It would be great if you could STFU. The big kids are discussing now.
It would be great if you’d stop being a pretentious prick. They’re telling you exactly what I have been for pages.
Whew, at the risk of going circles… That was my position. I thought you were implying that the need to resist was also coerced.
Coercion only favours one outcome. Compliance. So why would anyone comply when they could resist?
Sorry if I’m going in circles, I’m frustrated and don’t feel like I can articulate what I think.
The whole point of coercion is for the coercer to get the victim to act as they wish them to act. Resistance does not come under that scheme. Forcing the victim to comply does. Hence why non-resistance is a coerced choice. Resistance is the attempt to end the coerced imposition of non-resistance.
A rape victim is in exactly this position. If (s)he resists, (s)he might suffer dire consequences, and thus (s)he may simply go along with the coercion. Saying this is tantamount to consent is saying this is not rape, which is by definition non-consentual sex.
-Jon
Well, that’s sad because I am actually listening now. Which means (1) you suck at argumentation, (2) I don’t respect you, (3) you are full of crap, or (4) all of the above.
I’ve got further discussing with Jon in a handful of posts because surprise, surprise, he doesn’t make it about his values.
Perhaps because the coercer threatens dire consequences?
-Jon
No, you were saying that non-resistance is consent to whatever condition you were coerced into and therefore voluntary.
This is really basic stuff, self ownership, negative rights, etc, etc. I can’t believe that this has been dragged out this long.
And yes, by your argument a woman who has a knife held to her throat who doesn’t resist her attacker is engaging in consensual sex. Perhaps you should go to a rape survivor support group and ask “So why would anyone comply when they could resist?” I’m sure that would go over well…
Thanks Jon. I’ll PM you later with some questions. I can’t carry this on all day, and I don’t feel like I’m getting anywhere. Maybe I’ll get a different perspective with some fresh air.
The rape argument doesn’t phase me. I’m not intimidated by angry women in a support group any more than I am intimidated by angry women on this forum.
But it isn’t an appeal to emotion - it’s an attempt to show how viewing non-resistance in this way practically melts away the very notion of coercion.
-Jon
Nonsense. Giving the mugger your wallet in no way means you consent to him having your wallet. Please try to think.
I think what’s going on is that you purpusefully plug your ears at me because you have a vested interest in being antagonistic with me. You see that it’s Brainpolice and immediately snap into troll mode and you have no desire for a coherant debate.
I never made it about my values, I merely stressed that a dry value-free analysis alone cannot make the case for liberty.
It was an appeal to emotion. I’ve women in my life I love dearly in this world. Most people do.
I’m done with this discussion for now. Like I said, I have things to do, and I’m not going to play emotional guilt games.
It amazes me that we’d even debate this here.
Angry women? Wow. We’re talking about rape, dude. It’s not the mere ramblings of angry women.
I could’ve picked any other crime, other than murder. It’s a reductio ad absurdum, not an argumentum ad misericordiam. I’m not saying it’s wrong because look how bad it’d make those women (or men) feel; no, I’m saying it’s wrong because it blurs the distinction between voluntary action and crime, an argument that on its face is absurd. All crimes involve using force to get the victim to comply: that is the point of the whole activity. Resistance merely means it might fail, or is otherwise more costly.
-Jon
Which has already been established since the beginning of the thread.
I see it’s Brainpolice? You continue to stalk me from thread to thread like a troll. I don’t seek you out, you seek me out, again and again, thread after thread. There are literally hundreds of people you could debate here, and you consistently seek me out.
That’s harassment. So don’t try to play polyanna and claim it’s woe to you.
Bullshit. Now you’re lying. Go back and read your posts in this thread.
Which I’ve been trying to explain to him for pages.
No, it was a sledgehammer to your trolling.