Hello friends. I have a serious dilemma. It's been gnawing at me for days. It started one day when I had, for the first time in my life, been invited to a house party, a friend of a friend's, who owned an extravagant mansion. I was really nervous so I didn't drink much and mostly wandered about and chatted to the best of my capability. No spaghetti. It was kismet that I wandered into a room where one of the school cheerleaders was lying alone on the bed at 3 A.M., who, from my perspective, was passed out drunk. Now I'm not desperate. 9 years till wizardry, but I had never even kissed a girl before, and so I practiced making out with her lips. She was a huge slut (if what my friend, who's a douchey preppy kid who's popular with the popular kids, tells me is true, and if her Facebook duckfaces mean anything, anyways) and I thought, why shouldn't I have my share? I poked her around and pinched her hard - nothing. I tried to remember how she was doing that night and remembered that she drank quite heavily, shot after shot and never without a beer in hand. I wasn't worried about or anything because she's WASP and uppercrust and had good health care I'm sure. Perfect, I thought.
Jacque
Now I consider myself a rational person, and hold myself to a moral code that I deem rational and perfect. I myself subscribe to John Rawl's Theory of Justice, which says that Justice is that which maximizes the welfare of the bottom 20% of society. He justified this with a "veil of ignorance" that said "what world would you want to live in if you DIDN'T KNOW what person you would be"? He said that people would be naturally concerned about winding up on the bottom rings of society, and thus would opt out for a moderately socialistic society with lots of welfare payments, etc, and allow the free market to exist so far as it maximizes the welfare of the bottom 20% (the bottom 20% of the US was much better off than the bottom 20% of the Soviet Union). Rawl's had made a distinction between economic and personal liberties, but having read A Theory of Justice back to back, I knew that in that part he was full of shit and only conforming to the social mores of his time. I thought, behind a veil of ignorance, would we agree to the rule "rape drunken sluts at your discretion"? Wouldn't such a rule maximize the welfare of the bottom 20% of society? She won't remember, I won't tell anyone, who will it harm? No one, It would be a victimless crime.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Continue....>soxbloxrox
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I assume you're ok with being assraped if you ever pass out?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
You should've totally maximized your happiness by fucking her. She probably had 20 other guys come in her that night so your DNA won't stand out.
Jacque
Quoted By:
Here's where things get tricky r9k. Knowing that I was a virgin and she was clean, I didn't use a condom. I slowly pulled off her jeggings and underwear, turned her on her front and took her from behind. To be careful I jerked off first so I wouldn't last 20 second in her and blast off. So I did, then waited 20 minutes to recharge. Suddenly I realized that it would be nice to look at her face while I did the deed. She had nice eyebrows and lascivious lips. 6 minutes in I was ready, but realized that there was no place to blastoff, and I didn't want to ruin my friend of a friend's sheets.... panicking and not knowing where to blastoff, I randomly chose a spot.... her forehead and cheeks. SPURGE. Oh my god it gushed everywhere but her hair, thankfully. I quickly ran to the bathroom and got some tissues and wiped ever last droplet off, threw the tissue in the toilet and flushed it. I put her underwear and jeggings on, put in in the spot where she was originally, unlocked the doors and left. I never told anyone but you. That was 6 months ago.
Anonymous
>I thought, behind a veil of ignorance, would we agree to the rule "rape drunken sluts at your discretion"? No you fucking idiot. You're considering this from your specific opinion, not that of a transient entity. Remember, all you have is rationalism at that point. Effectively, you're a fully deontological agent. And raping girls breaks so many maxims. Remember that the pinnacle of deontology (the view which Rawls espoused) is allowing agent autonomy, which means consent in transactions amongst the economic and social marketplaces. Also, WASP here, stay away from our women you peasant.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
good job OP, now when people ask how you lost your virginity you can tell them that you raped a passed out drunk girl.
Jacque
What I did not suspect was that splurging on her face was unbelievably arousing. I had to do it again. I couldn't stop. I became social fag, pretended to like their music and movies etc, cracked jokes and did everything to ingratiate myself into the popular groups who threw parties; I was on the prowl, and due to my moral perfectionism I would always make sure that it was a slut and not a virgin (for obvious reasons) and would lock the doors, fuck her, and then splurge on her face. Lately I've been browsing r9k and all these "cum on her face" threads have been really bothering me. I feel guilty that I'm somehow ruining these girls for their future loved one. Even though they're sluts it's unlikely that they've had their face cummed on by anyone but me. What do you think r9k? Should I stop? The rape or the splurging or both? Serious opinions only please. I'm a perfectionist so there's no chance that anyone would find out. No rumor of anything has passed yet, and I know these girls. They don't know. They'll never know. Should I stop r9k? >>I assume you're ok with being assraped if you ever pass out? You know I've had talks with my male and female friends about anal sex, and they told me it was different. There are after effects and risks of anal that you don't get from vaginal. There's a lot more pain, you have to use lube, and it contributes to incontinence. That's why lots of older pornstars don't do anal afterwards, because they don't want to wear diapers for the rest of their lives, so your analogy is moot.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>1910130 >>No you fucking idiot. You're considering this from your specific opinion, not that of a transient entity. Remember, all you have is rationalism at that point. Effectively, you're a fully deontological agent. And raping girls breaks so many maxims. Remember that the pinnacle of deontology (the view which Rawls espoused) is allowing agent autonomy, which means consent in transactions amongst the economic and social marketplaces. Yeah I decided that I'm a better transcendental agent than Rawls and the other writers such as Dworkins, and I kept the veil of ignorance and threw out everything else. I felt that "rape drunk sluts and let no one find out" was a good deontological maxim.
Rawl's doesn't give a shit about consent anyways, he supports high taxes, as do I.
Anonymous
Sure is undergrad poli sci in here.
Jacque
All the "men can stop rape" ads are really grating me and getting on my nerves? Is raping drunk sluts really wrong? I can't find a shred of evidence from any utilitarian or deontological theory that's not based on bullshitty social mores. It seems to me that if there were less soft censorship smart guys like Derek Parfit would support it. He's one of my favorites. His theory of Personal Identity states that we don't really belong to ourselves, and that the "I" doesn't really exist, that it's transient, that identity is transient. I thought, Great! Why does her body belong to her exclusively? Why isn't it also mine?
Anonymous
>>1910149 I'll also point out that the reason for inequalities (justified inequalities) is when other people CONSENT to them (read the bit on will chamberlain).
ITS ALL ABOUT CONSENT AND AUTONOMY
If you were a woman, would you honestly be ok with having a random person rape you and shame you and risk pregnancy through the sperm in preejaculation and risk STIs through all the other girls he's raped and etc? I bet you'll say yes, but I know you wouldn't rationally accept a non-consensual action, else you would have consented to it in some form, no? Why don't you ask these girls when they're sober if they'd like to alleviate social disparities by giving themselves to you?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
are you the same guy who thinks it would be ok for poor men to rape prostitutes?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910173 >Is raping drunk sluts really wrong? >I can't find a shred of evidence from any utilitarian or deontological theory that's not based on bullshitty social mores. I'm not going to keep helping you write your little paper on Rawls, but you clearly do not understand deontological theory if you think rape is OK.
Give this a read:
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ Anonymous
>>1910130 >>1910130 >>1910130 >>1910130 >>1910130 GUYS...
GU
guys..
guys listen
guys
i'm smart right
get this
look
guys
look at these big words
i'm smart
guys
guys
why don't you like me?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Op is a fucking retard and doesn't know how to morals
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910193 Pick up a fucking dictionary then. My words were chosen because they effectively describe what I wanted to say, not just for the sake of being verbose.
Anonymous
>>1910172 >Sure is North American pol sci here. Anonymous
Quoted By:
as long as nobody finds out....there really isn't too much harm done, OP. But I will say that soon or later you will get caught, but thats up to you. IMO, continue the rape! And as for the cumming on face thing...no one knows so if she thinks its her first time with cum on her face, it doesn't really matter now does it?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
You should stop both, Jacque. What makes you think it's ok to do either? What if someone did that do you while you were passed out?
Anonymous
>>1910204 Rawls is pretty legit worldwide. You'd prefer 19 year olds wanking over Zizek?
Anonymous
Kantian ethics here YOUR A FAGGOT -signed Immanuel Kant
Jacque
>>1910174 >>If you were a woman, would you honestly be ok with having a random person rape you and shame you and risk pregnancy through the sperm in preejaculation and risk STIs through all the other girls he's raped and etc? I bet you'll say yes, but I know you wouldn't rationally accept a non-consensual action, else you would have consented to it in some form, no? Why don't you ask these girls when they're sober if they'd like to alleviate social disparities by giving themselves to you? 1. I have no STDs. I check up on those.
2. If I were a woman yes.
3. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean anything; most people would not agree to such a social contract because they're incapable of imagining themselves to be unencumbered. The whole sacredness of their body thing is a historical construct.
3. "shame you" - who's shaming me?
4. "risk pregnancy" - these were verified whores and I pulled out every time. I knew they were on the pill.
5. "why don't you ask these girls" - if you do a poll on what the just state would be you'd get different answers. That's why Rawls never said that we should derive justice from a fucking survey.
6. If I were a woman I'd say yes if the rapist were a perfectionist and his mode of operandi were my own. If he doesn't check himself for STIs after each rape, if he spreads rumors, etc, then no, I wouldn't consent. But your arguments are all about instrumental flaws.
You're confused dude. Rawls never said "go out to the streets and ask people, with a survey". Their opinions don't matter because they can't imagine themselves to be unencumbered transcendental agents. Plus all the women are historically situated, and if you asked them in a poll 100 years ago about a different question such as premarital sex or women's rights most of them would answer no, so polls don't matter, it never did.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910211 My particular college is neoinstitutionalist. We wank over french dudes.
Jacque
>>1910212 Thou shalt rape drunken sluts and 1. not give her STDs 2. wipe the cum off her face 3. never let anyone who knows her know 4. never let her find out. 5. only if you're sexually impoverished.
The maxim seems to work pretty well.
Anonymous
>>1910223 >Their opinions don't matter because they can't imagine themselves to be unencumbered transcendental agents. How do you know they can't?
As long as you believe everyone else is a sheep, you still are one.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>You should stop both, Jacque. What makes you think it's ok to do either? What if someone did that do you while you were passed out? I don't have a vagina, and if a girl who's totally clean somehow raped me (dunno how I could be hard but whatever) and didn't let me find out (this is difficult because a guy knows if he's cummed, he wakes up) then sure. But it's really hard to rape a guy without him finding out. 1. anal is wrong for the reasons I gave aboe. 2. stimulating his penis makes him wake up and he knows, since to make him cum there are all sorts of physiological reactions and traces. If you ever had a wet dream YOU KNOW. If a girl somehow got off with my penis but didn't make me cum then sure. Of course such a task is infinitely harder than what I do to these WASP sluts.
Anonymous
this is pretty fucked up dude. You are initiating force against another person, which is always immoral.>hurr durr morality is a social construct grow up.
Jacque
>>1910236 >>As long as you believe everyone else is a sheep, you still are one. Because I've asked them, and they say stuff like "dude, rape is just wrong, er".
They don't know anything about Rawls and their justification is that it's "gross". Like homosexuality is to religious folks.
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200508/?read=interview_haidt It's scientifically proven that most people are sheep.
Anonymous
>>1910244 >You are initiating force against another person, which is always immoral. Is it? I think you should consider this a moment longer.
Anonymous
>>1910253 please provide a counterexample.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Disregard that I suck cocksI don't really see eye to eye with the law
Anonymous
>>1910255 >implying the police are morally perfect you have entered into an agreement where you agree to pay taxes in exchange for social services.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910255 >The police initiates force against people who don't pay taxes. That's immoral too.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910249 >They don't know anything about Rawls There is absolutely no way you could ever prove that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I do this to girls at parties all the time. They get totally trashed, puke all over the place and then pass out. I'll slip in, have my fun and leave, except I always make sure to cum inside. I don't know how many different girls I've done it to, but it's been more than a few and probably less than a lot. I often hope that they get pregnant and have to take care of my baby, but I don't know if they do or not, so it's really just good for fantasy.
Jacque
>>1910268 >>you have entered into an agreement where you agree to pay taxes in exchange for social services. 1. I've never used social services
2. My parents couldn't opt out of property taxes and use that money for private schools.
3. I don't have enough money to leave the US.
4. Other countries won't let me in as a permanent resident.
When did I agree to anything? What is this bullshit ?
By your logic whatever the government does is good because you're not leaving the country right?
You realize how bullshitty that logic is right? It justifies absolute tyranny.
Sure is babby's first ethics course here.
Anonymous
>>1910259 here's an idea tell me what you think.
A country initiates and carries out an assassination against an agent that has acquired some information that threatens national security. The agent hasn't initiated any force as such but there is no guaranteed way that the nation in question can completely guarantee safeguarding the information.
Is the country immoral in its actions?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910324 >I've talked to hundreds of girls at my school about Rawls, nothing, nope, apart from a superficial understanding from a debate girl and a nerdy girl who reads wikipedia a lot. Maybe they were all lying.
Anonymous
>>1910322 >Is the country immoral in its actions? Yes.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>I do this to girls at parties all the time. They get totally trashed, puke all over the place and then pass out. I'll slip in, have my fun and leave, except I always make sure to cum inside. I don't know how many different girls I've done it to, but it's been more than a few and probably less than a lot. That's terrible dude. 1. They could get pregnant 2. Do you take STI tests often? 3. Dude they'll KNOW if you leave the cum inside. That's a shitty thing to do anon.
Anonymous
>>1910363 Care to tell me why? Your responses thus far indicate that you don't care much for elaboration, assuming you're the same person.
Anonymous
>>1910314 He said "social services" but he meant much more.
Roads, sanitary controls, borders control, military protection...
Hell, if you ever used a GPS, you have the NASA to thank for that.
Anonymous
You should get a vasectomy. Even sluts get sloppy with birth control. Then you'd be super protecting them again'st pregnancy and pre-cum if you're so very concerned for their well-being. And so..from behind a veil of ignorance OP...since you've already established that you're fine with a society of stealth rapists that use the orifices of others at their own free will. Are you okay with having a girl who's had some stealth rapist cum on her face? /r9k/ has a problem with it. If you don't know it was there, does that negate the fact that it was there? Dear /r9k/ I regret to inform you that all the girls now have cum on their faces. Also...how do you confirm a slut OP? Is it just duckface and rumor? I've got a friend that seems like a raging whore...and I mean she gives blowjobs like its her job...but she's a virgin, and keeps that very secret. What do you do if you go through your method and bam, you break some girl's hymen? Do you kill yourself? Or what?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910410 Yes he is a fucking retarded cocksuckler for putting that up there, especially when it doesn't matter one bit for his argument.
Someone said he had an agreement. He never agreed to jack shit. Thus no agreement, except for the fact he doesn't leave, since they've made that very difficult to do.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910397 woah nice
straw-manning AND initiating Godwin's law in the same post!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910441 >Do you kill yourself? >implying OP is rational >implying anything in this thread ever happened Anonymous
>>1910397 >They have no reason to lie. Are you a determinist?
>So you're a pacifist? I believe one of two things is possible; Either other people have minds, rights, and free will, in which case using force against them is unjustifiable, or they don't, in which case nothing is immoral and anything is justified.
>FDR was wrong to fight the Nazis? FDR didn't fight the Nazis.
Anonymous
>>1910376 >Care to tell me why? Your responses thus far indicate that you don't care much for elaboration, assuming you're the same person. See the post I made in response to Derrida.
Anonymous
>these bitches don't know about philosophical theory I ascribe to >okay to rape them Well OP I'm a gay engineer so>these bros don't know how to calculate shear force >fuck their faces and assholes with my 8" cock >completely justified
Anonymous
>>1910472 You still didn't specifically address my example. You're being very vague. "If they have rights, force is unjustified." But if their actions, even though they don't initiate force, directly lead to another person being able to effectively carry out force against someone, is force then justifiable? Or not?
Derrida
>>1910460 >>Roads, sanitary controls, borders control, military protection... Yeah I never consented to any of those either. I would use private roads but the government has driven turnpikes out of the market. I have no options.
>>FDR didn't fight the Nazis. American soldiers then.
>>I believe one of two things is possible; Either other people have minds, rights, and free will, in which case using force against them is unjustifiable, or they don't, in which case nothing is immoral and anything is justified. Taxes.
>>Are you a determinist? Are you a dualist?
>>Someone said he had an agreement. He never agreed to jack shit. Thus no agreement, except for the fact he doesn't leave, since they've made that very difficult to do. Exactly, how do I leave? I don't have a job yet, and conditions are WORSE in Mexico. Plus I don't know the language, and the governmental oppression is worse. The US is RELATIVELY free. I want to move to Europe but they won't let me.
Anonymous
>>1910498 >directly lead to another person being able to effectively carry out force against someone, is force then justifiable? Or not? Of course not. Pretty much everyone I interact with every day is perfectly capable of killing me in some manner if they wanted to but that doesn't justify premeptive violence.
Derrida
>>Of course not. Pretty much everyone I interact with every day is perfectly capable of killing me in some manner if they wanted to but that doesn't justify premeptive violence. Nazis were never planning to kill Americans if American just surrendered and let the Nazis governed them. "Self-defense" doesn't work in this case. France surrendered. Nothing happened.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910485 >>1910485 >this guy >the guy on the left Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1910485 That'll leave a mark.
My actions don't leave any marks.
Anonymous
>>1910515 Of course, but I'm referring to my example. An agent who has explicitly stolen information that threatens a nation's security and is providing it to a foreign nation or organization that intends - by all available information - to utilize it to carry out violent action. What does the nation that has been robbed and is now threatened do in this situation? If they can eliminate the agent and guarantee the information is not transported, shouldn't they?
Anonymous
>>1910504 >American soldiers then. Yes.
>Taxes. What about them?
>Are you a dualist? Elaborate.
Also, Derrida, why do you keep complaining about women when you could just be an MGTOW and watch moeblob animu like the rest of us?
Anonymous
>>1910556 >intends - by all available information Your determinism is showing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910578 That's your response? Are you too lazy to type more than one sentence?
Derrida
>>1910569 >>yes american soldiers were wrong to fight the Nazis?
>>taxes coercion. If I don't pay I go to jail, I never agreed to shit, and if I go to another country the tax rate is EVEN WORSE.
Anonymous
>>1910532 >Nazis were never planning to kill Americans if American just surrendered and let the Nazis governed them. We don't know that. They might have chosen to kill us no matter what we did.
>"Self-defense" doesn't work in this case. I never said it was a legitimate argument.
>France surrendered. Nothing happened. Implying no French resistance members were killed.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
/r9k/ - Stealth Jizzing and Deontology
Derrida
>>1910598 >>We don't know that. They might have chosen to kill us no matter what we did. 1. The french surrendered. Those who cooperated were treated fine.
2. The chances of the Nazis killing all Americans is MUCH SMALLER than Iran going nuclear and fucking up the middle east. If the US was justified in WWII, are we justified now to bomb the shit out of Iran?
THE VICHY REGIME WAS TREATED FINE, those who accepted Nazi rule were treated fine.
>>Implying no French resistance members were killed. The Nazis killed them in self-defense.
Anonymous
>>1910591 >american soldiers were wrong to fight the Nazis? That's what you asked.
>coercion. If I don't pay I go to jail, I never agreed to shit, and if I go to another country the tax rate is EVEN WORSE. 1) There are many countries with lower tax rates than America.
2) I don't agree with taxes.
3) You don't know for sure that they will put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes.
4) You don't know for sure that they won't put you in jail if you do pay your taxes.
Do you want a waifu? They're never in short supply. I have a waifu.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910615 >1. The french surrendered. Those who cooperated were treated fine. Hindsight is always 20/20.
>2. The chances of the Nazis killing all Americans is MUCH SMALLER than Iran going nuclear and fucking up the middle east. If the US was justified in WWII, are we justified now to bomb the shit out of Iran? I never said the U.S. was justified in WWII. Quite the opposite.
That said, I remember when an article supporting nuking Iran was on the front page of The Objective Standard, and my sympathies used to lie there too.
>THE VICHY REGIME WAS TREATED FINE, those who accepted Nazi rule were treated fine. See my rebuttal to your point 1.
>The Nazis killed them in self-defense. Self-defense is not a legitimate argument. I explicitly mentioned that none of my arguments hinged on it.
Derrida
>>1910636 1. Those countries won't let me in.
2. Is racial discrimination justified because blacks were free to leave and go to Liberia?
Answer this please.
3. Yes I do. People don't cheat taxes are jailed 99% of the time.
4. see no. 3.
Anonymous
>>1910615 really?
>self-defence communists, resistants, homosexuals, disabled ones among others were sent to concentration camps with the jews and the roms, I guess dying in auschwitz is being killed out of self defence now?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910077 Im going to debunk all of OP's argument with this post, You dont "need" to have sex with a girl you just "want" to, therfore your argument is invalid because it pertains to the needs of the bottome 20% not the wants
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910077 >the bottom 20% of the US was much better off than the bottom 20% of the Soviet Union [Citation needed]
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1910703 >>communists, resistants, homosexuals, disabled ones among others were sent to concentration camps with the jews and the roms, I guess dying in auschwitz is being killed out of self defence now? Most of the soldiers do not fall into any of those categories.
Would you say that any soldier who DOES NOT FALL into any of those categories were wrong to fight?
95% of the soldiers fighting do not fall into any of those categories.
Note that I assent that the Jewish rebellions were justified.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910725 you still dont "need it" you idiot those links dont prove shit other than faggots like you getting more butthurt because of involuntary abstenance
Anonymous
>>1910725 Maslow's hierarchy is faulty due to including sex as a "need." It's not necessary, at all, for you to survive. As a species? Sure; as an individual? No. It'd be like if he had included Reading Books as a need.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910687 >1. Those countries won't let me in. Do you not know anything about S-Corps or LLCs? Just incorporate overseas and handle your transactions through that entity. It's the year of our Lord 2012, I don't know how anyone can live without anonymous Mesoamerican bank accounts.
2. Is racial discrimination justified because blacks were free to leave and go to Liberia?
No, but I don't see what that has to do with my point since I was essentially agreeing with you.
3. Yes I do. People don't cheat taxes are jailed 99% of the time.
>2012 >Not being a member of the 1% I suggest dig-dugs.
In all seriousness you can't actually know with certainty ahead of time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910615 >believing there's any possibility at all that Iran "fuck up" the Middle East ENJOYING THOSE FAUX NEWS, I HOPE?
And I'm sure imposing sanctions on Iran isn't like pouring oil into the flame.
Anonymous
>>1910725 >Sex is a basic need. Only inasmuch as "basic needs" can be said to be serperate entities from "moral needs" which would justify any means necessary to fulfill them, since the latter class is an empty set.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910797 >If unjust taxaton is justified because I can move somewhere else, I NEVER SAID THAT YOU DING-DONG. I JUST TOLD YOU TAXATION WAS UNJUSTIFIED.
You're totally bonkers, just hell bent on getting to your roody-poo talking point about a fertility draft, aren't you?
Anonymous
>>1910805 Most people would go insane without regular intimate contact
Anonymous
>>1910855 >Most people would go insane without regular intimate contact A)This is /r9k/, by your logic everyone on here would be insane(myself included).
B)That still doesn't prove that the set of "moral needs" isn't empty.
Derrida
>>1910880 What the fuck is an empty set.
Get your stupid garbled pedantic shit out of here or translate them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910885 >I'm about to rape See, you're constantly presupposing the non-existence of free will. If it doesn't than nothing is unjustified.
Derrida
>>See, you're constantly presupposing the non-existence of free will. If it doesn't than nothing is unjustified. I chose to rape your virgin daughter in an act of free will. You see me executing that decision, holding her down, undress her, gagging her scream with my dirty sock.
Anonymous
>>1910892 >What the fuck is an empty set. There is no "end"(need) such that the ends justify the means regardless of the means.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910924 >I chose to rape your virgin daughter in an act of free will. You see me executing that decision, holding her down, undress her, gagging her scream with my dirty sock. I don't shoot.
Derrida
>>1910951 What would a just political system look like to you?
>>I don't shoot. You're a saint.
Anonymous
I am too lazy to read all this crap OP, but I just wanted to say that Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies. Yes I am a hopeless romantic.
Anonymous
>>1911016 Agreed.
dat score
dat direction
dose actors
Best P&P rendition ever.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1911071 Lots of people like the BBC version but I think they're full of it.
It's an ADAPTATION, not a REPRODUCTION.
Cinematography was better. Sutherland was a much better actor than the random guy in the BBC version. Keira is the perfect Elizabeth, and the cinematography and the LIGHTING, my god, the sunrise, even the candlelight were incredibly WARM.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Your "sickly looking women" fetish is disturbing :(
Anonymous
>>1911005 >What would a just political system look like to you? Politics is inherently unjust. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1911158 >>Politics is inherently unjust. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. You're free to leave then. I cannot justify my ways to you. I'm a humanist.
>> Your "sickly looking women" fetish is disturbing :( Keira is the most beautiful woman on earth.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1911158 >2012 >anarcho-capitalist Jacque
Quoted By:
>>1911116 Well, what do you think?
Should I continue my ways or stop?
Jacque
I guess I was wrong to feel guilty. You guys seem alright with it. On paper anyways. No one has given me any good reasons to stop.
Anonymous
>>1911628 The only reason I can think of is that you arent really looking at it through the "veil of ignorance". You're looking at it through the eyes of the bottom 20%.
Also, wouldnt prostitutes be the most moral option?
That said, raping sluts is pretty funny. What would you do if one of them woke up?
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>1912100 >>The only reason I can think of is that you arent really looking at it through the "veil of ignorance". You're looking at it through the eyes of the bottom 20%. Rawls said that people behind the veil of ignorance are super concerned about ending up in the bottom 20%.
>>That said, raping sluts is pretty funny. What would you do if one of them woke up? That's why I pinch them hard beforehand.
>>Also, wouldnt prostitutes be the most moral option? 1. no money
2. they're conscious
Anonymous
Do you have no moral intuition that says what you're doing is wrong? Autonomy is the most sacred thing in life, even above equality. You are taking that away from them.
Jacque
>>1912187 Taxes. Imprisonment. Alimony.
All of these violate autonomy MORE than drunk rape.
Anonymous
>>1912235 >Taxes. Imprisonment. Alimony. >All of these violate autonomy MORE than drunk rape. Don't stoop to their level.
Jacque
>>1912249 You mean the millions of people who vote for Obama?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912276 >the world is unfair, therefore I can be unfair Once again with you thinking equality > autonomy.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>Once again with you thinking equality > autonomy. Yeah I'm a humanist and a liberal.
Anonymous
So what you're saying is you've raped several women casually thus far? YES, RAPING SOMEONE IS WRONG. Whether they're drunk or conscious. They still didn't say yes. Just because you're a fucking coward who doesn't want to see them struggle against you forcing yourself on them doesn't mean it doesn't count. It's not up to you to judge them as "sluts" so therefore you can rape their bodies. FYI, women can still feel the wetness/feeling of penetration the day after. If they haven't said anything yet because they're too ashamed (and will always live with that trauma and uncertainty, because you're a bitter fucking virgin), rest assured someday one will either be getting a rape kit, have vague memories, or someone will put two and two together by watching where you went if it comes out. Wishing with all my mental power you get caught someday you sick fuck.
Anonymous
OP you're still a virgin. Raping a woman doesn't count as having sex. Soo you've done one of the top two most abhorrent things on the planet, just to remain a pathetic neckbeard virgin. Good fuckin job!
Jacque
>>1912338 >>FYI, women can still feel the wetness/feeling of penetration the day after. If they haven't said anything yet because they're too ashamed (and will always live with that trauma and uncertainty, because you're a bitter fucking virgin), rest assured someday one will either be getting a rape kit, have vague memories, or someone will put two and two together by watching where you went if it comes out. Wishing with all my mental power you get caught someday you sick fuck. How do you know?
My penis is small, and I'm very gentle.
Women remember because they KNEW CONSCOIUSLY that they've had sex before. It's psychological, the placebo effect. If I told you that while you were asleep I hit you on the arm your arm will hurt, it's WELL DOCUMENTED.
Women only "feel" because they remember the sex they had the night before.
There has never been a scientific experiment to prove that women remember sex even when they had it unconsciously.
Jacque
>>1912338 >>Whether they're drunk or conscious. They still didn't say yes. Just because you're a fucking coward who doesn't want to see them struggle against you forcing yourself on them doesn't mean it doesn't count. It's not up to you to judge them as "sluts" so therefore you can rape their bodies. I've expatiated many times in this thread why their consent doesn't matter. They would've consented behind the veil of ignorance. That's all that matters - the transcendental subject agrees.
Jacque
>>1912362 >>Soo you've done one of the top two most abhorrent things on the planet, just to remain a pathetic neckbeard virgin. Good fuckin job! Why is it abhorrent? Where is your moral theory that proves that it's abhorrent?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912371 >They would've consented behind the veil of ignorance. Wait, I'm not sure how that follows.
Salamander !!OiEv4tS/t6+
Quoted By:
>>1912338 >>1912362 >2012 >being so easily trolled You deserve to be that angry.
Anonymous
>Rape isn't wrong if the other person doesn't find out Someone needs to rethink their life.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
OP, can I come on your face?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912371 >>1912380 Nobody elses body belongs to you. Plain and simple. Every one has the right of choice. If they didn't choose, it is without their consent. There is no "implicit consent" in an unconscious body. You have a psychological problem if you think this is okay and you're only making it worse trying to justify it. It can only escalate, just calling it like I see it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912276 >>You mean the millions of people who vote for Obama? Yes, those idiots. Be an ubermenschen and transcend the masses.
Jacque
>>1912406 >>Someone needs to rethink their life. I am rethinking my life. Hence the thread.
>> OP, can I come on your face? 1. Will you do it in a surreptitiously?
2. Will it bring you great joy?
3. Under what circumstances? I never get drunk so you'll have to break into my home, which has security.
>>Nobody elses body belongs to you. Plain and simple. Every one has the right of choice. If they didn't choose, it is without their consent. There is no "implicit consent" in an unconscious body. You have a psychological problem if you think this is okay and you're only making it worse trying to justify it. It can only escalate, just calling it like I see it. Have you read the thread? A Theory of Justice?
>>Yes, those idiots. Be an ubermenschen and transcend the masses. I just want to be a regular person, not supermoral, but moral as Obama voters.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912364 >There has never been a scientific experiment to prove that women remember sex even when they had it unconsciously. Yo, you have the raddest ideas about science.
Jacque
>>1912502 >>Yo, you have the raddest ideas about science. Seriously, the whole "women can feel it even if they don't remember" thing is totally unscientific bullshit, and a lot of psychological evidence shows that the contrary is true, that flesh memory is mostly a psychological imposition, and not vice versa.
They're so drunk and they'll wake up with a headache, they won't know.
Anonymous
>>1912490 Alright, but I'm allowed to break into you home, right? If I don't damage anything, and no one finds out, that is.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>1912516 Hence the whole "don't remember what happened last night".
Jacque
>>1912518 >>Alright, but I'm allowed to break into you home, right? If I don't damage anything, and no one finds out, that is. 1. I'm a slight sleeper.
2. I'm not passed out drunk. I'll wake up to the slightest noise.
3. How are you going to break through my security?
Look.
If I was passed out drunk at a party. Sure. But I'm not the kind of guy to be passed out drunk at a party.
But the circumstances you're describing are totally different.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910173 >"I" doesn't really exist, that it's transient, that identity is transient. I thought, Great! Why does her body belong to her exclusively? Why isn't it also mine? hahahahahah
10/10
Anonymous
>>1910924 I shoot you in the dick. Also taxes are paid in exchange for government services. Rape provides nothing positive to the victim and is purely for pleasure. Stop mixing political theories with real life. If you wanna be a piece of shit, just admit you're a piece of shit.
Anonymous
>>1912528 Are you basically trying to say that women who put themselves in such a situation (drink and pass out) should deserve a different standard than you? Because that's what it seems like. What about their activities justifies them deserving rape while you do not?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912528 Forget about the circumstances. Hypothetically, the circumstances are absolutely right. Can I come on your face?
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Yo, would it be okay if I assfucked passed out guys I'm an experienced assfucker
Jacque
>>1912545 >>I shoot you in the dick. Only my head's visible. You see me through a window.
>>Also taxes are paid in exchange for government services. 1. I pointed out why this argument is wrong many times before.
2. REDISTRIBUTIVE taxation =/= paying for your own protection
>>. Rape provides nothing positive to the victim and is purely for pleasure. Think of it as a sex tax.
>> Stop mixing political theories with real life. There is no line between theory and practice.
>> If you wanna be a piece of shit, just admit you're a piece of shit. You voted for Obama didn't you?
Anonymous
>>1912581 >>Also taxes are paid in exchange for government services. >1. I pointed out why this argument is wrong many times before. >2. REDISTRIBUTIVE taxation =/= paying for your own protection >>. Rape provides nothing positive to the victim and is purely for pleasure. >Think of it as a sex tax. So wait, what was your position on taxes again?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Anarcho-Capitalist Anon here, if you're going to rape women at least do it to the tune of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Z4EzGoF0A Anonymous
>>1912578 I would not mind if you fucked me, as long as you used a lubricated condom. I would like to be conscious though, since I want to see what a cock feels like inside me.
I am straight btw.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>1912614 >>So wait, what was your position on taxes again? I'm a Rawlsian liberal. Read the OP.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912656 Dude, to assfuck you, I'd use, like, a ton of lube. Like, three or so pumps.
Jacque
>>Yo, would it be okay if I assfucked passed out guys I said here. >>You know I've had talks with my male and female friends about anal sex, and they told me it was different. There are after effects and risks of anal that you don't get from vaginal. There's a lot more pain, you have to use lube, and it contributes to incontinence. That's why lots of older pornstars don't do anal afterwards, because they don't want to wear diapers for the rest of their lives, so your analogy is moot. Anal =/= vaginal sex.
Anonymous
>>1912581 I watched Wanted five times so I curve the bullet and it hits your dick anyways. And taxes pay for more than just protection and are paid knowingly. Which is worse, giving up a fraction of your income so you can live comfortably, or having sex forced upon you for one person's enjoyment? A theory that covers politics and taxes does not factor in the variables involved with rape.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1912712 >Wanted >curve the bullet You just made me so mad, that movie is the worst
>>1912709 Yo,
> I've had talks with my male and female friends about anal sex Tell me more
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912712 If TAXES, then RAPE.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
Anonymous
>>1912688 Then what is the problem? Everyone loves sex, even if it is forced (as long as it is safe).
>>1912712 If I were an assassin in Wanted, I could probably manipulate the flight trajectory of my jizz.
Anonymous
>>1912709 So is it okay to rape your mouth? Just make sure you wear a sign that says "It is theoretically wrong to rape my ass" next time you pass out
Jacque
>>So is it okay to rape your mouth? Just make sure you wear a sign that says "It is theoretically wrong to rape my ass" next time you pass out You have to be more specific. Where are we? Am I passed out drunk? Etc.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912755 >Everyone loves sex, even if it is forced Dude, no.
Even a lot of consensual sex sucks. Women only have orgasms like half of the time they fuck or less, and men complain about women who're bad at sex as a hobby. Haven't you ever had bad sex?
If so, I so envy you
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912758 hahahaha
with some citations referring to the related literature
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912779 You're passed out drunk, I ejaculate into your hair.
Don't answer if this is wrong or right, just imagine it.
Ewwwww.
:3
Derrida
>>1912795 >>You're passed out drunk, I ejaculate into your hair. Dude I specifically said that I made sure I didn't cum into her hair because cum is hard to get off the hair.
Did you read the thread?
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
I think Derrida is a feminist troll trying to make Male Rights/anti-feminism look bad :(I don't, anti-feminists actually are this pants-on-head-y
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912806 Yo, I cut off your hair first.
Alternatively: first, I cum into your hair, then I clean it again.
Just imagine it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912779 Well you pass out drunk at a party and I rape your mouth. But its okay because of taxes and you talk like a pussy so therefore your mouth is a vagina.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912782 I never had sex at all. Women are unbelievably horny, which is why they are sluts. They need a cock in them all the time. They just prefer to fuck hot guys.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
I am at a party. Everyone else is passed out drunk. I pee in my own mouth. Also, in this scenario, the tax is flat and my urine tastes like gummi bears. Morally justified?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912779 That reminds me, you still haven't said what you'd think about me cumming on your face under hypothetical ideal circumstances. Remember: it won't hurt and you won't find out. Are you cool with that?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912841 hell no,
the tax should be higher for high-income earners
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Seriously Derrida, anal isn't so bad. Give it a try.
Derrida
>>1912821 Well that would violate the Rawlsian principle because I like my hair. That'll ruin my entire day.
>>Well you pass out drunk at a party and I rape your mouth. But its okay because of taxes and you talk like a pussy so therefore your mouth is a vagina. I would never be passed out drunk at a party, but IF, sure, in that hypothetical scenario, go right ahead. Use my mouth.
>>Morally justified? Yes.
Anonymous
>>1912779 Answer my question, Derrida.
>>1912546 Why is it that the duty of alleviating social inequalities specifically rests with girls who have passed out from drinking? You have dismissed all other cases it seems, because of health issues or "they'd wake up" or whatever.
Perhaps one of them, despite being slutty, is by virtue of some sort of psychological problem, in fact lower in society than you are (in terms of a Rawslian ranking). Not all slutty girls feel fulfilled, despite how they act.
Wouldn't it be more fair if we took the people who were unjustly best off in society (say, through inheritance alone) and then drugged them, let neckbears rape them... then put them back where they were without them knowing any better? Assume this is done in a medical environment which somehow prevents any problems you have put forth.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1912876 Yo thanks. Also, I noticed you actually used two or three memes in the OP! You're not as alien and ungoony as I thought you were.
Anonymous
>>1912884 >Not all slutty girls feel fulfilled, despite how they act. Bullshit. They get tons of hot sex all the time.They live perfect lives and need to be punished for it.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912884 >Why is it that the duty of alleviating social inequalities specifically rests with girls who have passed out from drinking? Everybody knows the answer already, but let me just spell it out:
Misogyny.
The answer is, misogyny.
Derrida really hates women.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912904 Dude, my life is also fairly fantastic and I too get tons of sex, like twice, thrice a day right now. Do I also need to be punished?
Anonymous
>>1912872 If I were going to have sex with another guy, I would prefer penis fencing. That way we can have fun trying to make each other jizz. I have been fantasizing about this since yesterday.
No homo.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912884 >Wouldn't it be more fair if we took the people who were unjustly best off in society (say, through inheritance alone) and then drugged them, let neckbears rape them... then put them back where they were without them knowing any better? Assume this is done in a medical environment which somehow prevents any problems you have put forth. I agree but - I think they should be aware of the rape. This will lower their self-perception in the interest of equality.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912928 Yo, I mean anal with women. Derrida, put your (well-lubed) dick up some butt, it's great.
Anarcho-Capitalist Anon
Quoted By:
>>1912916 >Dude, my life is also fairly fantastic and I too get tons of sex, like twice, thrice a day right now. Do I also need to be punished? Yes, the government should impose mandatory sex quotas. The neurotransmitters released by sexual activity enable greater productivity in state-owned enterprises for the greater good.
You will have to chose form a list of approved positions.
Anonymous
>>1912916 No, because women have much more fun when they have sex. A man feels pleasure from sex only because a woman lets him.
Men are supposed to fuck as many people as possible, but force women to remain monogamous to them. This is how human societies have traditionally been run.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>Answer my question, Derrida. Your question needs to be more specific. >>Why is it that the duty of alleviating social inequalities specifically rests with girls who have passed out from drinking? You have dismissed all other cases it seems, because of health issues or "they'd wake up" or whatever. It doesn't land on their heads SPECIFICALLY, but it's an opportunity, a moral opportunity. >>Perhaps one of them, despite being slutty, is by virtue of some sort of psychological problem, in fact lower in society than you are (in terms of a Rawslian ranking). Not all slutty girls feel fulfilled, despite how they act. They lose nothing. It doesn't make them worse off. >>Wouldn't it be more fair if we took the people who were unjustly best off in society (say, through inheritance alone) and then drugged them, let neckbears rape them... then put them back where they were without them knowing any better? Assume this is done in a medical environment which somehow prevents any problems you have put forth. Logistics. Think about the logistics of what you're describing. It's impossible. >>I agree but - I think they should be aware of the rape. This will lower their self-perception in the interest of equality. That will incite panic in society - not good from the standpoint of the transcendental Rawlsian subject.
Anonymous
>>1912939 I would only do anal with a woman if she was being Double penetrated. It would be a shame if I was fucking a woman and she did not receive physiological pleasure from it
Also, not Derrida
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1912993 Dude, aroused women basically consist of erogenous zones. To many, a penis up the butt feels nice. Ask JLH.
>>1912966 >No, because women have much more fun when they have sex. A man feels pleasure from sex only because a woman lets him. Uhhhh ... this I don't get.
My girl gives me a BJ.
I eat out my girl.
What's the difference?
>Men are supposed to fuck as many people as possible, but force women to remain monogamous to them. This is how human societies have traditionally been run. Biologically, women's hormones drive them to seek masculine alpha dawgs for impregnation during their highly fertile periods.
Quoted By:
Hahaha, Derrida you troll. You are the same guy whos posting in that bestiality thread. Seems like you are getting a huge hardon with those threads. A pitty that it does not help with your pathetic reallife. Also, one day it will come back at you. You will habe plenty of time thinking of Rawls then. But anyway, you're retarded. Even precum can get a girl pregnant, and you can have std without you knowing ot despite checking it regularly, think of aids. So this is all just hypothetical. Sage
Anonymous
>>1913051 >To many, a penis up the butt feels nice. a clitoris feels much more pleasure than an anus. It would be ideal if they could both be stimulated at the same time.
>What's the difference? Women are the ones creating the pleasure and beauty out of sex. The man is just an accessory.
>Biologically, women's hormones drive them to seek masculine alpha dawgs for impregnation during their highly fertile periods. Which is why alpha males are extremely jealous of the chastity of their wives and mistresses.
Jacque
>>But anyway, you're retarded. Even precum can get a girl pregnant, and you can have std without you knowing ot despite checking it regularly, think of aids. So this is all just hypothetical. I had a vasectomy.
Anonymous
>>1913106 Under what circumstances would it be OK for me to cum on your face?
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913103 >a clitoris feels much more pleasure than an anus. It would be ideal if they could both be stimulated at the same time. We can talk about this I guess, but your perspective is weird as hell. I've tried very hard to figure out what women want, by DOING IT TO THEM, as well as reading a good amount of proper literature on the topic. You've, I don't know, seen a porno?
And instead of asking how it actually is, you're preaching to me.
No offense son, but I obviously know a lot more about this than you. So why is your perspective
>let me tell you how shit is going down and not rather
>please, Feminazi Mangina, sex god extraordinaire, tell me how the vagina works >Women are the ones creating the pleasure and beauty out of sex. The man is just an accessory. Yo, my woman would see it differently, I'm sure.
Jacque
>>1912872 >>1912916 >>1912906 >>1912966 >>1912993 >>1913051 >>1913103 If you want to talk about anal make your own thread, and not derail mine.
I'm in a moral crisis here, and all you do is make fun of me?
Anal is gross, and it's not relevant for the reasons I outlined above.
Anarcho-Capitalist Anon
Quoted By:
>>1913103 >Women are the ones creating the pleasure and beauty out of sex. The man is just an accessory. >2012 >Not having self-esteem. I shiggy the diggy to the rythmn of the boogey beat.
Jacque
>>1913134 >>Under what circumstances would it be OK for me to cum on your face? I'm passed out stone drunk at a party.
Anonymous
>>1913153 Specifically drunk? And at a party? Why are those relevant?
Anonymous
>>1913140 Your theory does not explain why women are such sluts. I am just saying that one man is not enough to satisfy a woman. Maybe you need another person to help you please your GF.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913143 >Anal is gross Yo, it's not :| Done right, it's very intimate and loving and beautiful.
(Done wrong, it sucks, but so does every part about sex.)
Posting evidence
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913227 Anal is only hot if the girl has a nice bubble butt.
Jacque
>>1913173 >>Specifically drunk? And at a party? Why are those relevant? 1. drunk yes, or else I'll remember it.
2. Breaking into my expensive apartment is nearly impossible.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913216 Are you like this about everything in life? Like, if a bushman tells you beetles taste like nuts, you correct him because you read it on the internet?
Anonymous
>>1910185 >I'm a philosophy major. It shows. Seriously, though, no one else would justify rape with a Theory of Justice with Fancy Capitals. You do whatever you want, but some day you will get caught, and you will completely deserve whatever punishment you get. Here is a test for you: supposing you had any friends who told you that they were raped while passed out drunk, would you feel bad for them? If yes, you are a hypocrite, and if no, you are a terrible friend. If you try to justify anything by some "conforming to social mores" bullshit, you are a terrible troll.
Anonymous
>>1913265 >you will completely deserve whatever punishment you get. >if no, you are a terrible friend. 1) Make assumptions about morality in a thread about ethics.
2) ???
3) PROFIT
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I agree with your central point:>In cases where the rape victim is not made worse off in any way, rape can be justified if it increases utility in another person Which is just Pareto efficiency. But I don't think there are many cases which will have absolutely no impact on the rape victim. It's almost infeasible to imagine a situation where the rapist has taken so many precautions to remove all potential harms to the victim.
Anonymous
>>1913256 I know for a fact that women are sexually insatiable sluts because I read a lot of feminist blogs. They are always taking about how they are proud to be sluts. Some of them even have had sex with hundreds of people, and they don't think it is anything to be ashamed of.
Women are sluts. I trust women on the topic of women over you.
Anonymous
>>1913254 There are other ways to prevent you from remembering, and nearly impossible isn't impossible, but alright. Ignoring the practical implications, you're absolutely cool with cum on your face as long as you don't have to remember it?
Jacque
>>But I don't think there are many cases which will have absolutely no impact on the rape victim. It's almost infeasible to imagine a situation where the rapist has taken so many precautions to remove all potential harms to the victim. I'm talking about my INDIVIDUAL CASE, not rapists in general. >>It shows. Seriously, though, no one else would justify rape with a Theory of Justice with Fancy Capitals. You do whatever you want, but some day you will get caught, and you will completely deserve whatever punishment you get. Here is a test for you: supposing you had any friends who told you that they were raped while passed out drunk, would you feel bad for them? If yes, you are a hypocrite, and if no, you are a terrible friend. If you try to justify anything by some "conforming to social mores" bullshit, you are a terrible troll. Enjoy your inconsistent morality.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913333 His morality is absolutely consistent when it comes to rape.
Anonymous
>>1910725 It's not a basic need on the same level as food or sleep. You and I both know this because we've (or at least I've) gone without all three at various points in my life. Going without sex is by far easiest. I can't even take you seriously - if you really, really in your heart of hearts think you are justified to commit rape because you need sex as much as starving people need food, then you're completely fucked up, and if not you're a troll.
Jacque
>>There are other ways to prevent you from remembering, and nearly impossible isn't impossible, but alright. Ignoring the practical implications, you're absolutely cool with cum on your face as long as you don't have to remember it? 1. roofies have detrimental effects on the body 2. I didn't voluntarily take the roofie 3. the girls drank themselves. They'd be drunk and hangover without me. I didn't force them to drink. Again, given the lifestyle I lead there's no utilitarian way of cumming on my face, and your hypothetical scenario would contradict my lifestyle choices and my mode of living.
Jacque
>>1913358 >>It's not a basic need on the same level as food or sleep. You and I both know this because we've (or at least I've) gone without all three at various points in my life. Going without sex is by far easiest. I can't even take you seriously - if you really, really in your heart of hearts think you are justified to commit rape because you need sex as much as starving people need food, then you're completely fucked up, and if not you're a troll. John Rawls, heard of him?
I know without sex you won't die, so what?
If black people don't get admitted into colleges, they won't die either.
Your point is moot.
"Just because you won't die if you don't have it" is not a good reason for the person not to have good X.
Anonymous
>>1913298 When I say "deserve" and "terrible friend", I mean it in the sense of "I'd be hard pressed to find a person who'd feel bad for you" and "your friends would likely all be happier by replacing you with someone else". Happy?
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913321 Son, you didn't even learn that penis in vagina action almost always leaves the clit understimulated.
(And yes, women still have orgasms from penis in vagina sex, without clitoral action. Or from nipple stimulation alone, or any other thing you can think of.)
Post some of the feminist blogs you read please:)
Also, here's another pic of beautiful anal sex.
Jacque
>>1913396 >>1913379 Please.
If you want to talk about anal sex make you a new thread and try not to stink up mine.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913374 That's not what I'm saying. I'm disputing that it is a basic need. Yes, black people won't die if they're not admitted to college. However, they will if they are starved. So to me, this means that if you rob someone at gunpoint to obtain money to eat, that is a priori not as wrong an act as if you had robbed someone at gunpoint to obtain money to go to college. That's not to say black people shouldn't go to college, but it's a less basic need than food, so I believe that committing crimes to satisfy those needs are less justified than committing crimes to feed yoruself.
Anarcho-Capitalist Anon
>>1913379 1) Use argumentum ad populum.
2) ???
3) PROFIT
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1913419 >stink Tasty.
Why are you so vehemently anti-anal?
Anonymous
>>1913396 Go on, mangina, educate me about sex. How do I satisfy my wimmin? They seem happy enough, but I want them to be ecstatic. I fear I fail at clitoral stimulus - so I guess give me some pointers?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913429 I'm not using it as an argument for anything, I'm defining what I mean. You are free to interpret it as me saying it's an unethical or immoral act in whatever theories you subscribe to, but don't hold me responsible for any inconsistencies that arise when you do that. I will say, though, that I'm inherently very sceptical of any ethical theory in which casual rape on no other basis than OP wanting sex is not a wrong act.
Anonymous
>She was a huge slut >why shouldn't I have my share? Even sluts are people who should have a say in what you do with their body. They're not property to anybody but themselves, so your share is essentially what she gives you, by right. You violated her rights by doing so.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913442 Son, I'm not a sex god! But why yes, let's talk about sex some, maybe I'll get some ideas.
First of all, I think focusing too much on
- clitoral stimulation (over mental, vaginal and whole-body stimulation
- pleasing the woman (over having a mutually pleasurable interaction, giving her the feeling that you appreciate her and she pleasures you)
- female orgasm (over female well-being, mood, and a meaningful interaction)
is a common problem. But now, explain, what exactly happens when you fuck and where's the bad thing?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913359 >2. I didn't voluntarily take the roofie How is this relevant? You didn't voluntarily take the cum on your face, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Also, stop arguing about how hard it would be to cum on your face, I just want to know what you'd think of it if someone actually managed it. The way you're dancing around it it looks like you really don't want to admit that you wouldn't like it.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1913477 >their body. They're not property to anybody but themselves In misogynist land, female bodies ARE public property. See: fertility draft, "she wanted to be raped" ...
Anonymous
>>1910223 >I pulled out every time AHAHA OH WOW
You really think that pulling out means the girl won't get pregnant?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
How about you stop because it's a really bad idea? If you are ever found out, you could be in some deep shit. I don't think it's that difficult to get sex. Also, do you trust yourself well enough to pull out every time?
Anonymous
>>1913479 Hm, I guess I didn't think of it that way. Nothing bad really happens. We fuck, and afterwards I had a good time, and she tells me she is happy too. I just, I don't know, I feel like I sort of owe her an orgasm, and I feel like she's missing out. The only way I have been able to make her orgasm is by stimulating her nipples, so maybe I'm just really terrible at everything.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
op I'm going to fuck your mouth and cum on your eyes while you are passed out, and we'll see how you feel about it. try talking to a woman for once you insecure fucknut
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910230 >not give her STDs If you start banging sluts without a rubber, you're going to pick something up and possibly spread it to the other ones, unless you're really vigilant about getting tests done. Even then, the test could miss something once and then be picked up the next test you get. In other words, you're being very risky even if you get regular tests and wear a condom, because it's not 100% effective. If you had zero chance of giving someone an STD or getting them pregnant, I'd say whatever...so long as they don't know you did it they won't care. Even the slight amount of risk will potentially bite you in the ass.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Don't you realize OP is... ...Martin the guy who said he fucked corpses? ...Heather or whatever, the bitch that griped about baby shit on her China? WHEN WILL YOU FAGGOTS LEARN NOT TO BE TROLLED?
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913519 > I just, I don't know, I feel like I sort of owe her an orgasm, and I feel like she's missing out. Well, women, in my experience, react badly to two things:
- pressure during sex, especially pressure to orgasm
- the feeling that a man would be supplicant and subservient, and only trying to get them off
Also, they'd HATE if they felt you only want them to cum because it makes you feel better about yourself, because of a feeling of pride. Women hate to be used for bragging rights, or a self-esteem boost. Women also often like losing control in bed, not being in charge, being dominated.
What most women, IME, love, is to feel they're pleasing the man they love and desire. They get off on that so hard. Now, they also get off on the right physical stimulus, but it has to come in the package of the man of their dreams using their body like he wants to, for his own pleasure.
Women (like men, actually!) are, in bed, pleasure givers. They enjoy giving enjoyment.
You with me?
>maybe I'm just really terrible at everything. Yo, probably not.
Nipple orgasms are rare as fuck I think.
How's her boobs by the way? Only girl I know with really sensitive nipples has huuuuge breasts.
Salamander !!OiEv4tS/t6+
Quoted By:
>this thread >my face when cdcdv
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1913513 >You really think that pulling out means the girl won't get pregnant? Or HPV (and thereby, vag cancer).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I REALLY HATE FOR SEEING THAT SKINNY BITCH KEIRA KNIGHTLY SPILLING EVERYWHERE IN /R9K/
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1910771 Precisely. Even if it was an individual need for the survival of the species, he's pulling out. If he were to argue that he needs to spread his seed for the good of mankind, pulling out kind of weakens that argument, not that it's strong to begin with.
Jacque
>>You really think that pulling out means the girl won't get pregnant? 1. Pull out is so that she doesn't feel cum in her vagina. 2. I've had a vasectomy. >> cum on your eyes 1. Eyes hurt when it comes into contact with cum, would not satisfy Pareto Principle or Utilitarianism. >>How is this relevant? You didn't voluntarily take the cum on your face, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Also, stop arguing about how hard it would be to cum on your face, I just want to know what you'd think of it if someone actually managed it. The way you're dancing around it it looks like you really don't want to admit that you wouldn't like it. Roofie has negative physiological effects, far worse than alcohol. I didn't take the roofie voluntarily means that I didn't plan for the effect it has on my body, while the girl I penetrated drank alcohol voluntarily. That's how it's relevant.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1913637 So basically, to rape a drunk girl, you first have to stalk her for the hours she gets drunk in? And if she DOES get passed a roofie unknowingly, you're not allowed to rape her?
Also, more anal pics
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1912528 What if I forcibly drugged you and the drugs caused you to not remember being drugged?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913577 I understand what you mean. It's not that I want her to get off to feel better about myself, but I just want her to feel as great as she's making me feel. It's awesome, so I want to share it around. But I understand what you mean. Maybe I should be more expressive and let her know that she does make me feel really really great. I feel like we can talk about what we want during sex, so I guess if she really wanted me to do something particular she would probably say so, so going on that means she's probably happy with me. Maybe I'm just making a fuss about nothing, haha. Thanks anyway?
Also, about her boobs, they're not huge. She doesn't wear bras all that often, so I couldn't tell you her size, but they're probably average, or slightly below average. I should tell you that I haven't had sex with any other women, though, so I don't have much to compare against. She's also usually rubbing her crotch against my leg either with clothes on or without while I get her off, though, so probably it's mostly due to clitoral stimulus I guess.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>What if I forcibly drugged you and the drugs caused you to not remember being drugged? Physiological damage that I didn't plan for. I run a tight ship with my schedule, since I didn't plan for it I didn't make room in my schedule for it, while the girl drank voluntarily at a party, she accounted for the hung over effect. Plus, you can grow tolerance to alcohol but not to roofies. Drinks and roofies are two different ballgames sorry. You'll have to think of a way in which you 1. giving me the roofie and 2. breaking into my expensive apartment will not in any way 3. change my life if you had not entered it. In the OP, me penetrating and facialing the girl doesn't change her life since she was going to be hung over anyways. Your action does not satisfy the Pareto Principle. >>So basically, to rape a drunk girl, you first have to stalk her for the hours she gets drunk in? And if she DOES get passed a roofie unknowingly, you're not allowed to rape her? Basically.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913327 Time for some brain surgery!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913667 I would love to suck that cock and marry the girl.
Anonymous
>>1913359 >roofies have detrimental effects on the body If you don't notice, what's the difference?
Derrida
>>1913772 >>If you don't notice, what's the difference? She drank alcohol voluntarily, and adjusted her life plans accordingly.
I have to wake up early in the morning for school and freelance work.
Anonymous
OP, in all seriousness, stop it. i don't have a problem with what you do. i do however have a problem with seeing a brobot in jail. if you continue, it is only a matter of time until one wakes up with you inside her. which in turn ruins the rest of your life completely. it is NOT worth it, believe me. never tell ANYBODY about this again. not even 4chan. nor anybody else on the web. maybe you can tell your best friend that was loyal to you for 20 years, but nobody else. you didn't really hurt anybody yet. nobody knows. if you stop now, you can go on with your life however you want to.
Jacque
>>1913793 Innocent until proven guilty.
No worries, I won't get caught.
Think about all the uncracked cold cases.
And what i do is infinitely harder to catch.
Anonymous
>>1913785 So givign you roofies and raping you is only wrong because it disturbs your schedule. So if, hypothetically, I were to sneak into your room through magic every time, drug you with magical drugs which do nothing but keep you in a deep sleep until you would normally wake up, and rape you as long as i want, that's completely ok?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913785 Well, if I give you enough brain damage, it won't matter to you anyway.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913793 >2012 >taking Derrida seriously >not recognizing that he just uses controversial analogies and examples to elicit more responses Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913807 Not at all. All it takes is one person roaming around a party looking for their friend, stumbling into your room. Then it is known that you had sex with her. Fast forward a bit, gossip starts to bounce around your circle of friends, and the girl is told, but she is surprised as the last thing she remembers is going into a room alone to lie down.
Anonymous
Here's a question, /r9k/, if no-one's said anything like it ITT so far: are whores any happier than the foreveralones?
Anonymous
>>1913840 Yes they are, because they have tons of hot sex. They live lives I can only dream about. I hate them, and I hope they all die.
Jacque
>>1913810 >>So givign you roofies and raping you is only wrong because it disturbs your schedule. So if, hypothetically, I were to sneak into your room through magic every time, drug you with magical drugs which do nothing but keep you in a deep sleep until you would normally wake up, and rape you as long as i want, that's completely ok? With magic that doesn't affect my body in a way that prevents it from functioning worse, sure.
>>Well, if I give you enough brain damage, it won't matter to you anyway. Does satisfy Pareto Principle, sorry. Giving a person brain damage is not utilitarian for obvious reasons.
>>Not at all. All it takes is one person roaming around a party looking for their friend, stumbling into your room. Then it is known that you had sex with her. Fast forward a bit, gossip starts to bounce around your circle of friends, and the girl is told, but she is surprised as the last thing she remembers is going into a room alone to lie down. I lock the doors.
Anonymous
If what you do is morally justified, then you shouldn't be opposed to sharing what you did and why it's ok with these women. I'm sure they'll understand.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913840 Some are, some are not. Foreveralones think they are sad because they do not have sex, but usually they are wrong - their lives wouldn't get any better if someone would suddenly sleep with them.
Anonymous
>>1913848 Do you really think someone who gets sex that easily is any happier? Why are robots so fucking obsessed with sex? It really doesn't prevent loneliness.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913853 What you do isn't important anyway. You're just one person that probably does something at least hundreds other are capable of doing and are currently doing. You won't be missed if I just bash you over the head a little.
Jacque
>>1913854 >>If what you do is morally justified, then you shouldn't be opposed to sharing what you did and why it's ok with these women. I'm sure they'll understand. The law is irrational and against me at this moment in time.
>>What you do isn't important anyway. You're just one person that probably does something at least hundreds other are capable of doing and are currently doing. You won't be missed if I just bash you over the head a little. Rawlsian justice forbids doing brain damage to random people, this isn't a question of "can my company replace me".
Anonymous
Derrida, I feel you were born a few centuries too early. Truly the greatest disparity of all isn't between people of a given time, its an intergenerational disparity.
Jacque
>>1913866 >>Do you really think someone who gets sex that easily is any happier? It makes me happier, yes.
Splurging all over her face was a high point in my life.
Anonymous
>>1913882 >Rawlsian justice I missed that part of this thread. So, I just now started reading the wikipedia entry on it and noticed that it said something about personal property in there. Isn't one's body their own personal property? Are you saying that it's your view that it's up to the person to protect their own personal property, and any violations of such protection is that own person's fault? Even if you didn't damage it, they might not want you in, on or around said property for arbitrary reasons. Is it not their right to treat their property as such, even if it's irrational?
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>1913907 >>Truly the greatest disparity of all isn't between people of a given time, its an intergenerational disparity. You can't choose your parents.
You can't choose your century.
You CAN choose whether or not to languish in involuntarily celibacy or nurture your soul and body with the bodies of passed out drunken whores though.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1913915 >Splurging all over her face was a high point in my life. Man, you should have splurged into her rectum.
Anonymous
>>1912502 >>1912338 >>1910212 I really, really like this thread.
Op, I think you don't really have to worry about it. If someone was raping me in my sleep and I didn't know anything about it/nothing bad is going to happen to me because it, I'd be down.
Although I do find your labeling of these girls as 'sluts' to be kind of abhorrent. Why are they sluts? What did they do? Have sex with too many guys? Are you a misogynist? (unrelated I'm just curious)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913938 >Is it not their right to treat their property as such, even if it's irrational? And if not this, then in what sense is their property theirs? Is it no longer considered theirs when they no longer have the means to defend it?
Anonymous
>>1913882 The law is not irrational. Rape is illegal because in the vast majority of cases it is harmful. Obviously there would be no point in having a law of the form "if a crime has no effects on the world whatsoever, it is not illegal", because it could only be enforced if some effect was seen in the world.
Look, here is where I think we are. You have set up the situation like this - you rape women, but claim that this has no discernible effect on the world. This, you then claim, makes it ok. Obviously, if you are concerned only with consequences, this is a tautology. But I think this leaves you in the very odd situation of being a virtuous man until someone learns that you are being a virtuous man, at which point you become a bad man. To me, this is a contradiction, showing that it is possible for a crime to be comitted against someone even without them ever realizing, but to you I guess it's salvation.
Derrida
>>1913938 >>I missed that part of this thread. So, I just now started reading the wikipedia entry on it and noticed that it said something about personal property in there. Isn't one's body their own personal property? Are you saying that it's your view that it's up to the person to protect their own personal property, and any violations of such protection is that own person's fault? Even if you didn't damage it, they might not want you in, on or around said property for arbitrary reasons. Is it not their right to treat their property as such, even if it's irrational? I said earlier in this thread why Rawl's distinctions on what constitutes "personal property" was based on contradictory social mores of the day, and that since I come at a later point in history I'm a better transcendental subject than Rawl's himself.
Philosophy is always correcting and improving himself after all.
Rawl's veil of ignorance I take, I discard most of the rest.
Derrida
>>1913976 >>The law is not irrational. Rape is illegal because in the vast majority of cases it is harmful. Obviously there would be no point in having a law of the form "if a crime has no effects on the world whatsoever, it is not illegal", because it could only be enforced if some effect was seen in the world. You're right, if rape were legal there'd be pandemonium, not to mention rape of virtuous women.
>>Look, here is where I think we are. You have set up the situation like this - you rape women, but claim that this has no discernible effect on the world. This, you then claim, makes it ok. Obviously, if you are concerned only with consequences, this is a tautology. But I think this leaves you in the very odd situation of being a virtuous man until someone learns that you are being a virtuous man, at which point you become a bad man. To me, this is a contradiction, showing that it is possible for a crime to be comitted against someone even without them ever realizing, but to you I guess it's salvation. What the heck is a "virtuous man"?
What is a virtuous woman?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913991 What are your ideas about personal property then? How do they differ?
Name
>Sex is a basic need You don't die if you don't have sex.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1914007 I say "virtuous" when I mean "in accordance with the theory of ethics you seem to subscribe to".
Anonymous
Why would you jerk off before taking advantage of a passed out slut. That's just stupid. Who cares how long you last? She certainly doesn't. And who cares if you cum inside her? On the exceedingly rare chance that she does get pregnant, she'll probably abort it anyway, and if she doesn't she'll never know you're the father. Personally I find the idea of a girl having my child without knowing I'm the father to be pretty hot.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914031 Passing your genes on isn't a basic need.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914035 He just said he doesn't actually subscribe to that set of ethics though. He's inconsistent. He should come up with a new name for it if he's going to redefine it.
Name
Quoted By:
>>1914031 But you yourself don't actually die.
Many men and a few women lived their entire lives without seeing so much as another naked body. They didn't die.
Jacque
>>What are your ideas about personal property then? How do they differ? Personal property is an arbitrary division used to serve utilitarian goals. If anyone could take my pen that'd be really chaotic and bothersome.
>>You don't die if you don't have sex. Black people won't die if they don't get into Harvard.
Also, just because something can give life doesn't mean it's obligatory, for example.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4VkOqUwdEXcC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=mankiw+value+of+life &source=bl&ots=tg6BGC4RBE&sig=v4J-IEcx_BH7NoAn05aR55Cq1Nw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k6Bz
T4DnGenM2AW7puDoDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=mankiw%20value%20of%20life&f=false
Putting an infinite dollar value on life is problematic and contradictory.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>He just said he doesn't actually subscribe to that set of ethics though. He's inconsistent. He should come up with a new name for it if he's going to redefine it. Well, I'm in a moral crisis. That's why I came here and made this thread. I'm a reformed Rawlsian.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1914044 >Why would you jerk off before taking advantage of a passed out slut. That's just stupid. Who cares how long you last? She certainly doesn't. I'm still totally stunned by this one guy who said he wanted to work out and diet down to a six pack before paying to lose his virginity to a prostitute because he didn't dare to show a prostitute his belly flab.
People on this board are even more weird about sex than everybody else.
Also, more anal sex for Derrida :)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914056 So, as long as they simply put the pen back before you notice it's not a big deal? Other than your need to use it for something, your pen does not really belong to you, you just get precedence over other peoples' use of it? Or would they have to replenish the ink and make sure they don't wear out the individual parts as well? Also, who gets to decide that is YOUR pen? Who gives out the pens?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1913967 is meMan can this thread be archived? so many great quotes like
>Not all slutty girls feel fulfilled, despite how they act. >Bullshit. They get tons of hot sex all the time. They live perfect lives and need to be punished for it. or
>If I were going to have sex with another guy, I would prefer penis fencing. That way we can have fun trying to make each other jizz. I have been fantasizing about this since yesterday. >No homo. Jacque
>>So, as long as they simply put the pen back before you notice it's not a big deal? Other than your need to use it for something, your pen does not really belong to you, you just get precedence over other peoples' use of it? Or would they have to replenish the ink and make sure they don't wear out the individual parts as well? Also, who gets to decide that is YOUR pen? Who gives out the pens? 1. they use the ink. 2. some people will forget 3. I'll run out of ink faster 4. stealing pens encourage everyone stealing and everyone will get paranoid, leading to decreased productivity. But sure - if someone's in dire need of my pen and needs the ink, then sure, let them borrow my pen, but they'll have to make sure first that 1. it has plenty of ink and 2. I don't need the pen for a project or an essay for school or something.
Hey, cool story, OP. I go around raping drunken passed out dudes. It's all the same, really. I wonder why people have such a problem with rape. It's as if rape is a violent crime, or something. Stupid sluts have it cumming, anyway. I'm right, all the time, and they are wrong.
Quoted By:
I read the beginning of this thread and died. In the shuffling off sense.
Jacque
>>1914224 >>Hey, cool story, OP. I go around raping drunken passed out dudes. It's all the same, really. Anal rape is different. I've explained that 10 times already.
>>I wonder why people have such a problem with rape. It's as if rape is a violent crime, or something. Stupid sluts have it cumming, anyway. I'm right, all the time, and they are wrong. Rape can be traumatic if the victim remembers it.
>> I read the beginning of this thread and died. In the shuffling off sense. Are you a ghost?
Jacque Derrida
Quoted By:
You guys are just repeating the same 5 arguments I've refuted 6 times already. Come on, no one can justify why what I did was wrong?
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1914294 >Anal rape is different. I've explained that 10 times already. No, not really. All you said was "some people I know told me it can be dangerous".
Anonymous
>>1914168 >1. they use the ink They can replace it.
>2. some people will forget Some will forget to pull-out, or use a condom.
>3. I'll run out of ink faster They could replace it before you notice.
>4. stealing pens encourage everyone stealing and everyone will get paranoid, leading to decreased productivity. Raping passed out sluts encourages everyone raping passed-out sluts and everyone will get paranoid, leading to decreased drunk sluts. Also, what's the difference if you don't notice it's gone? If they put it back before you notice and everything is replaced, you shouldn't care.
>>1914374 >>No, not really. All you said was "some people I know told me it can be dangerous". No not dangerous, but that it's more intrusive physically and the person WILL KNOW.
>>1914410 If they replace the ink, fine.
Anonymous
Derrida, you should take these arguments to a feminist forum. Not only would it be hilarious, but you're basically preaching to the choir here. Because we don't feel as strongly about the situation as they would, we put less effort into argument.
Anonymous
My sister had a party at our house last week and one of her friends got drunk so I offered her my room. I went in to check on her about once an hour to make sure she was lying on her side. At about three am I came into the room and saw one of the guys standing over her with his cock out. I said as gruffly as I could that if he didn't get the fuck out of my house straight away I was going to cut his cock off. He ran like a bitch.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914446 I disagree with his stance on personal property. I think in order for it to be your property, you must have say over it in all conditions, regardless of whether or not you physically have the ability to enforce it. Anybody that violates that right to oversee one's property should be punished, or forced to compensate the person.
>>1914446 >>Not only would it be hilarious, but you're basically preaching to the choir here. Because we don't feel as strongly about the situation as they would, we put less effort into argument. 1. they'd ban me.
2. If I can't persuade you guys how can I persuade feminazis, real feminazis?
>>1914458 Cool story bro.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Quoted By:
>>1914458 You're a bro.
>>1914445 >No not dangerous, but that it's more intrusive physically and the person WILL KNOW. No, they won't. And how is it being more "intrusive physically" at all relevant
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914476 >they'd ban me. Be more subtle.
>If I can't persuade you guys how can I persuade feminazis, real feminazis? Don't try, just get them riled up. It's fun.
Anonymous
>>1914476 I'm persuaded op.
If nothing bad happens to them, then yes it's moral. I think what's tripping a lot of people up is how specific your being. Like the pen or the anal example. Yes, in real life their are issues. But in a perfect world with your moral standards neither of them should bother you if they don't harm you.
and I think that's the correct viewpoint to have.
I still think this thread should be archived, even if troll, too many funny responses.
Anonymous
>>1914535 >If nothing bad happens to them, then yes it's moral. I don't agree. I see it as a violation of property rights and I disagree with his view on property rights. A person's body is their own property and they should have absolute domain over their own property, whether or not what they choose to do with it makes sense to you (so long as it doesn't violate the property rights of others, obviously, but I figured I'd put this in anyway because I KNOW some asshole will bring up some argument dealing with shooting a gun into the air or something).
Jacque Derrida
>>1914569 Is taxation a violation of property rights?
Anonymous
>>1914586 You should be able to opt-out, while giving up the ability to use any and all social services. I see it as an exchange, but it really SHOULD be optional. It's really hard to employ that in practice, however. The police and firefighters would need some sort of list of all the people that opted-out, or opted-in and would have to check a database at least to see whether or not they should respond to a call. The same goes for use of public roads and other programs.
Jacque Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1914535 I'm talking about a very specific scenario, and not rape in general.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914614 So, yes, but there's not really a better way to handle it within our current system.
Anonymous
>>1914586 I have the feeling you're being very patient with me, somehow.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914614 people generally don't want a burned down house in the middle of their neighborhood
Jacque Derrida
>>1914652 Why of course. You think you're indulging with me?
I'm indulging you.
You think I would seriously come here for moral advice?
I've left the Cave and seen the sun, and now I'm back.
But you fools are still plagued by the shadows, for that's all you've known your entire lives.
Jacque Derrida
>>people generally don't want a burned down house in the middle of their neighborhood YOU THINK PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO PAY FOR A BASIC FIRE SUPPORT FEE IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PAY FOR IT? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
Anonymous
>>1914672 Oh look, he thinks he's enlightened now.
Jacque Derrida
>>1914687 >>Oh look, he thinks he's enlightened now. No, I'm back in the cave with you.
Anonymous
>>1914680 you think people pay fees when they aren't mandatory?
r u fuarkin kidan me
>>1914672 >Implying it's possible to leave. I SHIGGOS DIGGOS
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914697 Cave is safe.
Cave is home.
Why leave if it isn't pragmatic for you?
Jacque Derrida
>>1914701 Private communities can make their own rules.
Private communities, before you buy a house, makes you sign stuff, such as cutting your lawn.
In many communities if you don't mow your lawn that's a breach of contract.
Private markets solve all of these problems more efficiently themselves.
Nietzsche
>>1914712 this guy's philosophy fuckin bored me to tears
Anonymous
>>1914680 They're not going to be happy with those that don't participate if they personally are members of society, in the sense that they financially contribute to the social programs, so why should they have to support the guy that won't get fire support and let the whole neighborhood burn down? Some social programs being mandatory is a good thing for the majority. You have to realize that there WILL be a broke asshole that owns a house and property, but will not pay for basic protections and cannot protect his shit alone. He has the potential to ruin everyone's property around him and endanger their lives.
Anonymous
>>1914722 There's the issue of people not paying for certain emergency provisions because they don't believe it will happen. Even if firefighters were $5 a year, that would be $5 a year more than what Alan the Optimist would spend. Forcing people to pay is for their own benefit, sometimes.
Quoted By:
>>1914725 EY YO GURL
LEMME HOLLA AT U
U WAN SUM SYPHILIS????
Jacque Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1914732 The market for fire departments wouldn't work now because the government has DESTROYED THE PRIVATE MARKET by FLOODING IT WITH A FREE VERSION.
Give it 30 years to develop, and it will grow into a competitive market. Landowners will have to sign a contract that says that they have to pay for fire insurance, it will be taken in the PRICE OF THE HOUSE.
http://mises.org/books/chose_liberty_block.pdf Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs >HURR DURR AN ACADEMIC SAID THIS AND THAT IT MUST BE TRUE >HURR DURR IT'S WIDELY ACCEPTED IN POPULAR CULTURE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY IN PSYCHOLOGY BUT IT MUST BE TRUE >HURR DURR SEX ON THE SAME LEVEL AS SLEEP AND FOOD sex isn't a basic need, deal with it nerds.
maslow is a crank
Anonymous
I don't understand why anon is telling OP what he is doing is wrong. OP obviously has a good thing going on right now and we should be giving him tips on how to rape rather then convincing him to stop. Like OP, I recommend you chew a shitload of bubblegum while you rape these sluts and cum in their hair then stick the chewed up bubblegum in their hair afterwards. Just so they will have to cut it, also really rub in the bubblegum and cum like shampoo so it affects a bigger area. Please don't stop this awesome thing you are doing.
Nietzsche
Quoted By:
>>1914722 So I opt-out of taxes in order to incur fees with my immediate community instead ?
What purpose does that serve
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914741 >Forcing people to pay is for their own benefit More for the benefit of everyone else that isn't a moran. Alan the Optimist isn't the only one at risk if his house catches fire and he doesn't have the optional 'fire coverage plan'. So what if Alan dies? It's his own fault. Now, the fire spreading is a real concern.
>>1914732 >mandatory is a good thing for the majority. The ends don't justify the means.
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
Yo, is every single libertarian fully insane or just the ones I meet on the internet
Nietzsche
>>1914753 Yes it is
if it wasn't, we wouldn't all be feverishly masturbating to scat pornography
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914768 Yes they do, in this case.
Jacque Derrida
>>1914756 >>I don't understand why anon is telling OP what he is doing is wrong. OP obviously has a good thing going on right now and we should be giving him tips on how to rape rather then convincing him to stop. Like OP, I recommend you chew a shitload of bubblegum while you rape these sluts and cum in their hair then stick the chewed up bubblegum in their hair afterwards. Just so they will have to cut it, also really rub in the bubblegum and cum like shampoo so it affects a bigger area. That's terrible. I would never do such a cruel thing to an innocent girl.
>>So I opt-out of taxes in order to incur fees with my immediate community instead ? Government can't take your paycheck and give it to welfare mothers and crack babies.
>>Yo, is every single libertarian fully insane or just the ones I meet on the internet Why do liberals not support the fertility draft? Why are they such hypocrites?
Quoted By:
>>1914771 I've had plenty of convos with you in the past where I was just Anon, so I hope that means something.
Anonymous
>>1913854 THIS. BEST ANSWER IN THE THREAD.
Wading through all your psuedo-intellectual spotshit scattered theories, comparison to politics, strawman arguments, etc.. Simply, if you truly feel it is so "right", so "morally justified", you should have no problem telling the women you raped or others in your personal life about it. Hmm?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914785 Than don't bother posting shit like this unless you are asking for advice on how to be more affective in your actions. Drop the moral bullshit, that shit doesn't belong on the internet and especially not here.
You said it yourself faggot, they are sluts
not "an innocent girl"
make up your mind faggot or do everyone a favor and keep raping or just kill yourself
Anonymous
>>1914778 You're an idiot.
bet you don't even understand nietzsche
Anonymous
>>1914809 He answered that. They are not perfectly rational agents. They will be harmed in him telling them about the rape. He doesn't want to cause any harm... he seeks Pareto optimality.
Nietzsche
Quoted By:
>>1914822 Come at me, slave-moralist
Jacque Derrida
>>He answered that. They are not perfectly rational agents. They will be harmed in him telling them about the rape. He doesn't want to cause any harm... he seeks Pareto optimality. There are tons of scenarios where it's best not to tell the person what's going on. 1. Person has cancer, 6 months to live. >>TELL HIM THE TRUTH. Uh, no. Where are all the nukes located, Mr. President? etc. The modern world is full of secrets that benefit society.
Anonymous
>>1914827 Then he should have no problem telling his friend or a parent or someone else close to him, if he thinks it's so right.
Anonymous
>>1914827 What if the girl in question has bartered a deal with one of the other males at the party? Surely sex in exchange for protection is nothing new. At some point, he is likely to run into this and will have to explain his actions anyway.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
This is the first thread in months that reminds of what r9k used to be like in terms of dialogue, not to mention it thematically captures the essence of the new r9k. Also, hilarious quotes. I say archive.>this thread has received 1 of 4 requests needed to trigger archival.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914845 No, because even that might spread to the girl, who would then find out.
And even if he confided in a mute friend, would that not ruin their relationship? Why should he do this? Letting it out certainly doesn't better anyone, it probably will cause undue disgust in the other party.
Anonymous
>>1914843 >Person has cancer, 6 months to live. Now able to get a second opinion from a more competent doctor.
>Where are all the nukes located, Mr. President? There is one flying at us from such and such a trajectory with so many minutes to impact. We're targeting the others as I speak.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1914827 Just because the potential exists for harm, it means that the act itself is harmful. If she were to find out through other means, she'd be harmed, though she wouldn't have if the act was never performed in the first place.
Anonymous
>>1914853 >At some point, he is likely to run into this and will have to explain his actions anyway. This is about a hypothetical situation. A situation in which there is no chance of anyone finding out about the rape. Derrida is wondering whether that itself is wrong, if it is therefore truly victimless.
I actually was in complete disagreement with Derrida at first, as my faulty moral intuition got the better of me. But I realized that 1) this example was only used to convey his point, and 2) this is a completely hypothetical situation in which all potential harms to the girl (or any other party) are nonexistent.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Keep doing it OP, you're living the dream.
Anonymous
>>1914916 >A situation in which there is no chance of anyone finding out about the rape. If nobody would find out about it there's nobody that would care. Anything can be argued that way with enough conditions tacked on. It's just intellectual masturbation at this point, as well as a cowardly argument because of the lack of actual risk.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Whoever said women couldn't tell if they were fucked the night before was wrong. I've known several girls who knew when they were raped at a party. It's not just memory inducing feelings. If she's not properly excited, vaginal walls can bruise or stretch and be sore. There's a sensation of having been penetrated, obviously. Yes, even if you're tiny. No one has probably spoken up yet about your actions because they're too ashamed, but that can't continue forever. Also, some women bruise easily. I know I can be lightly grabbed on the thigh, seemingly gently, and still get a telltale bruise that lasts a half a week or more. Of course there haven't been published "scientific studies" on whether women can feel unconscious sex because well, most of society generally agrees it would be immoral to have sex with a woman while unconscious. OP's "noscience!" refute holds no water there.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
As for your morality, you claimed yourself to be "of a perfect and rational moral code" which, while quite rash and egotistical in your assumption, troll, even the most saintlike of us hesitate to call our logic perfect unless we have personality disorders. You assume your judgment is final, and commence with a potentially life changing act for both of you. You, prosecuted or shamed if perchance she even stirs for a moment and remembers your face in the morning (drunk flashbacks and intuition, it happens), or someone catches you, or she gets a rape kit, or her- if she discovers. The trauma she could experience for the rest of her life, altering the course of an entire soul. All of this, relying on your judgment. How do you determine these women are sluts? What is the threshhold? Non-virgin? 2 men? 5? Assuming you aren't total trash and aren't raping women you interact with personally, how do you know their motives for sleeping with someone? Relationships, sex, and decisions are more complex than virgins like you could ever aspire to, with all your sneaky infiltrating social circles and drunken pump-ins and pump-outs. You never know how "honorable" a woman is. This could not be judged by her number of partners, either. Again, you don't know her motives. She may not be a person that habitually gets drunk and passes out, she may be more innocent than you believe. I remember the only times I got so drunk I passed out were when I was new to drinking and didn't know how to drink properly, and/or when someone told me it was safe to drink more than I was used to. Accidents and overdrinking happen. Wouldn't a truly good person want to take care of someone in a weakened or incapacitated state instead of take advantage of them? Respond if you want, but don't feel the pressure to quickly brush off this. Because these questions are mostly for you to think about.
Anonymous
>>1914990 I'm not being particularly eloquent here. I mean to say that the whole idea of a hypothetical situation in which a person would rape a passed out drunk girl and nobody would find out/be caused harm by it is nothing more than a fantasy. In the real world there would be significant risks that cannot be completely mitigated. Thinking of this as purely hypothetical is pointless when dealing with morals because nobody is actually harmed in such a convoluted situation, unless you factor in the possibility for a UTI, yeast-infection, or something else that's not necessarily caused by anything but someone's foreign body chemistry not getting along with the other person's. The fact that it wouldn't have happened unless the rapist performed said act is enough for me to say it's wrong, even if she's been taking that risk with other men all night.
Anonymous
>>1914990 >intellectual masturbation Sure, but It tackles the larger issue of property rights. It has nothing to do with rape, really. The issue is: should you be allowed to use other people's property if it doesn't 1) depreciate the property and 2) the owner will never find out that he was taken advantage of?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>read op's post >oh boy this is gonna be a good story >turns out to be pseudo-intellectualism over whether it's right to cum on a girls face or not my fucking disappointment sothenIwaslikefuckyou.jpg
Anonymous
>>1915038 I think people on this board severely overestimate how much sex other people are having. Even when girls participate in orgies/have trains run on them (which is extreme sexual activity) there are still usually <8 participating males. Even porn stars rarely have sex with 20 guys at one time. Let alone your average high school/college girl who may have slept with someone that day or night, who knows? But most likely if they're passed out that early just drank too much and went to sleep.
Nietzsche
>>1915129 >I haven't had sex in a whole week - Female
Anonymous
>>1915137 >I haven't had sex in 2 1/2 years female
feminazi mangina !!YCePg6TwzZ5
>>1915161 >I had sex, like, yesterday I think? Not today, girlfriend is sick :( - feminazi mangina
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>philosophy majors what the fuck am i reading?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Does anyone recall the female "Protest" from a few weeks back? No sex for one week. They really believe this is some sort of struggle for the average male.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915170 >I never had sex - Averange /r9k/ user
Anonymous
>>1910077 lol srsly. you can't use a person as a means to an end. categorical imperative.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915242 There is no categorical imperative. GTFO with your exploded system of morality.
Anonymous
>>1915078 >1) depreciate the property and 2) the owner will never find out that he was taken advantage of? There's still the possibility that he'd find out you used his property. Saying that there isn't is removing all kinds of environmental factors, such as outside witnesses. He should have the right to deny you use of his property. He might not like you and want you to fail. Maybe you're an asshole to him. The point is, all he has that he can really use against you to show you how much he dislikes you are his words, and the use of his property.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915409 Is she justified to the full extent of her property?
Remember, she inherited it from his parents. She didn't get some meager shack like you, she got a beautiful mansion which attracts all the men she could want. Is she truly entitled to the full rights over this property, knowing that she did nothing to deserve it?
Jacque Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1914878 >>Now able to get a second opinion from a more competent doctor. He's the greatest doctor in the country and he's 100% sure. The cancer has metastasized.
>>There is one flying at us from such and such a trajectory with so many minutes to impact. We're targeting the others as I speak. wat?
>>I actually was in complete disagreement with Derrida at first, as my faulty moral intuition got the better of me. But I realized that 1) this example was only used to convey his point, and 2) this is a completely hypothetical situation in which all potential harms to the girl (or any other party) are nonexistent. Hypothetical scenarios are really important. See: analytic philosophy.
2. This isn't hypothetical, it actually happened. I'm asking whether I should CONTINUE.
>>Just because the potential exists for harm, it means that the act itself is harmful. 1. driving is a risk
2. we should ban driving
>>If nobody would find out about it there's nobody that would care. Anything can be argued that way with enough conditions tacked on. It's just intellectual masturbation at this point, as well as a cowardly argument because of the lack of actual risk. "nobody would care"
You people seem to fucking care, being all moralistic and condemning me and shit.
>> If she's not properly excited, vaginal walls can bruise or stretch and be sore. 1. I used lube.
2. I was gentle.
3. I'm in her circle of friends, I know her friends, she didn't seem upset or anything, at all.
4. I know girls that have found out that they were raped (not by me) and I know their reactions.
Jacque Derrida
>>Of course there haven't been published "scientific studies" on whether women can feel unconscious sex because well, most of society generally agrees it would be immoral to have sex with a woman while unconscious. OP's "noscience!" refute holds no water there. So hypergamy is true then?
Why is everyone asking me for scientific proof of hypergamy but suddenly when it comes to rape-feelings the burden of proofs shifts?
Why are some things assumed to be true, while other things assumed to be false?
>You assume your judgment is final, and commence with a potentially life changing act for both of you. Locked room, she's passed out, I count the drinks, I pinch her. 100% sure she won't find out.
>>How do you determine these women are sluts? What is the threshhold? Non-virgin? I decide circumstantially.
>>Relationships, sex, and decisions are more complex than virgins like you could ever aspire to :( I'm not a virgin though. My number count is in the double digits.
>>This could not be judged by her number of partners, either. 1. She's passed out at a fucking party. She's a slut.
2. There's no reason why just because I can't come up with a rock solid self sufficient criterion the distinction is meaningless. Scientists can't establish what "life" is, what "death" is, and what a "human being" is.
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/18/the_evolution_of_death/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249616/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-exactly-life/ "Life", and "death" are also VERY VERY MURKY and VAGUE concepts.
So the argument "you have no absolute criterion for what is a slut" doesn't hold water.
A life is a life, and a death is a death, and a slut is a slut.
Jacque Derrida
Quoted By:
>>I'm not being particularly eloquent here. I mean to say that the whole idea of a hypothetical situation in which a person would rape a passed out drunk girl and nobody would find out/be caused harm by it is nothing more than a fantasy. In the real world there would be significant risks that cannot be completely mitigated. Thinking of this as purely hypothetical is pointless when dealing with morals because nobody is actually harmed in such a convoluted situation, unless you factor in the possibility for a UTI, yeast-infection, or something else that's not necessarily caused by anything but someone's foreign body chemistry not getting along with the other person's. The fact that it wouldn't have happened unless the rapist performed said act is enough for me to say it's wrong, even if she's been taking that risk with other men all night. It happened. Read my story. It happened, no one found out, and everything was fine. Even if it's one in a million, we're talking about the million, and NOT as a general rule. >>I think people on this board severely overestimate how much sex other people are having. Even when girls participate in orgies/have trains run on them (which is extreme sexual activity) there are still usually <8 participating males. Even porn stars rarely have sex with 20 guys at one time. Let alone your average high school/college girl who may have slept with someone that day or night, who knows? But most likely if they're passed out that early just drank too much and went to sleep. I think you're overestimating how much this board overestimates. You don't have figures of our estimations, how do you know we overestimate? We could be underestimating.
Jacque Derrida
All the arguments about how "this is difficult to pull off in real life" is wrong because I'm not prescribing this for everyone, but for me only, someone who's 1. extremely gentle in bed 2. has a small penis 3. ultra careful, uses lube 4. knows procedurally how to a. identify sluts b. make sure they're dead drunk 5. will never let anyone know. I'm not talking about anyone else but me or someone who satisfies these conditions, so saying that "most guys can't satisfy these conditions" is begging the question of what the morality of the situation is when all of these conditions are met. Saying "these conditions cannot be met" is a stupid cop-out, like saying "the trolly fat man" situation is irrelevant because that'll never happen.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915638 >100% sure she won't find out. Unless someone realizes the room is locked, their friend is in there and they wait to see who comes out.
>She's passed out at a fucking party. She's a slut. Or she had too much to drink.
>This isn't hypothetical, it actually happened. I'm asking whether I should CONTINUE. You shouldn't have done it in the first place. If she finds out she will come to harm. There is a strong possibility that someone could put 2 and 2 together after seeing you go into a room, lock the door, and come out some time later.
>"nobody would care" They wouldn't had they never found out. You seem to enjoy taking what I say out of context.
Anonymous
>>1915687 >these conditions cannot be met The conditions of 100% certainty of knowing the person will not come to harm are impossible. You are arrogant if you think that you have zero chance of getting caught in the act, or the girl won't get a UTI/yeast infection from you (direct harm from you, negating your moral highground). Maybe somebody has evidence of your night and is waiting until they need something from you to bring it up.
Jacque Derrida
Quoted By:
>>Unless someone realizes the room is locked, their friend is in there and they wait to see who comes out. 1. I scour the house to see who's awake. 2. The whole procedure, undressing, sex + facial, redressing, tissues on face, takes 15 minutes tops. >>Or she had too much to drink. A girl who lets herself have too much to drink is a slut. >>You shouldn't have done it in the first place. If she finds out she will come to harm. There is a strong possibility that someone could put 2 and 2 together after seeing you go into a room, lock the door, and come out some time later. See no. 1 and 2. if I hear anyone outside I climb outside the window or bide my time and make sure that I don't hear anything. >>I mean to say that the whole idea of a hypothetical situation in which a person would rape a passed out drunk girl and nobody would find out/be caused harm by it is nothing more than a fantasy. I'm a nurse at the hospital who works night shifts and I rape comatose patients. What now playa?
Jacque Derrida
>>1915739 >>The conditions of 100% certainty of knowing the person will not come to harm are impossible. You are arrogant if you think that you have zero chance of getting caught in the act, or the girl won't get a UTI/yeast infection from you (direct harm from you, negating your moral highground). Maybe somebody has evidence of your night and is waiting until they need something from you to bring it up. 1. I check myself for that too.
2. Small fry - the benefits of driving outweighs the costs of car accidents.
3. They're sluts so they're not going to trace their yeast infection to a drunk rape.
Anonymous
>>1915759 So it's no longer about what causes harm, but about what you get caught doing? It's still your fault. Earlier you were using the justification that no harm comes to them because of this, but you're quickly changing your tune. You're just an arrogant piece of shit, really.
Anonymous
>>1915759 >the benefits of driving outweighs the costs of car accidents. And everyone on the road is consenting to the risks.
Jacque Derrida
>>1915787 >>So it's no longer about what causes harm, but about what you get caught doing? It's still your fault. Earlier you were using the justification that no harm comes to them because of this, but you're quickly changing your tune. You're just an arrogant piece of shit, really. I didn't say there was zero harm, but that the harms are vastly outweighed by the benefits, and that under a Rawlsian Justice system it would be considered just.
Look at this
>>1915758 Is breaking up with your boyfriend immoral?
Well?
Jacque Derrida
>>1915797 >>And everyone on the road is consenting to the risks. And when you drink at a party you consent to be raped.
Same principle.
>>BUT BUT NO ONE WANTS TO BE RAPED. But no one wants to be in a car accident either.
Anonymous
>>1915809 >And when you drink at a party you consent to be raped. Do you also think women who dress slutty deserve to be raped? I won't deny that they are increasing the likelihood of it happening, but do they deserve it?
Jacque Derrida
>>1915848 >>Do you also think women who dress slutty deserve to be raped? I won't deny that they are increasing the likelihood of it happening, but do they deserve it? Do people who die in car accidents deserve to die?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915800 >Is breaking up with your boyfriend immoral? No because you're not violating someone's property rights by doing so. You were justifying that to me by saying no harm was coming to their property. Which is it? Is there no chance of harm coming to their property from your act? Would they be pleased with you if they found out what you did to their property?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915809 >But no one wants to be in a car accident either. Nobody gets raped accidentally, or as a result of negligence on the other party. Somebody has to willfully infringe upon your rights to your property and consent to rape you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Jacque you are wrong by the simple fact THAT YOU ARE A LYING. all that major for nothing, so sad.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Ah yes, the moral justification of rape. Which of the great philosophers was the first one to develop this system of thinking, I can't seem to recall his name at the moment?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915787 This.
Piece of fucking shit. Waiting for the day you get caught and you're the town rapist. Hope you enjoy being someone elses "implicit consent" bitch in prison. If there's no guard listening to you scream, technically no harm done right? :) :) :) ;)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915855 Depends on how many sluts they raped.
Jacque Derrida
>>No because you're not violating someone's property rights by doing so. You were justifying that to me by saying no harm was coming to their property. Which is it? Is there no chance of harm coming to their property from your act? Would they be pleased with you if they found out what you did to their property? Taxation. You support it? Don't weasel it out with "social services" or some other bullshit. Is coercive taxation just? Yes or No. >>Nobody gets raped accidentally, or as a result of negligence on the other party. Somebody has to willfully infringe upon your rights to your property and consent to rape you. I was intoxicated while I raped her. I couldn't help it. It was negligence. I just can't control myself. >>Depends on how many sluts they raped. What do raped sluts have to do with car accidents?
Anonymous
>>1915924 >Don't weasel it out with "social services" You call it weaseling out, I call it examining the context of the situation, an ability you severely lack.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>serious dilemma >invited to a house party I am content reading no further
Anonymous
>>1915800 >I didn't say there was zero harm You implied it quite heavily, if not outright said it. I'm not going to look for it because it's a moot point. Your defense to me was based on her property not being damaged. I'm saying the possibility of damaging her property by willfully performing an act that you so arrogantly assume is not risky due to a few factors being 'all figured out' by you is morally reprehensible. You think you're being completely responsible because of some incredible hubris you possess. You're going to fuck up. It will get back to her. Also, what does she get out of it for you using her property? She gets nothing, and only stands to lose.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915924 >Is coercive taxation just? Yes or No. It's not black and white. Some aspects of it are and some aren't.
Jacque Derrida
>>1915937 >>You call it weaseling out, I call it examining the context of the situation, an ability you severely lack. No it seems like that's what YOU lack. You keep trying to change history.
I told you what happened, then you turn around and say that that's impossible for most people!
What does that have to do with anything?
Also
>>I'm a nurse at the hospital who works night shifts and I rape comatose patients. You haven't replied.
Anonymous
>>1914785 I just googled fertility draft and /r9k/ was the #7 result and the only one that actually used the term 'fertility draft.' I still have no idea what a fertility draft is, but there's no way that this is a good sign.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915966 >I told you what happened, then you turn around and say that that's impossible for most people! You're trying to figure out if you should do it again. The possibility of her finding out still exists, even if it's slim. You have not thought of everything.
>You haven't replied. Other nurses could walk in. Cameras. Etc. At that point, they're no longer in control of their own bodies so my points about you getting caught are moot. If there's no chance of them recovering then they no longer have any property rights, as they are no longer able to make decisions. The rights would fall to their family, or whoever is designated to have the power of attorney, who would be harmed if they found out.
Derrida
>>1915956 >>You implied it quite heavily, if not outright said it. I'm not going to look for it because it's a moot point. Your defense to me was based on her property not being damaged. I'm saying the possibility of damaging her property by willfully performing an act that you so arrogantly assume is not risky due to a few factors being 'all figured out' by you is morally reprehensible. You think you're being completely responsible because of some incredible hubris you possess. You're going to fuck up. It will get back to her. Also, what does she get out of it for you using her property? She gets nothing, and only stands to lose. What do I get out of my money going to poor welfare mothers who live thousands of miles away?
>>It's not black and white. Some aspects of it are and some aren't. How can coercive things ever be just? How is it not black and white?
Paint your grey picture please.
When the gov't takes my taxes and redistributes it to poor people it ruffles my jimmies. A lot.
Anonymous
>>1916022 >What do I get out of my money going to poor welfare mothers who live thousands of miles away? Them not teaching their kids to pickpocket you because they have enough food to eat.
>How can coercive things ever be just? That man just took my wallet, I'm going to take it back.
Derrida
WHAT ARE LEGITIMATE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES? HOW COME WHEN RAPE VICTIM IS TRAUMATIZED THE NEGATIVE UTILITY FROM THE TRAUMA COUNTS, BUT WHEN A MAN IS DUMPED OR SUFFERS FROM BEING IN THE FRIENDZONE OR HYPERGAMY. HIS SUFFERING DOES NOT COUNT AS NEGATIVE UTILS?
Anonymous
>>1915956 ITT: OP is a deranged rapist who looks to the internet to garner approval because he knows how morally reprehensible his actions really are but is not willing to stop. He invents some theory of zero harm, then when acknowledging there is some risk of harm, loses his shit and starts comparing rape to road accidents. He is using others bodies, he is pathetic, and mentally sick. Of course he's not going to admit it's wrong and stop. Going to this specific board of all others, which glorifies the idea that women should be punished for "crimes" (which don't really hurt anyone, I mean what did her being a slut and having consensual sex with others ever do to you? besides the fact you weren't getting any, that's not her fault)..
>his post is practically screaming VALIDATE MY CRAZY Derrida
>>1916029 >>Them not teaching their kids to pickpocket you because they have enough food to eat. 1. they pickpocket because the laws are too lenient
2. their mothers can give them up for adoption
3. foster homes.
4. we can execute pocketpickers, problem solved. It's the government's fault that the punishment for pocket picking is so light.
5. How do I, I, ME, benefit? Because you keep asking me how the other person benefits from rape.
6. How does she benefit from rape? If I rape her while she's drunk I'm less likely to rape her while she's not drunk.
>>That man just took my wallet, I'm going to take it back. And how does this apply to taxes?
Anonymous
>>1916052 You nitwit. Taxes pay for the fostercare system. You're just saying any silly shit aren't you? Psychopaths never admit they're wrong.
Derrida
>>1916043 >>ITT: OP is a deranged rapist who looks to the internet to garner approval because he knows how morally reprehensible his actions really are but is not willing to stop. He invents some theory of zero harm, then when acknowledging there is some risk of harm, loses his shit and starts comparing rape to road accidents. He is using others bodies, he is pathetic, and mentally sick. Of course he's not going to admit it's wrong and stop. Going to this specific board of all others, which glorifies the idea that women should be punished for "crimes" (which don't really hurt anyone, I mean what did her being a slut and having consensual sex with others ever do to you? besides the fact you weren't getting any, that's not her fault).. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're insane or "sick" or "deranged".
Shame is not the correct from of moral judgment.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7697.html You're shaming me. That's immoral. Shame is not a legitimate form of moral judgment.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1916062 >>You nitwit. Taxes pay for the fostercare system. You're just saying any silly shit aren't you? Psychopaths never admit they're wrong. 1. Governments ban other policy agencies
2. There are private foster homes, but they get out-competed by the government.
Anonymous
>>1916052 That's really just one of the many social programs. In that one case, you probably don't benefit. Who will pay for those foster homes? Who will enforce the laws? What if nobody adopts the children? Literally, every solution you posted would require some sort of social program to intervene within the structure we currently have.
>And how does this apply to taxes? You simply asked about coercion there being just, not taxes being just.
Anonymous
>>1916073 >You simply asked about coercion there being just, not taxes being just. In that post. You made it seem like it's impossible for coercion to have anything to do with justice.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916033 How come capslock?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916083 I really need to start waiting before posting because I realize I have much more to say after. Also, isn't physically manipulating somebody's body without their consent a form of coercion?
Derrida
>>In that post. You made it seem like it's impossible for coercion to have anything to do with justice. I was talking about government coercion, not an immediate redress of a theft. Your example was reactive coercion, a coercive canceling of a previous coercive act. >>That's really just one of the many social programs. In that one case, you probably don't benefit. Who will pay for those foster homes? Who will enforce the laws? What if nobody adopts the children? Literally, every solution you posted would require some sort of social program to intervene within the structure we currently have. "require" Who "requires" them? Why are they "required"? >>You simply asked about coercion there being just, not taxes being just. >>context >>out of context Hmmm... I asked you how government coercion in terms of positive coercion i.e. the government takes the initial step in coercion can be just.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>I really need to start waiting before posting because I realize I have much more to say after. Also, isn't physically manipulating somebody's body without their consent a form of coercion? My point is that if the government can coerce its citizens for "Just Ends" i.e. Rawlsian ends, there's no reason that individuals can't do the same. I never said that taxation is unjust, I'm saying that your "coercion is bad" theory is full of holes and internally contradictory. I support taxation. And secret silent gentle rape of sluts.
Anonymous
>calls girls whores for being sexually active >uses this as a rape justification what the actual fuck? if you can't see why this is insane prima facie you need to just off yourself OP
Derrida
>>1916144 >>what the actual fuck? if you can't see why this is insane prima facie you need to just off yourself OP Nothing is prima facie true or false.
"Prima facie" truths are just the prejudices of the age.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916154 >you shouldn't jizz all over a girl because its just a prejudice that you shouldn't yeah okay
Anonymous
Quoted By:
What if a skilled surgeon just went in and removed a foot or two of your intestines through a tiny incision and not only did you never wake up and notice, but you never found out for the rest of your life but were, perhaps bothered by some small stomach discomfort or digestion problems from time to time? Is that alright?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
this is why kantian ethics shit all over your retarded misogynist deontological faggotry
Anonymous
It's sad to see philosophy has evolved to where it's just used by people to rationalize their behaviour. fucking sociopaths
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1915977 Surely I can't be the only person who sees this as a problem. Are we really turning into THAT guy now?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916199 or give excuses for their behaviour (immoral)
deal with it, sociopaths
Anonymous
>>1916106 >Why are they "required"? Nobody will pay for them, otherwise, or they will be severely underfunded. There isn't much return on these programs, if any is there at all.
>I asked you how government coercion in terms of positive coercion i.e. the government takes the initial step in coercion can be just. >How can coercive things ever be just? How is it not black and white? That is not what you asked at the time. I was simply pointing out that what you said right there was clearly wrong.
>My point is that if the government can coerce its citizens for "Just Ends" i.e. Rawlsian ends, there's no reason that individuals can't do the same. Honestly, I thought that's where you were with this for a while. There is a big reason why they can't. The government is much bigger and coercier than us as individuals.
>I never said that taxation is unjust, I'm saying that your "coercion is bad" theory is full of holes and internally contradictory. I didn't say it was bad in all cases, but I see where you're coming from. It's just that I know if that girl found out she would not like it one bit. Everyone knows they're paying taxes. If there was extra money being taken out that we didn't know about, had little chance to find out about, but did somehow come across that number, things would get very bad for our government indeed. People don't like being taken advantage of without being given some kind of dog and pony show for their troubles. Even if it's for their own good or the good of the many and they wouldn't miss it anyway.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
men are sluts too oh wait, men get a free pass to fuck as many women as they want fucking losers fucking men fucking patriarchy
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916064 >"You're shaming me. That's immoral. Shame is not a legitimate form of moral judgment." Are you fucking kidding me? You're reducing sexually active women to a shameful group of expendable people to justify raping them.
"They're sluts, so it's ok."
but IM shaming YOU by telling you it's not sane to go around raping people because you believe you won't get caught. yeah ok buddy
Derrida
>>What if a skilled surgeon just went in and removed a foot or two of your intestines through a tiny incision and not only did you never wake up and notice, but you never found out for the rest of your life but were, perhaps bothered by some small stomach discomfort or digestion problems from time to time? That will change
1. my metabolism
2. my ability to absorb nutrients.
3. risk of infection in surgery ==> death
4. who does it benefit exactly? what is he going to do with my large intestines?
5. your analogy fails because I'm not depriving the girl of any of her body parts.
And you're accusing me of using bad analogies?
>> this is why kantian ethics shit all over your retarded misogynist deontological faggotry What does Kant say about hypergamy and welfare mothers?
>>Nobody will pay for them, otherwise, or they will be severely underfunded. The programs die. So what? You're not a consequentialist.
>>The government is much bigger and coercier than us as individuals. And this makes their coercion morally legitimate because??
The size of the coercion is the measure of its goodness?
>>It's just that I know if that girl found out she would not like it one bit. I hate paying taxes. People have committed violent crimes in rebellion against taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916220 So, I guess the difference is that the taxation is open to the public, at least the fact that they're taking the money, whereas the coercive use of the girl's body is not. She has no chance to make a decision on whether she likes it or not, while we the people, do. If we don't like it, there's still not much we can do about it, but we don't HAVE to pay, in theory.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>Everyone knows they're paying taxes. Everyone knows that if you drink at a party and pass out you might get raped.
>> If there was extra money being taken out that we didn't know about, had little chance to find out about, but did somehow come across that number, things would get very bad for our government indeed. This happens ALL THE TIME. The tax code is so FUCKING COMPLICATED even REALLY SMART PEOPLE need to HIRE PROFESSIONALS to figure out WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON with their taxes.
Governments raise taxes ALL THE TIME and we never find out.
Governments lower the value of your savings via inflation via the Federal Reserves.
LOOK
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-corporate-tax-rate-poised-171800370.html SUDDEN CHANGE. SURPRISE TAX!
Surprise tax.
Surprise sex.
Derrida
Quoted By:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in- a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/
Who has time to read the entire fucking tax code?
>>So, I guess the difference is that the taxation is open to the public, at least the fact that they're taking the money, whereas the coercive use of the girl's body is not. She has no chance to make a decision on whether she likes it or not, while we the people, do. If we don't like it, there's still not much we can do about it, but we don't HAVE to pay, in theory. It's common knowledge, a cultural trope even, that if you pass out drunk at a party someone might rape you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Since when was rape and taxation equivalent?
Anonymous
>>1910193 Just generally speaking, WASPs are very intelligent.
The Angles met the Saxons and they conquered and developed the world.
The really are the best bred white race in the world.
Derrida
>>Since when was rape and taxation equivalent? NO ONE SAID THAT TAXATION AND RAPE WERE equivalent. My argument is that the necessity and justness of taxation refutes all the "all coercion is bad" arguments, upon which all the anti-rape arguments rest. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE THE SAME. THIS STRAWMEN HAS TO DIE. RAPE =/= TAXATION. However, taxation refutes the anti-coercion argument. That is all.
Anonymous
Derrida, I'm starting to suspect that you're actually mentally ill. Seriously, see a doctor or something.
Anonymous
>>1916297 >The programs die. So what? You're not a consequentialist. Kids start pickpocketing again
>The size of the coercion is the measure of its goodness? No, just a measure of its effectiveness.
>I hate paying taxes. People have committed violent crimes in rebellion against taxes. Governments raise taxes ALL THE TIME and we never find out.
It's right there on your paycheck.
>This happens ALL THE TIME. The tax code is so FUCKING COMPLICATED That's tax returns. You're only entitled to them if you know the code, otherwise, you pay the ignorant tax, which is what is directly taken out of your paycheck. This is a chance to reduce that, nothing more.
>Everyone knows that if you drink at a party and pass out you might get raped. And then there's this. Might get raped. Not will have to pay taxes and know the amount. You even know who's taking it and that there are various social programs that are funded, like our entire justice system and fire department. The only thing that your rape benefits is you. Everyone has the ability to draw from the pool, once the skimming off the top is done. All you have to do is become a government employee, or invoke the use of their services.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916358 Then why aren't they the majority of nobel prize winners in physics?
Because they aren't jews, heh heh stupid goy.
remember, we the are handlers of these so called "WASPs"
>>1916398 If you're really concerned, Gchat with me.
Anonymous
>>1916387 Surely, you're logical enough to realize that the justification of one form of coercion doesn't justify another form.
Anonymous
>>1916387 I have a question for you OP or Derrida, not entirely sure who is who anymore. I can completely understand your logic behind all of this and everything has made sense up to this point. I just want to point out that you said that if a women is drugged at a party, then you would not rape her because her passing out is not necessarily her fault, and she may not be a slut. The problem I have with this is, how do you determine if a girl was drugged or not? She may have been drugged by some guy, stumbled into some room and fell asleep, then the guy who drugged her lost track of her, and you found her, already unconscious. I'm sure she would look exactly like a girl who drank herself unconscious, so for the sake of ethics, do you have some method to determine if she indeed drank herself out, or if she was drugged?
>>1916423 >>Kids start pickpocketing again Solution: throw these kids in jail.
Don't give money to welfare mothers, they won't have these kids.
>>No, just a measure of its effectiveness. Effectiveness presumes ends; so you're a consequentialist?
What do you think of the fertility draft?
>>And then there's this. Might get raped. Not will have to pay taxes and know the amount. You even know who's taking it and that there are various social programs that are funded, like our entire justice system and fire department. The only thing that your rape benefits is you. Everyone has the ability to draw from the pool, once the skimming off the top is done. All you have to do is become a government employee, or invoke the use of their services. What's the moral difference between concrete knowledge and probabilistic knowledge?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916430 I can't imagine that ending well in the slightest. I don't think you've modified your beliefs in the slightest in the months you've been posting here. Why would me chatting make a difference.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916454 It's hypothetical. He's just saying it's not to elicit emotional responses. The real reason that's there was to get into the property debate side of women's bodies, to which he had prepared his taxation defense.
Anonymous
>>1916461 >throw these kids in jail. Who will pay for these jails? Is there a lot of profit in it?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916461 >What do you think of the fertility draft? I don't even know what it is.
Anonymous
>>1916483 shut up you sociopath
>>1916432 >>Surely, you're logical enough to realize that the justification of one form of coercion doesn't justify another form. No, but the point is that the anti-coercion argument is WRONG, not that rape is justified.
I justify rape in Rawlsian terms, which has little to do with actual consent.
The arguments against rape are Libertarian ones.
>>I have a question for you OP or Derrida, not entirely sure who is who anymore. I can completely understand your logic behind all of this and everything has made sense up to this point. I just want to point out that you said that if a women is drugged at a party, then you would not rape her because her passing out is not necessarily her fault, and she may not be a slut. The problem I have with this is, how do you determine if a girl was drugged or not? She may have been drugged by some guy, stumbled into some room and fell asleep, then the guy who drugged her lost track of her, and you found her, already unconscious. I'm sure she would look exactly like a girl who drank herself unconscious, so for the sake of ethics, do you have some method to determine if she indeed drank herself out, or if she was drugged? I didn't drug her so it doesn't matter. However it's immoral for me to roofie her.
See: Sunk Costs - Principles of Economics. Mankiw.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Femanon here. In theory it would be kind of hot. (but it is a violation of human rights in literal practice) I can't picture it ever happening in real life though. I always carry several knives, mace, and other weapons on me. I never inebriate myself to the point I can not coherently think/walk in a public place with unknown variables. Even at my drunkest slumber, I would definitely be awoken by penetration. Are there any tests you do to make sure the girl won't wake up? What if you rape a girl you think is drunk enough to sleep through it, and she wakes up mid-coitus? You'd be fucked.
Derrida
>>I don't even know what it is. FERTILITY DRAFT
>>1912602 >>I can't imagine that ending well in the slightest. I don't think you've modified your beliefs in the slightest in the months you've been posting here. Why would me chatting make a difference. I thought you were concerned that I was mental?
Don't you want to help me? Calm me down perhaps? Make sure I'm ok?
>>Who will pay for these jails? Is there a lot of profit in it? Prisoners are forced to work.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Now for a bonus round question. Would you find anything morally objectionable about having sex with a corpse?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916461 >so you're a consequentialist? I have no idea what that means. I might be. I don't have a concrete philosophical standpoint. I am open to changing what I adhere to because I am often wrong about people and situations, due to their complexity and my own ignorance.
>What's the moral difference between concrete knowledge and probabilistic knowledge? I do not know...I'm in over my head here. I have been for some time. I agree that women should not put themselves in rape situations, however that does not absolve you from being in the wrong either, simply because you shifted responsibility onto her. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that jazz.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916497 What if your friend drugged her and then you took advantage of her?
Would you consider yourself an abettor/counsellor in the drugging, but not at fault with the rape? Or do you then consider it to be a rape?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916535 >Prisoners are forced to work. By private companies? Not bad.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916535 Don't get self-righteous on me. You and I both know you're just baiting me into more heavy-handed pseudo-philosophical psychobabble. I think you need help. I', not going to act like a retard in trying to find it for you.
>>Are there any tests you do to make sure the girl won't wake up? >>1910038 >> I poked her around and pinched her hard - nothing. Ever been pinched hard? Pinch plus a twist?
>>What if you rape a girl you think is drunk enough to sleep through it, and she wakes up mid-coitus? If I pinch her and twist her flesh and she still doesn't wake up I doubt the silent gentle penetration will.
>>I have no idea what that means. I might be. I don't have a concrete philosophical standpoint. I am open to changing what I adhere to because I am often wrong about people and situations, due to their complexity and my own ignorance. So you have no systematic moral theory then?
>>I do not know...I'm in over my head here. I have been for some time. I agree that women should not put themselves in rape situations, however that does not absolve you from being in the wrong either, simply because you shifted responsibility onto her. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that jazz. The whole point of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance was a syllogism that two wrongs do make a right.
>>Would you consider yourself an abettor/counsellor in the drugging, but not at fault with the rape? Or do you then consider it to be a rape? Did my friend drug her with the intention that I rape her? Did we work out a plan?
You have to be more specific.
>>By private companies? Not bad. I know, right? >>Don't get self-righteous on me. You and I both know you're just baiting me into more heavy-handed pseudo-philosophical psychobabble. I think you need help. I', not going to act like a retard in trying to find it for you. One minute I "need help", the next minute I'm "baiting" you into a trap. Get your story straight.
Anonymous
>>1916631 You need help and you're baiting me into a potentially embarrassing situation that would do nothing to help you. Is there something contradictory about this?
Anonymous
>>1916582 >So you have no systematic moral theory then? I do not.
>The whole point of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance was a syllogism that two wrongs do make a right. I guess I disagree here then. It does not always work this way. Even in this case, I don't think the blame can be effectively shifted to her because one does not expect the very improbable to happen. I don't think the blame lies completely on you, however because she would be in no position to be raped like that had she not gotten into that situation. This is what you termed 'canceling out', is it not? I don't really consider that canceled out. You received no wrong in this case, but she did from you, even if she's unaware of it. In any system, if you're never caught, there are no consequences, but the moral wrong is still there. In order for the two wrongs to cancel each other, I think they would have to be equally weighted against each party, not one person wrongs another who's wronged herself.
>>1916677 I'm not blaming her - I'm saying that people would consent to this behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, because she might (behind the veil) turn out to be me, and it's better off for those on the bottom 20% if the action (the rape) is taken, because if you're behind the veil of ignorance you're more concerned that you're a permavirgin than getting raped without you knowing it one night at a party.
Anonymous
>>1916535 >The existence of any redistributive tax system is the only foundation I need to pivot this argument. Or any I've seen today, it seems.
>>1916756 >>Or any I've seen today, it seems. Other arguments will always do.
Antidiscrimination laws.
But redistributive programs is a pretty broad category - most public debates and fights are over that one category of things.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1916664 >>1916664 >>You need help and you're baiting me into a potentially embarrassing situation that would do nothing to help you. Is there something contradictory about this? If I'm insane how can I be baiting you?
Maybe I'm hallucinating the rape?
Anonymous
>>1916783 >most public debates and fights are over that one category of things. I would have to agree with you here.
>If I'm insane how can I be baiting you? Insane =/= stupid. That would be how. Not all insanity has hallucinations. If you're insane, however, it's the kind of insane that can't be cured.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916829 btw, it's not me calling you insane, that's someone else. I feel like I should have at least namefagged for this thread, but I'm a coward.
Anonymous
Why do you keep switching between Jacque, Derrida, and Jacque Derrida with an email field?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916859 He's posting in multiple threads and probably changing for each and sometimes forgetting to switch it back. Or he could be multiple people, but the writing style is incredibly similar.
Coward
Quoted By:
>>1916492 I just realized I was called a sociopath and it wasn't to tell me I'm acting edgy.
Coward
>>1916751 I'm still trying to wrap my head around this Veil of Ignorance. I don't think many people can do this without considering themselves as a possibility and their current social standing when they look at another person behind the veil. I thought the point was to remove those considerations.
>>1916859 >>Why do you keep switching between Jacque, Derrida, and Jacque Derrida with an email field? I messed up. :/
It was suppose to be Jacque all thread long, but then it got messy because I was posting between chrome and FF because FF doesn't have posting-box-stretch.
>>He's posting in multiple threads and probably changing for each and sometimes forgetting to switch it back. Or he could be multiple people, but the writing style is incredibly similar. Yeah loyal readers will know what's up.
Coward
Quoted By:
>>1916924 >Yeah loyal readers will know what's up. I just figured it out when I saw the names all in the same thread and the writing style hadn't changed at all.
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1916915 Yeah I don't think anyone really understands it.
It's more of a rhetorical point more than anything else.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1916535 Saying fertility draft tells me nothing new and yes I've thought about what it could mean now I want you to explain what it is.
Anonymous
Time to take a piss in this ocean. If these women have no right to their own property, why should you have a right to it instead? Because you feel yourself to be part of this lower 20% and as such deserving of welfare, or being given opportunities others may have. And you feel that sex is an opportunity that these women have been granted through an unfair system, and in your effort to achieve fairness, you take advantage of their weakened states to fulfill yourself.>correct me if I'm wrong on what I'm saying btw You said that you judge each individual woman's "sluttiness" based on circumstance. Yet, you also have mentioned a factor that acts as a blanket identifier that these girls are "sluts". They are heavily inebriated. I'm having trouble grasping on what your definition of "slut" really is. Is a slut to you someone that is above the bottom 20% in terms of opportunity, in this case opportunity to have sex? Also, if you belong to this bottom 20%, you do not raise yourself up by this welfare system. You seem to have made an effort to be social. Couldn't you by the result of this effort become a "slut" yourself? What you gain from these infractions do not seem to benefit you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1917721 Sexual experience and alcohol ingestion are separate facets of an individual and only relate in certain situations.
Wouldn't a morally sounder argument would be for a willing partner? If you are lacking, instead of taking what you need, wouldn't a greater alternative be to have it given to you? Then there is a mutual benefit. Why do you not seek the highest of moral outcomes? Because it is too difficult?
Anonymous
Now, while you are arguing a certain point of view ( a facet of an argument made by Rawl from what I gather from this thread) is this really a reasonable way to look at the world? Existence is dynamic, experience situational, and no one school of thought can account for the totality of experience. You seem to be closed off against separate schools of thought. You feel that you have seen the light as it is and condemned the shadows for what they are. You entered into this thread not to argue, but for a declaration. You are too stiff, and its an interesting phenomenon, because you yourself are attempting to show us something new, to get us to step outside our schools of thought.
Anonymous
Aw well, OP seems to have gone. In any case, while his argument for the most part would be perceived as ridiculous and the words of an insane and inhumane individual, arguing against it is an interesting excercise in how we can better communicate morals should a need arise. For the most part, morality shouldn't need to be communicated, as they usually spawn from basic instinctual attitudes, commonly shared human experience, and undercurrents that touch across cultures and generations.
Quoted By:
>>1917888 trips for fucking lies
if I raised a baby everyday and told him he was going to eat me when he turned 25 he'd do it without a second thought
although I'm quite pleased this thread still exists
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>1917826 >>Now, while you are arguing a certain point of view ( a facet of an argument made by Rawl from what I gather from this thread) is this really a reasonable way to look at the world? Existence is dynamic, experience situational, and no one school of thought can account for the totality of experience. You seem to be closed off against separate schools of thought. You feel that you have seen the light as it is and condemned the shadows for what they are. You entered into this thread not to argue, but for a declaration. You are too stiff, and its an interesting phenomenon, because you yourself are attempting to show us something new, to get us to step outside our schools of thought. No anon, you are the one who's closed off.
I'm open to rape, you are NOT OPEN to rape. I'm not open minded and open to new experiences than you.
Have you ever raped anyone? How can your narrow minded experiences tell you how to judge an experience you've never had before? Aren't women always saying that virgins can judge sluts because they have no sexual experience? Well, you have no rape experience, so how can you judge me?
>>In any case, while his argument for the most part would be perceived as ridiculous and the words of an insane and inhumane individual, arguing against it is an interesting excercise in how we can better communicate morals should a need arise. For the most part, morality shouldn't need to be communicated, as they usually spawn from basic instinctual attitudes, commonly shared human experience, and undercurrents that touch across cultures and generations. What happens when moral intuitions conflict? If reason and speech and common discourse cannot solve a dispute, what happens when two people disagree? Fight each other with sticks, swords, and guns?
Derrida
Quoted By:
>>Wouldn't a morally sounder argument would be for a willing partner? If you are lacking, instead of taking what you need, wouldn't a greater alternative be to have it given to you? Then there is a mutual benefit. Why do you not seek the highest of moral outcomes? Because it is too difficult? Wouldn't it be morally sounder if taxation were voluntary? >>If these women have no right to their own property, why should you have a right to it instead? Because you feel yourself to be part of this lower 20% and as such deserving of welfare, or being given opportunities others may have. And you feel that sex is an opportunity that these women have been granted through an unfair system, and in your effort to achieve fairness, you take advantage of their weakened states to fulfill yourself. I never said I had a right to it, I'm using it, like breathing the public air; I don't own the oxygen in the park, but I inhale and exhale.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Guys, you know that morality is based off evolution, right? Right?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
You probably wouldn't want your sister or daughter to be raped, even if they were passed out drunk. Do unto other people's daughters and sister as you would have them do unto your own. That said it is realllllly fucking tempting to rape or molest drunk girls when you consider that they'll never find out and it isn't doing any harm to them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>Is raping drunk sluts really wrong? Yes. And your justifications are stupid.
Quoted By:
I can't believe I just spent 20 minutes of my life reading even a fourth of this bullshit thread.
Derrida
>>Guys, you know that morality is based off evolution, right? I don't impregnate her, so it's evolutionarily irrelevant. >>You probably wouldn't want your sister or daughter to be raped, even if they were passed out drunk. No I'd be fine with it. >>Do unto other people's daughters and sister as you would have them do unto your own. I already said: If I'm passed out drunk at a party, cum on the face if you want, just clean up afterwards and don't get my hair. >>Yes. And your justifications are stupid. Do you have reasons sir? >>I can't believe I just spent 20 minutes of my life reading even a fourth of this bullshit thread. You didn't read everything. You should.
Quoted By:
>>1921903 Oh hey you! Look who's back! Get in my new thread:
>>1921218 Plato
Quoted By:
>>1922397 >We can do this all day, faggot. >Post, delete, post, delete. I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>1922326 >If you don't stop spamming my threads I'll keep this thread alive forever. You know I can. Why don't you want to make friends? ;_;
Jacque
FOR ALL THOSE WHO ARE TOO LAZY TO READ Jacque Thu 29 Mar 2012 22:05:01 No. 1922529 Report I RAPED A DRUNKEN PASSED OUT SLUT AT A PARTY AND CAME ON HER FACE. SHE NEVER FOUND OUT. WE ARE DISCUSSING THE MORALITY OF MY ACTION. PIC RELATED: I TOASTED MYSELF AFTER THE ACT.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
You do not deserve to live. Kill yourself.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
You have no right. You have no right and you are more of a whore than she is. I bet she wouldn't try and fuck someone who was unconscious. How low can your standards go? You shallow piece of shit.
Jacque
Quoted By:
>>You do not deserve to live. Kill yourself. You're not very nice. >>You have no right. You have no right and you are more of a whore than she is. I bet she wouldn't try and fuck someone who was unconscious. How low can your standards go? You shallow piece of shit. No rights are absolute in a Rawlsian system. We all belong to each other. That's how egalitarianism works.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
GOOD LUCK BRO, I HOPE SHE WAKES UP AND BITES OFF YOUR NUTS :)
Plato
Quoted By:
>>1924605 >Tonight I might strike again. >Wish me luck r9k. Take my enchanted sheath of plus ten saving throw.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1922529 Slut != someone who drinks a lot and then passes out
Slut = someone who sleeps with a lot of people
And you aren't trying the latter in order to avoid STDs.
Trying to suggest a girl is slutty just for allowing herself to be passed out in a party (where she might be taken advantage of) is like calling all drivers suicidal.
Derrida
Quoted By:
In the past the most common argument against rape referred to a woman's "honor" and "chastity". Guess those arguments won't work now. If the Romans were alive today I'm sure they would approve of my behavior.
Deleuze
Quoted By:
>>If the Romans were alive today I'm sure they would approve of my behavior. Anyone who finds this statement fanciful knows nothing of history.