven to win, but nominated for the snark.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

This is an oddly oversimplified thought experiment.

Why do roommates have legislative power when that is not true for any other household? Why does Jane not call the police? Why does she not fight back and kill her would-be rapists? Why does Jane not simply leave the house?

That would be a Minority Retort.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Bob and Tom cannot rape Jane because Jane rolled her saving throw (15, and she saves v. rape on 12+).

What happens next, Dungeon Master?

Damn, I already made a D&D joke, but yours is much better.

[Myriad]

There's actually a highly relevant and important point behind my last post, but we'll have to see whether EG is willing to challenge my interpretation of the scenario. I claim that I have provided a completely sound and legitimate answer to the question he posed in the OP.

[tyr_13]

You're right. If it is what I surmise it is, then it's actually related to a point that many of us have hinted at or touched on, but not fully explored.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

It certainly seems to have revealed some useful information, in many ways. I actually think I managed to reach the conclusion I intended as well, in many cases.

This post is unclear. By "if you accept," are you referring to me, Bob, or someone else? Are you arguing against some implication you think I am making, or are you hypothetically speaking to Bob and Tom? I'm not sure who these arguments are addressed to and in what-context.

You can do that if you want, but I don't see what it accomplishes aside from trying to avoid the discussion. I have answered many questions about the analogy in many ways, but I am not going to answer questions about what it represents if I think someone is doing so in order to try to avoid the thought-experiment. The point of the thought-experiment is to shed new light on certain arguments people try to make, and to make it difficult for them to trot out their old cliches or turn off their brains.

Right.

[Doubt]

Tempted to refer to the silly analogy in the opening post of this thread as an apples and oranges problem. But it is worse than that. It is an tomatoes and oak tree situation.

If I throw an tomato at you, I do some harm to you. If I use a giant catapult to launch a 100 year old oak tree at you, I can do some harm to you. Therefore, throwing an apple at you is the same as launching a 100 year old oak tree at you.

[Ignosticist]

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

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

Are you sure? I am pretty sure it would be easy for antropologist to come up with several examples from human history that disprove this....

[TokenMac]

Is this the transvaginal ultrasound thread?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Ignosticist

Are you sure? I am pretty sure it would be easy for antropologist to come up with several examples from human history that disprove this....

Have at it.

I'm unconcerned as to whether or not somebody somewhere legally sanctioned rape - it was wrong then, and wrong now.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

Well, let's make a distinction: A political body can vote to legalize rape. Those in the majority or those with physical power can do whatever they want. However, a nation cannot legalize rape and remain consistent with democratic principles.

[llwyd]

Rather strange topic. If this is an analogy to a sovereign state, the answer is that of course they can, just like Jane can use weapons to seize control and declare a dictatorship. Bob and Tom can also establish a one party state based on a democratic vote and confiscate all private property and kill all the Jews and abolish all democratic elections. All these things are physically possible, so they can be done.

The key question is how would one react to these things - as a social liberal, there are quite many higher values for me than majoritarian rule, so I would not see all actions based on majority vote as automatically legitimate. Naturally I approve of reasonable, non-confiscatory taxation (and social security net) as a crucial support for social stability which is necessary for private property to be safe and for individual rights to be supported. If these rights are violated by majority rule, I would absolutely oppose that rule - I don't see the problem here. What is the problem?

[Ignosticist]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Have at it.

I'm unconcerned as to whether or not somebody somewhere legally sanctioned rape - it was wrong then, and wrong now.

Ohhh, you are now concerned with right and wrong?

Because what you said was:

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

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

Are you now changing your argument from "it is illegal" to "they can not do it because its wrong". If that is what you are doing would you please acknowledge that you were wrong when you said that "You cannot by vote legalize forcible sexual contact against an unwilling individual"