When Can Rape Be Justified?
Firstly, calm your tits. It was a rhetorical question, not a middle finger to rape victims.
I must ask though: why not? What exactly is wrong with rape?
If women did not have sex with men, reproduction would end and the human race would go extinct. For society to continue, women must have sex with men. Contributing to our collective society is the obligation of every individual, therefore all women owe sex to all men, and should be forced into it when they refuse to.
No? Well why not?
I mean, after all, it is in the best interest of society for the majority to be in charge, right? If a woman is receiving the benefits of society's sex by having been conceived, born, and now being alive, then she must give her fair share of sex to society, as per society's demand and the social contract. People should be forced to pay tribute to the world around them, right?
You don't agree with that?
Surely you don't think that individuals should not be held accountable for the best interest of everybody else, right? It goes without saying that it is necessary and moral for the majority to force its will onto the individual. It is selfish and criminal for a woman to refuse to contribute her fair share of sex to the world around her. Of course.
You cannot possibly think that it is wrong for society as a whole to be the arbiter of the personal rights of the individual. It cannot be immoral for the collective whole to take contribution from each of its members.
Still no? What is wrong with you?
You must just be selfish. Sex is the price we pay to live in a continuous society. In fact, there should be a group of people whose job is ensuring that all women are held accountable to their sexual obligations, by forcibly having sex with them. That group would represent the interests of the collective, and be chosen by the majority, therefore that particular group of men IS society as a whole. Women are not responsible enough to choose their own sexual partners, so they should should have men selected for them, by society, and be forced to have sex with those men. Hell, if it is society as a whole forcing a woman into sex, then it's not rape. It's compulsory reproductive tribute.
STILL shaking your head? You must be high.
I mean, what's the alternative to compulsory reproductive tribute?
What, do you honestly think women deserve the autonomy to choose their own partners? Do you think that we as a society are capable of evolving when people choose their own mates based on natural attraction, fueled by evolutionarily selected trait-seeking instincts designed to optimize our survival and reproductive capability? You're a crazy hippie if you think that. Nothing good could possibly happen without the use of force. Women and girls that refuse to have sex with whomever society appoints are criminals that belong in sex cages.
Oh, come on. Don't be childish, you know that rape is good.
People cannot do what is best for themselves, nor do they have the right to be the judge of that. People need to be told what to do by society as a whole. Nobody accomplishes anything peacefully. We cannot have a functioning society without society as a whole having coercive authority over the individual's vagina. There is no possible way to get people to have sex without society as a whole delegating certain people to force each individual woman to have sex with those particular men. Compulsory reproductive tribute - forcing women to have sex - is not really rape. That's absurd. It is sexual taxation.
I liked your perspective in this article, the majority forcing its will onto the individual is just another form of collectivism reaering its ugly head into a world filled with beautiful individuals.
I am a bit slow and didn't notice the tag and was like "OMG WTF" but yeah, definitely gets the point across. :)
hahahaha, I love it!
Reduction to absurdity is the best way to prove the double standard some have between taxation and everything else. Great article.
A good if roughly put point
LMMFAO @ the triggering.
If certain statist cucks could fuck off back to le reddit, that would be great.
Nice. Love the clickbait title too. Can propbably read this over and over again and not get bored.
So having money taken out of your paycheck before you get it is the same as having sex forced on you? You're a disgusting person, bro.
The ol' "taxation is rape" thing, right? Except... He never said anything of the sort or even eluded to it. He used rape as an analogy. Go crucify someone else you worthless piece of trash.
Into the grave with you, human garbage.
EDIT: Actually, this was unreasonably harsh. I didn't think so at first because you came out swinging even though I had no beef with you personally and all I did was to retaliate, but for all I know you're friends with this guy or something and are just leaping to his defense? I don't know enough about the situation to justify being that mean to you.
Really, all this is about for me is that the analogy frames access to women's bodies as inherently transactional. I understand fully the point he is trying to make, but it falls flat because bodily autonomy is morally very different from financial autonomy, and the larger issue is that in order to conceive of such an analogy some very depraved, messed up thinking has to occur which requires viewing women in a pathological, predatory way.
I'm not gonna delete my original response because I don't mean to hide it. I still don't appreciate that you called me a worthless piece of trash, but neither should one wrong turn deserve another.
That's not exactly what I was saying. I was making the point that the majority doesn't have the right to impose its will onto the individual, and using rape to represent the coercive force of taxation as an emotional appeal to the reader's moral compass.
There is no difference, you just used more words. Maybe you have low emotional intelligence or something but using a serious issue and source of trauma like rape as a political prop to make some point about how you want to be an economic parasite who benefits from societal infrastructure without paying into it is in extremely poor taste.
You don't understand, I don't want just me to be tax-exempt, I want everybody to be tax-exempt. I don't believe in theft-funded, monopolized societal infrastructure. I want government, along with all initiation of force, to be abolished.
I'm sure Jonathan Swift heard much the same thing (before trigger words were a thing) when he wrote about eating Irish babies, something I think is objectively worse. However, he used it to illustrate an important point much like this author did.
When you say I have misunderstood, do you mean you didn't actually make inappropriate use of rape as a basis for comparison with taxation of all things? Because that is the only relevant issue here.
Sometimes one must be harsh to get people to pay attention.
As i have said, this does tend to push one out of their happy little safezone, a recurring theme with Mr. McCauleys posts. But despite the accusations of lowbrow, knuckledragging misogyny he got you to look at something alittle differently for a second or two. And while we don't agree on a lot of things, jake's always getting people to do that. Not a bad thing.