ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th April 2012, 07:58 AM   #81
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,088
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
Bob also says that if that's not good enough for you, he can go get hired by some other government and be a government worker, or he can get 1,000 other men to join the house along with 999 women and also vote by majority to rape all of them, and would that then make it okay?

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

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

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

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

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

Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker

Last edited by RenaissanceBiker; 27th April 2012 at 08:35 AM.
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 07:59 AM   #82
Ladewig
Hipster alien
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 20,035
I would explain that harming non-willing participants is always wrong. Both being beaten up and being raped often end with a hospital visit, therefore there is no doubt that either of these actions cause harm. The Jane-should-give-it-up is not valid because any criminal could justify his or her actions through through a similar argument. E.g. if the homeowner had just given me the TV and stereo he wouldn't have been traumatized; if the other motorist simply agreed to be in front of my car while I was drunk and speeding, then it would have been less traumatic.

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

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


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

As the craps shooter said after throwing six 7s, I'm looking for a point here.
__________________
Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

Last edited by Ladewig; 27th April 2012 at 08:04 AM.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:18 AM   #83
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I say to them, "Gosh fellas, have you been listening to too much Reactionary Radio? Abject pluralism is the worst variation on Democracy known. This is why no single government enacts its legislation on the basis of plebiscites. Democracy doesn't quite work like this, and here's my friend Officer Killeen of the County Sheriff's Office (Local Constabulary to you, I guess) with his trusty Glock to explain why."

It am against the law. Thanks for playing.

And Jane presses charges and Bob and Tom spend fifteen years incarcerated.
Charged with at minimum Conspiracy (to commit assault and battery?) and/or civil rights violation, and if VAWA Violence Aginst Women Act was Law, that too.

Hopefully they serve time in a tough fmita fed prison where no one stops group decisions to rape or otherwise molest an individual.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:24 AM   #84
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,246
I am going to go ahead and say that rape is never a good analogy. If you have been raped or know some one who has been raped you could understand this. I apologize for taking a high ground here but this "thought experiment" disgusts me.

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

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

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

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

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

Fin.
__________________
... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by Biscuit; 27th April 2012 at 08:45 AM.
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:40 AM   #85
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 6,190
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes. I can be in the room too, and I have plenty to say to Bob and Tom, but what do you say in reply to him? He's answered your statement about how traumatizing it would be by saying that if Jane doesn't fight it won't be bad at all, and she may even enjoy it.
Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Every day.
For the rest of the century.
__________________
When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder
"Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist.
I hate bigots.

Last edited by fishbob; 27th April 2012 at 08:41 AM.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:41 AM   #86
A Laughing Baby
A baby. Goo goo ga ga
 
A Laughing Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,987
The OP is a bill of attainder, and shouldn't be considered in the first place under the Constitution.
__________________
Plorate, omnes virgines!!
A Laughing Baby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:49 AM   #87
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Careyp74 View Post
OK, the obvious answer to the OP is NO. No, Bob and Tom can't vote to rape Jane.

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

Now add to the model the process that selects decision-makers in a representative democracy, which preferentially selects arrogant, power-mad sociopaths and you will find yourself voting for rape quite often.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:50 AM   #88
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,733
Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker View Post
Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other."

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

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

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

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

Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."
Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
I am going to go ahead and say that rape is never a good analogy. If you have been raped or know some one who has been raped you could understand this. I apologize for taking a high ground here but this "thought experiment" disgusts me.

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

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

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

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

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

Fin.
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Every day.
For the rest of the century.
So I come into this thread first thing in the morning. First coffee and all that. And it's rape, violent forced rape being used as an extremely poor analogy for...something. (that I suspect the OP is now afraid to divulge because of massive fail.)

The responses I've quoted are the ones that will keep me from loading my own gun before ever leaving my house.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:51 AM   #89
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,310
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Is bob... is bob in the room with us right now, garett?
Maybe we should look behind that troll in the corner.

I have some issues with the idea of taxing the rich because they are rich, but the two situations are not comparable.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:51 AM   #90
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Bob needs to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Every day.
For the rest of the century.
THat's the point of the second amendment to the US Constitution.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:55 AM   #91
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,438
What is it with the proliferation of threads about rape?

Do people really not understand the basics of individual liberty?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:00 AM   #92
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
To what end?
Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:02 AM   #93
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
What I'm actually confused about is your point. Either this is an analogy for something or it is mental masterbation. If it is the former, you need to explain how this analogy is valid and to what it relates. If it is the latter, it belongs in R&P, not Politics.
It's a thought-experiment about democratic governments that is crucial to the current US political debate.
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:04 AM   #94
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Well, considering "Jane" is the one who evidently possesses that which "Bob and Tom" feel should rightly be shared among themselves, perhaps there's a way to settle on a compromise.

What might be helpful is to know if this is their first such scenario. Perhaps "Bob and Tom" have previously attempted to persuade "Jane" with the logic of their viewpoint, and her response has been to hold them at arm's length, adding that if they'd only be patient, any moment now she would begin to "trickle down."
Please explain to Bob and Tom what's wrong with their thought process. Jane would appreciate it, as she's in a tough spot.
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:09 AM   #95
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
You've just asked the question to a whole forum. I ask you and suddenly that's not cool?
Address your points to the issue, not to made-up accusations about other posters. When you left off, you were telling Bob that raping Jane would psychologically scar her, and Bob replied to you that he would do it in a way that she wouldn't remember.

Do you have anything left to say to him? He's ready to exercise his democratic-given powers over Jane...
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:13 AM   #96
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
That's a libertarian's argument.

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

Someone said it violates people's rights at the federal level. Fair enough. What if a judge rubbed his chin and decided times had changed and the majority of people don't feel that way so it is no longer Constitutionally protected?
Bob and Tom believe that they are justified because they represent the majority of the population, in this case. According to Bob, they democratically outvoted Jane 2-to-1, and decided on their own, on her behalf, that, among other things, she could spare the time, sex was necessary for the survival of the species, and she owed society for her health and attractiveness.

The issue is how people explain to Bob and Tom that they are wrong, and exactly what Bob and Tom are misunderstanding about what a democracy can and can't do.
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:15 AM   #97
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,733
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.
Really? That's what this is about. So. much. wrong.

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

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

Raising taxes on the rich does not raise taxes on all their wealth, only that income which is higher than 95% of the population earns. You are comparing taxation which will have no practical effect on their standard of living to on-going daily violent rape. Either you think the rich are fragile creatures who will be traumatized by merely looking at a bank account statement or you believe that rape is no big deal.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:15 AM   #98
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,246
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.
Finally I agree with you. The U.S. government should not make it legal for men to rape women! Even if, and let me be very clear on this point, even if they really really want to rape a woman.

The polling on this issue be damned! I am against the legalization of rape in all scenarios and I don't care who knows it.
__________________
... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:18 AM   #99
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker View Post
Jane says, "I don't think you can get 999 women to join this house. In fact, you just lost the only woman living here now. I'm moving out immediately. You and Tom can now vote on whether to rape each other."

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

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

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

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

Tom says, "Let's vote on whether she can shoot us in the face. I vote no." Bob says, "Shut up, Tom."
A gun is fine if the people won't listen to reason. But in this thought-experiment, Bob and Tom will listen, and they believe they are acting on valid bases.

Obviously, also, having a gun does not make you right or wrong. It does not justify or unjustify any line of reasoning. So, while it is useful when you are attacked, in this case it's beside the point.
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:18 AM   #100
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,837
So, Bob proposes a Vote, wherein the result would be physical and Mental harm against another in the household. Specifically, a woman. And Tom goes along with this idea.

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

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

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

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

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

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:22 AM   #101
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,246
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post

The issue is how people explain to Bob and Tom that they are wrong, and exactly what Bob and Tom are misunderstanding about what a democracy can and can't do.
As has been pointed out a domestic living situation is not a scaled down version of any government I can think of. Further more "rape" is not one the enumerated powers of any government I can think of.

If Tom and Bob can't see the problem with their thinking than it may be to late for them. I doubt a civics lesson is going to be of much good.
__________________
... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by Biscuit; 27th April 2012 at 09:24 AM.
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:22 AM   #102
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,372
If Jane is a straw lady, I have no objections. Scarecrows are not protected by our human laws.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:23 AM   #103
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Really? That's what this is about. So. much. wrong.

Going back to jr. high civics, the US is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. So might (in this case merely outnumbering) does not make right and weaker minorities (in this case, Jane) are protected. The majority mob does not get to stomp all over the minorities rights.
That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:26 AM   #104
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,246
Originally Posted by egarrett View Post

obviously, also, having a gun majority does not make you right or wrong.
ftfy
__________________
... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:28 AM   #105
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,940
Oooh, it's like a lecture, with someone all professorial at the front

Can I just read someone else's notes later?
__________________
Refenestrate the delusional.
3point14 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:33 AM   #106
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?
It's not surprising that none of the collectivist minions have yet grasped the center of your argument. A few suggested that a "greater power" such as the gun of a cop would be a solution, others suggested "law", and one or two "rights".

But none grasped that it was and is the presence of the US Constitution that stands fairly alone in history, as a block against abuse of power of the sort suggested in this thought experiment. And which is being disregarded by the current administration in as many ways as it may suit them. But if Bob, Tom and Jane were forced by the government to buy healthcare, and then were forced buy guns and bibles, then many other forcings can follow, all to the benefit of some preferred group or another.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:33 AM   #107
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,733
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
That's right. Now what is the limit of the majority mob's power? What can they do or not do with the power of their vote? Where is the line drawn?
Back to Jr. High - it is helpful if one reads the entire assignment.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:37 AM   #108
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,088
Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
ftfy
That's what Ben Franklin said.
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:40 AM   #109
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,500
Do Bob and Tom represent various US state governments, and is Jane seekign an abortion? What kind of ultrasound equipment do they have?
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:40 AM   #110
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
Explaining logical reasons about how a government functions, especially a democratic one, and why they can't use democratic power to rape someone else.
"Can't" or "shouldn't"? They can, and do.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:40 AM   #111
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,246
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
It's not surprising that none of the collectivist minions have yet grasped the center of your argument. A few suggested that a "greater power" such as the gun of a cop would be a solution, others suggested "law", and one or two "rights".

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

So the point he is trying to make is what?

That the only thing that stops people from committing rape is the fact that the U.S. constitution sets limits on federal powers?
__________________
... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:48 AM   #112
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
As has been pointed out a domestic living situation is not a scaled down version of any government I can think of. Further more "rape" is not one the enumerated powers of any government I can think of.

If Tom and Bob can't see the problem with their thinking than it may be to late for them. I doubt a civics lesson is going to be of much good.
Okay, you've told Bob and Tom that governments don't normally have the power of rape.

They've stopped to listen to you. They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:50 AM   #113
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Back to Jr. High - it is helpful if one reads the entire assignment.
I did read your entire post. Answer the question and it will lead to an explanation of your second point.

What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:53 AM   #114
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,793
You seem to really like rape.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:57 AM   #115
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,733
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
I did read your entire post. Answer the question and it will lead to an explanation of your second point.

What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?
No, answering the question as you pose it relies on my support of your flawed premise. If you were to state that premise clearly and support it with something other than a violent rape fantasy, perhaps it would be possible to discuss it.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:00 AM   #116
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,088
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
Okay, you've told Bob and Tom that governments don't normally have the power of rape.

They've stopped to listen to you. They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"
Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral or your laws just.
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker

Last edited by RenaissanceBiker; 27th April 2012 at 10:10 AM.
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:00 AM   #117
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
What is the limit of the majority mob's power? Where is the line drawn about what they can or can't do with their majority vote?
Better: "What limits the majority mob's power?" Consequences. Rape enough women (or taxpayers) and they leave the country.

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

The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more altruistic, better-informed, or more intelligent when they enter the State's employ. Quite the opposite, State power attracts thugs.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:01 AM   #118
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
No, answering the question as you pose it relies on my support of your flawed premise. If you were to state that premise clearly and support it with something other than a violent rape fantasy, perhaps it would be possible to discuss it.
My premise is that it's not okay for 51% of the population to vote to rape 49% of the population. If you disagree with this premise that's fine. But assuming you do agree, please explain what the 51% can or can't do and what sets the limit.
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:03 AM   #119
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker View Post
Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral.
Bob and Tom are thinking hard, and scratching their heads. Bob asks for some clarification. "So you're saying that we can't use our democratic or government power to do immoral things to other people in our group?"
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:03 AM   #120
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker View Post
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
...They ask you, "Why not? We voted for it, we decided for her that she can spare it and she owes it to society and sex is necessary. That's democracy isn't it? Why can't we do it?"
Because, as Biscuit and Ben Franklin pointed out, having a majority does not make your actions moral.
That's why they shouldn't, not why they can't.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.