I’m back in the US! At least, I’m in Chicago, with a flight delay, so it’s at least another 6 or 7 hours of traveling before I pull up to my door. Unfortunately, I’m tempted to turn around and go back to Germany.
You see, I’m returning from a most excellent international atheist conference, where I learned a lot and was also very impressed with the commitment of the worldwide atheist community to more than just convincing everyone there is no god. One of the themes that came up repeatedly was the importance of women and feminism to promoting secular ideals.
So after a long flight with total internet deprivation, I land and happen to check in to the Facebook, and what’s the very first thing I see, at the very top of the page? This.
Tried this in another atheist group, got banned LOL.
Thought experiment.
Would you allow rape if it was the only means to prevent the extinction of the human species?
He (of course it’s a he!) defends this as a “philosophical thought experiment.” I think he meant “puke-inducing misogynistic fantasy.” Must have been that danged autocorrect.
I had a few thoughts.
First, good on that other atheist group — I wish he’d named them so I could applaud them directly. For your information, if anyone tries to pull that kind of dumb-ass hypothetical here, they’ll get banned, too. LOL.
Second, where do these people who clearly have no real background in philosophy or science think that attaching the label “philosophical thought experiment” to their pointless exercises in public masturbation makes it sound intelligent? It doesn’t. Everyone can see right through you.
Why is it always rape for which they are reaching to find a justification? How about this one: If the population of men was so drastically reduced that the only way to restore it was to chop off your balls, put ’em in a blender, and use the resulting slurry to inseminate the maximum number of women, would you allow it? Or would you just wonder what kind of sick mind has a castration fetish?
There are no details on the peculiar situation that would require rape to repopulate the earth — and I do not want to hear any — but given that humans tend to require cooperative parenting, it sounds counterproductive to me. Any solution that requires intra-specific violence to propagate the species suggests to me that maybe we ought to just hang it up and say goodbye, Homo sapiens. (Ditto for any any solution that requires surgical mutilation of men.)
This rationalization sounds very close to the personal justification of rapists right now — they’d never get any sex if they didn’t just take it, so their own gratification is warrant enough to cause others pain and misery. This is not a thought experiment. It’s an attempt to write a violent porn scenario, and get other people to give him a thumbs-up for it.
Oh, well. Turning around and leaving the American atheist community isn’t really a practical option — I’ve got a wife I’m anxious to see, and a good job that I enjoy. But jebus, these are the kinds of people I’m tired of seeing infesting the atheist movement — just join the Republican party and accept Christ into your heart, already.
The author of that clueless abomination on facebook is commenting here, and I have two things to say:
-
You remind me of the Wizard with a Nuke “thought experiment”. You’re an idjit.
-
I was serious about banning people who post such stupidity. You’re allowed to comment on this thread, and this thread only — I’d rather your foulness did not spread elsewhere. If you comment on any other thread, you will be banned, denying the other commenters the pleasure of pecking the flesh from your bones.
If the only way to save the human race was to masturbate 5 to 6 times a day and donate the resulting sperm, would you do it?
Would I have to give up the other 5 to 6 times a day I’m doing it now?
No.
What’s so bad about the extinction of the human species, anyway? The only way rape would be a “solution” is if there weren’t enough humans being born to continue the species, in which case the best solution is probably to let us just die off.
Atheists are accused of being amoral monsters because of loud mouthed assholes like this. Giving them a platform and a place in our communities is a mistake. This is not what free thought looks like. We don’t have to entertain every idea. We have to stop being shy about disassociating from people likes this.
Holy shit, I was one of the people arguing with that fuckwit last night. If it makes you feel any better, virtually no one said yes, and the vast majority of us (myself included; I’m Douglas Mac Wake in that thread) spent a great deal of time spanking his ass and drawing out the rest of his repugnant views. Some highlights:
Many of his comments came across as very rapey, or at least along the lines of how a rapist or rape apologist thinks;
He thinks that kids should see adults naked all the time;
He’s extremely sympathetic to MRA views;
And despite clearly trolling for reactions, he was quick to get upset as we got under his skin.
Oh, and there’s also the small matter of him insisting on showing us a dick pic when we refuted his (strange) claim that his penis is very handsome. Yes, he actually ended up posting a dick pic after many of us told him not to.
Bottom line: Joshua Shaffer is a completely disgusting human being.
(For those who want to know, the thread is in Atheist, Agnostic and Non Religious).
Yellow Thursday @ 3
I have to say you make an excellent point.
@marcus #1:
Probably. Too much output tends to reduce sperm count from what I’ve heard.
Though in that situation, there would probably be a lot of studies done on the subject, you could probably get into one of them and even get paid for it.
Well, because if you can find the ONE scenario under which it is at least acceptable to rape a woman*, or even outright moral, then anything else becomes just 50.000 shades of grey and you can never tell.
Same with that one abortion scenario they always want to discuss where it is ethical to force the pregnant person to carry to term.
I’d think that if all people with a uterus decided that having a child would be a really bad idea**, then I’d say write it on a big rock and say goodnight homo sapiens. Oh wait, we can’t trust women, right? Just because they think it would be immoral to procreate doesn’t mean they’re right. We need men to tell us when we should and should not have babies. That justifies whole other range of meassures rught now right here, from restrictions on contraception and abortion to restrictions on artificial insemination (just two sides of the same coin).
*there are, of course a few other assumptions within this.
First it is that the rapist would be the man, the victim the woman. Because men cannot be raped by women. Fuck those male rape victims of female peretrators, right?
Implied in this is penis + producing sperm = man, vagina + producing eggs + having a uterus = woman
**which neither requires PIV sex nor rape
One wonders what he’d do with the mix of ‘No, (explicative of choice)’ answers. It’s like he assumes ‘the human race goes extinct’ is so obviously wrong that he doesn’t need to explain why this is a conundrum. (I mean, I am a human, and I like children as long as I can send them home to their parents, and many people I like want to raise kids, so I’d rather we not go extinct, but there’s things I rank as worse than human extinction.)
Also, I bet this person is not thinking of the ‘rape’ as something that would happen to him. People who are willing to agree that other people (preferably strangers) get hurt to get what they want isn’t exactly a sterling ethical stance.
In a magazine cartoon from long, long ago, two brontosauruses face each other on a bleak plane. One says to the other: “As the last surviving male and female it is up to us to continue the species. I’m willing to say to hell with it if you are.”
Aww…you couldn’t have even mentioned my genius?
What if there was an atomic bomb which was about to destroy all living things on earth, and you happened to be standing by the track switch when a trolly comes along. On the left track are a bunch of gamergate assholes, and on the right track is a PUA convention. But it turns out you aren’t strong enough to throw the switch, but if you pushed a rape apologist against the lever, there might be enough momentum to throw the switch? But just then, oh, never mind, I came already.
Paloma and I were there, and we can confirm that virtually everyone in the thread responded not only with “no,” but also “fuck you and the horse you rode in on,” in many superbly creative ways. Joshua was knocked the fuck out by a wave of people who immediately had just about enough of his bullshit.
thelastholdout & paloma
Link, please?
Not that I doubt your genius…
@Giliell:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/OAANR/
This is the group. The discussion was started by Joshua Shaffer, and should be near the top, since I just commented on it about 10 minutes ago. I’m not trying to toot my own horn (though I think I acquitted myself well); I’m mainly trying to point out that there was a MASSIVE backlash against the OP.
thelastholdout
Thanks
I see it’s Facebook only, but I guell I will survive ;)
@Giliell
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize not everyone might want to use Facebook. It’s worth hanging out on the site long enough for a read through though. :)
Dude, if that’s the only way the human race could survive, it deserves to become extinct.
Thought experiment.
Would you allow rape if it was the only means to prevent the extinction of the human species?
If the power to cause the extinction of the human species were in my hands, I’d be tempted to kill the male.
SallyStrange had a tweet about that last night. My response was that if humanity ever got to the point where this is feasible, the human species deserves to go extinct.
I also stated that Joshua Shaffer was scum. Thank you thelastholdout for the proof that I was correct with my assumption.
@Janine You’re welcome. Hopefully it’s helpful knowing how many people recognized he was a scumbag too.
NO.
But really, there would be no one to allow anything, just you and someone who can club you to death while you sleep. LOL.
He could be [doubt it, though] asking that outrageous question to test how consistent “atheists” are. He presents two, very extreme situations: 1) rape=bad, 2)extinction = bad. Now pick one, which would you prefer? with the usual disclaimer, “just a thought experiment, not realistic at all”.
If that was his actual intent, then presented with backlash, he would just yield, and reply, “Good to know you’re against both possibilities.” To get upset at the backlash is hard evidence, that was NOT his intent, and is just a “potential” rapist. Worthy to be puked all over his self. To even think such a thought and ask others that question is ‘nauseating’.
@Slithey tove if you’re reading the thread, it seems you got to the part where he started ripping on everyone (including apparent rape victims who had every right to be upset; one of them was definitely being triggered by the experience of arguing with him) for the backlash. Read on. It gets much better. (And by that I mean he gets much, much more repugnant).
Maybe it’s me, but when I think of a “philosophical thought experiment”, I think of things like “how much does an ice cube have to melt before it’s no longer a cube?”
I’d say if there aren’t enough people to find a mate _willing_ to try, then it’s time to go extinct. At least you’d have the chance to do so in style…
The RSS feed has been hosed for days now.
@scientismist, #10:
…And I thought I had a problem with the legroom in coach!
===================
@the last holdout:
If you wanna screen cap or quote some of what you think we ought to read, that would be fine since there are a lot of people here who would never use FB and can’t access that thread otherwise.
If there is a situation where all people with uteri decide they do not want to bring children to the world, why should cis men get to decide all by themselves whether to propagate the species or not? If they sat down and talked with all of humanity (which I’m assuming is a small group, based on the scenario), maybe they’d find out whether uterus-bearers agree that humanity should live on, and they might even learn about some good reasons to let the species die off. Hell, they might even end up agreeing with those reasons.
Oh wait… that would require listening to women and behaving like rational adults. Rape apologists aren’t so good at that.
a3kr0n
If you are having Technical Difficulties, send a message through the Tech Issues button.
PZ
Gonna disagree with you on that last part there.
Also, this is point umpteenth that all the BS about the anonymity of the internet causing these kind of troll comments should stop: here we have someone posting the most vile crap under his own name, linked to his own profile on FaceBook. Non-anonymity doesn’t stop assholes for being assholes.
If this question is being asked of men, they don’t get to “allow” rape of someone else. If it’s being asked of women, then if they allow it, it isn’t rape. So, no.
Oh, for fuck’s sakes! Why does that asshat have to have a name that’s too similar to mine?
Just, really, for fuck’s sakes!
Probably from the same place where people get the idea they can spew the most reprehensible ideas and have it excused or accepted because it’s their “sincerely held religious beliefs”.
I’d let humanity go extinct, sure. Why not?
This is an example of the forced hypothetical in which the purpose is practically force someone to accept a terrible solution to a dilemma. Thus we get stuff like the terrorist and the ticking time bomb. What these problems have in common is the attempt to force someone to accept that committing an immoral act is the right thing to do, which is generally the intention of the person who puts up the hypothetical. All in all it is a game in which extremely unlikely scenarios are conjured up to force acceptance of acts that are immoral because the alternative is “worst”. This serves the purpose of slanting the argument in the direction of if it is acceptable in that circumstance than what about this and so on.
Since this is a game I am pleased to read that most didn’t go along with the game.
OP, here. Nobody was forced to participate in the thought experiment. Just because you find the topic reprehensible doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed.
The question was left intentionally vague, like any good philosophical thought experiment, so that the answerer could make up the details for themself and be as creative as they want to be.
“if you’re reading the thread, it seems you got to the part where he started ripping on everyone (including apparent rape victims who had every right to be upset; one of them was definitely being triggered by the experience of arguing with him) for the backlash. Read on. It gets much better. (And by that I mean he gets much, much more repugnant).”
That never occured, i acknowledged the validity of their complaints and simply desired that people be more focused on the discussion rather than simply attacking me for asking such a question. Nice Fedora, btw.
Would this extinction be due to a WMD wizard by any chance?
There is nothing of substance to discuss. It is a blatant effort to justify rape by a rapist. It deserves to be condemned for that reason, which is sufficient.
Joshua Shaffer
A hypothetical scenario should be plausible.
It’s a bad thought experiment because it is so completely implausible. I don’t mind controversial thought experiments as long as they have at least a degree of plausibility.
Fascinating to see anyone who claims to value free thought attempt to silence people by calling them rape apologists.
This author is clearly unfamiliar with the concept of a thought experiment.
I understand the emotional responses, and they are valid given the highly controversial nature of the question, But attempting to silence others from participating is cowardly and unbecoming of anyone who claims to value intellectual discourse.
Joshua Shaffer, #36
Wrong. The topic is reprehensible and thus shouldn’t be discussed. How comfortable would you be openly posing this scenario with rape replaced with “maiming a baby”? Why is that exactly?
What is it with people like you and sexual violence against women*?
* And don’t act like you didn’t mean a man raping a woman.
Joshua Shaffer, #41
Oh, great. Another fuckwad who doesn’t even know what freethought means.
Hey, Joshua Shaffer, rape apologist
You know what? It has been discussed. It has been settled. For mileania men got to rape women for the all important goal of procreation. Then some people became better.
Just because you’re an ignorant little git who’s desperately looking for an excuse to stick his dick into the vagina of somebody against their will doesn’t mean the discussion hasn’t happened.
Every time it’s repeated it causes real actual harm, here and now.
Here’s a thought experiment: Is it moral to cause harm to real people here and now because you’re too full of yourself to use Google?
Can God make a rock so big that He, Himself, cannot lift it?
That’s because you are one in the most literal sense since you’re trying to find an apology for rape.
This was basically the plot of Mad Max: Fury Road. The main characters basically decided “No, no we wouldn’t.”. I’m with them. If the only way for humanity to survive is to become monsters, it’d be better if we all just died out.
But then again, I reject the premise anyway. There’s no reason why rape would ever be needed to prevent our extinction. Let’s go further down this dumb rabbit hole. What I THINK this person is trying to get us to is a point where they can argue “okay, but how about pressuring women into sex, which as an advocate of Pickup Artistry, I firmly believe is the ONLY way to get sex, meaning we’d go extinct without it”. I’ll reject a lot of that logic outright, but I’ll actually keep going. Let’s assume that is literally true. Picking up people in bars the “old fashioned way” is the only way that actually works, and without it our population would dwindle to nothing.
Guess what idiots? We’d notice that. We’d notice that with PLENTY of time to spare, since humans tend to live a lot longer than a baby’s gestation period, and not wanting extinction, people would act to resolve that issue, no rape required! Volunteers would step forward and the population would stabilize. It’s a self-defeating prophecy at it’s most basic. It’s exactly what would happen if everyone suddenly became exclusively homosexual as well. People would find a solution before it even became a problem, because we do that.
Steven, #40
It’s not just that.
The fact that these so consistently tend to be about rape (of women) betrays them for what they are. It’s not honest thought experiments. It’s fantasizing about rape justification. None of these fuckers dare use their real names to pose these same hypotheticals about any other heinous, unspeakable atrocities (like my baby example above). I’m sure you can think of many others.
They’re pseudo-philosophically wanking about rape because our misogynistic society hasn’t started treating rape for the atrocity that it is. They’re cowards. They dare not make these same arguments about lynchings or infanticide.
Chigau, “A hypothetical scenario should be plausible.”
Why should it? plausibility has no bearing on the outcome of the answer.
Time travel, something that is very implausible as far as we know, is offered at the core of many thought experiments.
“The fact that these so consistently tend to be about rape (of women) betrays them for what they are.”
YOU decided that the victim is a woman. Nowhere was the gender of the victim indicated.
Joshua Shaffer
It’s not controversial. Controversial implies that there can be more than one legitimate opinion on this. It’s disgusting, immoral, reprehensible and a sign of a vey weak think who can’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag but thinks himself clever.
If you answer the question, yes or no, you validate it as something worthy of discussion. It isn’t. It’s a bad thought experiment, because it lacks all plausibility.
“Wrong. The topic is reprehensible and thus shouldn’t be discussed.”
That’s your opinion, I don’t believe any topic is worthy of such regard to be indiscussible.
Banhammer in 3…2…1…
“If you answer the question, yes or no, you validate it as something worthy of discussion. It isn’t. It’s a bad thought experiment, because it lacks all plausibility.”
Then that’s your answer, you choose not to participate. Fair and valid, as nobody is coercing you to.
Joshua,
Fine. I’ll bite.
There is no human suffering due to extinction. There is human suffering due to rape.
That was easy. Thanks for playing.
Joshua Shaffer @50:
Even if we didn’t have all of history to back up this assumption, even if the genders of the rapist and victim were different, the answer would still be the same. The “thought experiment” still lacks plausibility.
Then go back on Facebook and pose these questions about slavery, lynching and killing toddlers.
Also, we are discussing it. WTF do you think this is? It’s been 56 posts now. And this is the only way to discuss it, you rape defending little shit.
Joshua Shaffer
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
Refusal to use blockquotes after learning how, is usually an indication that you are a wanker.
Joshua Shaffer
Yeah, sure, we all believe you that you thought about the women ambushing the menz, tying them to a bed, stimulating them so they will ejaculate against their will so the womenfolks can get pregnant. Yeah, we’re really believing you. Totally.
“Even if we didn’t have all of history to back up this assumption, even if the genders of the rapist and victim were different, the answer would still be the same. The “thought experiment” still lacks plausibility.”
Plausibility isn’t necessary. You guys are confusing the rules of an ACTUAL scientific experiment to a THOUGHT experiment.
“Yeah, sure, we all believe you that you thought about the women ambushing the menz,”
No such belief is required, the question was left intentionally vague so that the answerer can come up with the details for themself so that they could be as creative as they wished with their answer. Like any thought experiment, rigid confines make them non-dynamic and boring.
Josh, I would ask how many identical responses you need to receive before you realize just how repugnant, awful, and easy to answer your question is (all of which make it a terrible thought experiment) but I think you already know this.
Also, I’m so incredibly happy I linked to this article in the Facebook group. It’s been delightful seeing you get smacked around AGAIN, by a wholly new set of rightfully angry people.
Joshua Shaffer
Seriously.
Use blockquotes.
Joshua Shaffer
Aw, thanks for the cookie *pukes*. Of course I have already written a longer answer to the question all up at comment #8. You can even use your fingers to count that far.
You know, it was only 35 comments before you kindly joined our little philosophy circle, maybe you should have read them before you bleated your indignation at people seeing you for who you are?
Joshua Shaffer, #50
Nah, it’s been done too many times. You mean men raping women. You might not see it, but you’re being a classic sea-lioning rape apologist MRA scumbag right now.
And even if that’s not what you mean, context matters. You posed this question in the real world where rape is a huge part of misogyny.
And even with your dishonest clarification that you didn’t imply a gender, the answer is still a resounding no. If you think that would have made a difference, you really don’t understand why rape is absolutely wrong. Yes, absolutely and in every conceivable case. Fuck you for even implying that that is just my opinion. And you’re wondering why you’re being called a rape apologist.
Whether ANYTHING, thought experiment, discussion, or otherwise, should be done depends on whether the cost of doing so and the harm inflicted by doing so is outweighed by the benefits accrued from doing so.
And if the harm to real human beings outweighs the benefits, then it should not be done. It has nothing at all to do with “freedom” of thought or discourse, and everything to do with being a decent humane human being.
The harm caused by this kind of discussion in an open forum is obvious, and extends far beyond the already enormous harm from the triggering of rape survivors in the audience alone.
So what is the possible goal or benefit of it that would outweigh this harm and justify the activity?
As for banning, well part of Freedom of Speech is freedom to decide what is said on one’s own platform. Every banning of a commenter by a private blog owner, for any reason, is a direct exercise of that owner’s right to freedom of speech.
So I guess he’s gonna get banned here too for the LOLs and then think he “won”.
Kinda pathetic, really. How empty must a life be to get LOLs from something like that. :/
Imagine a spherical cow…
Is rape OK now?
Joshua Shaffer
thought experiment ≠ mental masturbation
Saad
It’s worked for milenia, why change a winning strategy?
Joshua
Yes, I’d allow it. But only one per person to be followed by castratration. If you think the human race worth saving under those circumstances then perpetratrator should be willing to pay for their actions.
The problem with the lack of plausibility is that it makes the whole exercise uninteresting and useless. It’s just like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Ditto for any any solution that requires surgical mutilation of men.
Imagine a a virus which causes sterility but infects only foreskins…
No of course i don’t think the gender of the victim makes a difference, I was simply correcting you when you stated i only meant women.
Of most men. Not all of them.
This was supposed to be a joke. Then I read #41. I’m getting the blender.
Joshua Shaffer, #75
You did mean women. I see no reason to believe a misogynist, rape-defender and very potential rapist like you.
There are literally zero scenarios in which this situation can come about that do not also involve a population bottleneck so narrow that humanity would die out in another generation or two due to inbreeding disorders anyways, so nope, it’s still not okay. Frankly, in a situation like that it would be irresponsible to bring children into the world where the only other people around would be either their parents or their siblings.
Better for humanity to die with dignity.
Everyone, you should ask Josh about his insistence on showing everyone in the Facebook thread his dick after we all scoffed at his bizarre claim that it was handsome. That was a shining moment in his thought experiment.
Please don’t summon it! Why on earth he would think it appropriate to post an unasked for dick pic to a group thread… Gah.
Because it’s the rapey thing to do, yazikus.
lolol, my dick was insulted, then people asked for the pics, multiple people, so instead of individually messaging them all i posted a url to the thread. Only those who wished to see got to see it.
For the record, You were the first one to bring up my dick, thelastholdout. Care to answer why?
Would you smear yourself in donkey feces and dance a polka if that was the only way to save your favorite Premier League team from relegation?
Oh look, a wet, furry marine mammal flopped itself down into the comments section and started barking. The hypothetical scenario the mammal is proposing is invalid anyway, since there are no scenarios where extinction could be avoided where the only option was rape. The “repopulate the earth” fantasy is just that – a fantasy. And that’s all in addition to the fact that despite any horror you try to balance it against, the rape would remain wrong, regardless.
some highlights that I thought were quite….telling.
also – Joshua posted a link to a dick pic, but later deleted it….the pictures I put up were a response to said dick pic…
http://imgur.com/a/w9RJu
There is no discourse, merely an attempt to allow rape in a circumstance that is illogical, improbable, and stupid. The question is not reasonable, and the setting isn’t anything that would happen, and need fleshing out to be even the slightest bit plausible. Nothing is to be learned, other that trying to get people to admit there can be conditions where rape is acceptable. It never is.
the most preferable scenario to discuss rape in, why would you prefer a realistic scenario over an improbable one in this instance?
Plausibility is irrelevant, as that’s not the point of the thought experiment.
Josh your ‘thought’ experiment seems to imply that the person asked is the one who is to do the raping.
Sorry not going to happen, not ever going to put someone else through that experience. I’d rather find an inventive way to commit suicide then that.
If it is someone else it depends. And what is the part that depends? How they are to be prevented from actually trying to execute your demented idea.
Then what IS? Other than, apparently, to get to rile people up by talking about rape.
Your behavior is that of a puerile troll. You fool nobody with your intellectual pretensions.
@36 Joshua Shaffer
lol what the fuck did I just read? Was that a joke?
Anyways, I suspect that PZ will simply ban you and erase your pointless comments soon enough.
There is no discussion of when rape is permissible. The answer is NEVER, and any MAN knows that. You want to discuss rape? Go into the desert and talk to yourself. Nobody else wants to talk to you about rape, which should never happen.
The big question to me, is who the fuck allowed you even to think rape is permissible under ANY circumstances? You can’t appoint yourself.
Joshua Shaffer, humanity isn’t special enough in this universe to be worth saving at the point you have postulated, it’s then inevitably doomed anyway. And so is your presence here.
If that’s how you choose to interpret it, you’re not wrong. It’s intentionally vague to allow all manner of interpretations. So any answer can be given and correct.
Would rape be OK if it were the only way to prevent the extinction of the species?
Would torture be OK if it were the only way to find a bomb before it exploded?
Would forced genital mutilation be OK if it were the only way to prevent an eldritch abomination from destroying the world?
Would child abuse be OK if it was the only way to prevent a superbomb from exploding the universe?
Would genocide be OK if it were the only way to prevent the laws of physics from failing and turning the universe into an inconsistent dream-like mess?
Would slavery be OK if it were the only way to prevent time travelers from making the big bang retroactively never have happened?
So then why would it be justified according to you? You never once gave your reasoning.
@94 Joshua Shaffer
Any answer is correct? That means it’s completely pointless. Right?
Right?
Who the fuck gave you permission to ignore the bodily integrity of the woman? Who the fuck are you make decisions for another person? I see no answers.
My response:
Joshua, get thee to a bookstore or library and get hold of a copy of Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. Read it. Pay close attention to the ending.
That’s my answer.
Joshua Shaffer @ 94:
Apparently, I missed your answer.
You do have an answer, yes? One you’ve reasoned out and are willing to defend?
If so, I’d like to hear it.
If not, why not? (And why would your given answer not be the basis of a perfect reason not have such a discussion in the first place?)
Small hint Joshua: a thought experiment left “intentionally vague” and “allow[ing] all manner of interpretations” is a really, really unuseful thought experiment.
You might think masquerading your mental wankery as a philosophical thought experiment might fool some people, but at least put some effort into it.
In order to truly be a proponent of free thought, we all must applaud Joshua Shaffer while he masturbate mentally about a rape thought experiment. Because being about to talk about a rape thought experiment is a key component to being truly unencumbered by religious dogma.
I salute you, Joshua Shaffer for the brave words you have set down here.
You have won the day for freedom of religion. The battle is over. You may now move on to other places that have not yet to be enlightened by a rape thought experiment.
WRONG. Any answer that denies the humanity and bodily integrity of the woman is WRONG. Anybody but a rapist and rape apologist knows that…..
So I am feeling a great plot to a new movie. The world gets hit by a meteor and women do not flock to stores shelves for food. They take over all the gun stores and sperm banks to ward off mass rape and kill off all the men. Dystopian epics are in vogue!
Nope, totally not worth it. I’d rather vest my hopes in that, eventually. some other sentient species would arise. Maybe from squid!!!
Oh and to keep inline with your ‘argument’ that it can also be women who do the raping, replace the word woman with man in this:
I have, but not here.
In my opinion, allowing the extinction of the human race through inaction is a pretty fucking terrible crime. And in this case, would be a greater crime than that of a single rape.
Because, afterall, without humanity there is no morality, so allowing humanity’s extinction is also exterminating all the good that has ever been done or will be done.
Janine #102
Agreed. Joshua Shaffer has won.
Move along, Josh.
and bless your heart
I hope “Josh Shaffer” is a pseudonym, as well as not understanding what a thought experiment is, he apparently thinks all publicity is good publicity. That thread is an epic fail …
– Thinks rape is A-OK when the “crime” of humanity dying out is at stake. A scenario where there is no human suffering caused by inaction, just people getting older and dying.
– On a thread where people are concerned by his creepy rape fantasy, he posts using an avi of his nipple and posts a dick pic to everyone on the thread.
– Is quite happy to say he’d rape his mother in his scenario, if she was fertile.
There’s a lifetime of notoriety for egregious wilful stupidity in that one thread. I see a great future ahead of him on YouTube.
What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?
but we all already established the fact that it would take more than one rape to repopulate the world in your scenario. also, you said rape, not a single rape. that could mean a billion.
Joshua:
This type of ‘in this situation, rape is okay’ scenario, whether presented as a philosphical exercise or not, has the effect of silencing survivors. And there are about 200 to 250 survivors who hang out here who are survivors. Why are you trying to minimize their suffering, redefine their history, and silence them?
Guess it is time for me to Godwin the thread.
Yes Joshua your reasoning is the same as the one that resulted in the Holocaust. The Aryan race was threatened by extinction through the vile manipulations of the Jews. Which meant that for Hitler anything was justified to counter that.
And we know how the rest of the world has reacted to that bit of insanity.
Joshua, you’re confusing freethought and thoughtfree.
If all the women died out in one of those SuperPlagues that apocalypse fiction is so fond of, and the only way to continue the species was to surgically graft anal wombs into men, and those wombs could only be successfully implanted in straight men (SuperPlague reasons), would they finally stop it with the weird rape apologia?
So said the rapist. You don’t have permission. You haven’t proven the circumstances to KNOW your group is the only humans left on Earth. All you have is fiction, dismissed as self-justification for an degrading act upon another human being. You lose loser.
Hey guys and galls! We were totally unfair to call Joshua a (potential) rapist and rape apologists. You see it was totally just a thought experiment! Joshua would never actually do such a thing!
Reads Joshua’s post 107.
Oh, sorry, so he totally admits himself he is a potential rapist. My bad.
(Joshua, do you truly belief you come out of this looking good? You haven’t actually hacked someone’s FaceBook account and now attempt to trash their good name right? You understand employers nowadays look up candidates profiles on social media sites? That they have nice search engines to look for candidates names in conjunction with key words?)
Joshua, still waiting for a link to a post on your Facebook about a similar hypothetical about slavery. Make sure you leave your full name, picture and place of employment/school on your profile.
And like any good philosophical thought experiment, you can intentionally leave it vague by not mentioning race!
Go, go, go. And make sure you post link here.
Dishonest, misogynist coward.
Well, DUH. Everybody else is smart enough, and not epsilon male enough, to try this old well-refuted bullshit.
Thanks for showing your epsilon male rapist nature Joshua.
I’m not a public figure, but should i become one thanks to this thread, i’m willing to be put in the spotlight. I would love to see what other public figures have to say about this, most of them no doubt would be on your side, condemning me for such, simply because their livelihood is dependent upon the opinions of others.
Post it here.
<—–survivor. and if you guys looked at the link I provided
*********************(http://imgur.com/a/w9RJu)******************
you will also see that Joshua believes that the MRA's are needed.
Oh look, another ass who fails at the science of philosophy; The premise is invalid. It is not possible to sexually assault or force reproduction on uterus bearing people for the common good. Do not pass Go, do not collect $100 dollars.
I’m thinking poo flinging howler monkey with exhibitionist tendencies might be a better metaphorical mammal, but that’s so insulting to howler monkeys. is so many flavors of creepy sex offender.
Joshua Shermer, oops, Shaffer: self-professed sexual assault and rape proponent.
I have a feeling you’re too big of a rapist coward to post that slavery hypothetical. Shame. Such a good philosophical thought experiment it would have been for your real life acquaintances to ponder!
Joshua, how come you can imagine a scenario in which rape is necessary, but you can’t seem to comprehend a situation in which you are wrong, rude and unwelcome? Please go away.
Paloma,
Wow, ignorant about the MRA movement, ignorant about feminism, ignorant about consent, ignorant about morality and philosophy, ignorant about thought experiments,… and a self-admitted potential rapist.
You truly shine Joshua, you truly shine.
Many frequent travelers have been delayed in Chicago. There’s a nice Vosges chocolate store in Terminal 1, near the American lounge, so you can buy something to bring home to your spouse.
Nice cop out there about a silent majority supporting you. Guess what, aside from being an exceptional claim, meaning proof or it doesn’t exist, those people would be just as wrong as you are in defending rape and trying to find a situation, no matter how insane or unbelievable, in which rape can be justified.
It cannot, regardless of the situation or who does what to whom. We’ve seen enough insanity happening in this world using your ‘reasoning’, see me comparing you to Hitler who used your line of reasoning to try and wipe the Jews from the planet, to see why it cannot ever be condoned.
I think Harlan Ellison nailed this one…
I guess I’m going to have to put it more simply for Joshua.
The moment you start arguing about the ends justifying any means you are wrong. That means that what you are planning is an atrocity.
This thread is devoted to discussing me :D So i won’t go away unless i’m either banned or the thread dies.
I think Harlan Ellison nailed this one…
Fast forward to time mark 1:09:30…
@107 Joshua Shaffer
…
That’s a non-sequitur. Your argument is invalid.
It’s also word salad.
Spoken like a true epsilon male, who thinks taking deserved and earned abuse is proper attention.
1) Show me with evidence women are not you equals with the right to say NO!
2) Show me with evidence you aren’t a troll seeking attention…Shutting the fuck up is the only way you say you aren’t a troll.
And the answer is: JS admits with prima facie evidence by his inability to shut the fuck up, he is a rapist troll….
how do you post images here?
It’s always so gross when one of these jokers starts masturbating in public like this.
Brolosophy 101 said:
This thread was devoted to discussing rape apologetics, then you arrived – and the topic didn’t change. Isn’t that interesting?
Isn’t it also interesting that, instead of a bunch of intelligentsia sitting in a circle of chesterfields oh-so-earnestly discussing whether and in what context they’d rape, or be raped, or permit rape, or not object to rape, or cheer rape on with pom-poms, we have a bunch of people of all genders, backgrounds and nationalities handing you your arse for posing such a sophomoric, naive and offensively ignorant hypothetical?
And isn’t it fascinating that this isn’t the first or second time this has happened to you lately, but the third? The third time we know about anyway – who knows many times you’ve pulled this little gem out. Who knows how many times you’ve trotted out your little hobby-horse and copped a spanking for your trouble. Who knows if you’ll ever actually learn anything from the reactions you get besides “ppl gotta chill lol”. Three times, thirty times, whatever, it just reminds me of a quote from a very wise man:
– Vaas Montenegro (Far Cry 3) – an unhinged villain, but clearly a smarter man than you.
Joshua @107,
Tia better to remain silent and be thought a rape apologist than to speak and remove all doubt.
I believe this calls for a rousing and detailed discussion of menstruation, gourmet chocolates / wine pairings, and designer footwear.
it’s not a non-sequitor.
Morality doesn’t exist without humans.
So good and bad effectively go extinct alongside humanity.
Joshua Shaffer(#140): And what is so bad about those concepts going out of the window as well.
No, the original piece has exclusively been about how horrible of a person i am. With the occasional accusation that i am a rape apologist. Rape is never permissible/excusable in the real world, which is why this scenario was created to not represent the real world.
Joshua Shaffer,
Now there’s an interesting scenario! :)
Which will occur first: we get bored of ridiculing you or PZ bans you for promoting rape and sexual violence against women?
In the meantime, Facebook is waiting to hear your slavery hypothetical, dear.
You can continue on to make the argument that the destruction of good is an acceptable loss to destroy the bad, That would be a different argument all together. Which the original thread actually lead to and was very enjoyable to take place in.
Chris61 @72,
No. Just no. Even if you’re trying to be sarcastic, you’re advocating rape. Don’t do it.
I think the problem with this sort of advice is that following will result in Charlize Theron turning up and ripping your head off with a truck.
God, I loved that movie.
Hank_Says, #137
Such a great villain. Without his personality and superb voice acting, I don’t think I would have liked the game so much. Pagan Min had nothing on him.
“The question was left intentionally vague, like any good philosophical thought experiment, so that the answerer could make up the details for themself and be as creative as they want to be.”
On the contrary — a *good* thought experiment nails things down, because people are amazingly good at coming up with out-of-the-box solutions that negate the problem.
For example: “No; and clearly my nobility at not raping someone would cause them to want to reproduce, thus saving the species, problem solved, no conundrum!”
As someone else pointed out with examples, but not schematically, it’s easy to go “What if X had to happen, or Y would? Is X ok then? Huh? Huh?” Which is what you are doing. By making it about rape, you’re pushing a very specific set of buttons, and the question then becomes why you chose *that* one. After all, it’s not even like that’s the only bodily integrity question you could have asked.
No; your “thought experiment” is a troll — as demonstrated by your LOLing — though, sadly, you appear to be demonstrating the characteristics of the D&D troll — cut you into pieces, and you just come back.
Tethys wrote:
True, but the constant me-me-me and complaints that people are not treating them with enough respect has already been associated to a category of mammals in the Otariidae family.
Saad wrote:
He does seem to believe that the fundamental rights (bodily autonomy, in this case) of others are dependent on the whims and desires (i.e. to have descendants) of others. I wonder if he considers himself a libertarian.
Paloma Smith wrote:
For the most part, you can’t (other than just linking to them), but if you’re refering to hyphenman’s comment, Youtube videos auto-embed when the URL is in the comment. Many people dislike that behaviour since it can slow down already slow browsers, especially on older machines.
Morality doesn’t exist without humans.
Well, human morality doesn’t. Of course, that assertion requires that humans be the only things capable of a moral sense in the universe. Which is hardly a proven point. :)
Or wasn’t that part of your “answer it any way you want” hypothetical?
This is a standard “would you do horrible thing X if it somehow prevented seemingly even more horrible thing Y from happening?” format thought experiment. A famous example of this is the “Trolley problem”.
Someone certainly COULD have nefarious, sick, and immoral reasons for raising a particular thought experiment, but that is not the case by rule. If there is no evidence that someone is taking pleasure in imagining the hypothetical scenario, then it cannot be assumed that they are simply because of how disturbing the scenario is .
I think that those calling Joshua a rape apologist, or a potential rapist are going too far. I don’t think his thought experiment in any way indicates his actual views on the morality of rape in the real world. Certainly, he has indicated that he believes allowing for rape to be morally preferable to allowing the extinction of the human race, but that doesn’t shed any light on his views on rape outside of the scenario.
All that being said, I also don’t think Joshua’s motivations are to have an honest philosophical debate and to explore the boundaries of morality, they are nefarious for a different reason.
I think Joshua’s motivations are to be a shit disturber, as evidenced by him saying “Tried this in another atheist group, got banned LOL” before introducing the thought experiment. His choice of topic is meant to rile people up, and that is what is has done. There’s a reason why these particularly dark thought experiments are confined to philosophy classrooms, and long form written opinions in academia rather than facebook posts signed with a “LOL”.
Oh, and since Joshua said there’s no wrong answers, mine is “garrulous effervescent radish.”
Saad at 143. What Joshua also has a slavery thought experiment?
This is a bold and daring thinker we have here.
So … humanity’s extinction would be bad because that would be the end of all the good in the world.
And the way to prevent the end of all the good in the world is for the last breeding-capable human/s to perform monumentally evil acts on the other/s.
I think that permitting, ordering or condoning such a thing would more or less erase humanity’s net goodness and we’d almost deserve extinction for allowing it. If the only way to generate more offspring is rape, we’ve failed as a species.
You can’t rape your way to a moral good any more than you can rape your way back to a sustainable population from the brink of extinction – any more than you can genocide your way to a perfect society or buy your way to spiritual nirvana.
Thank fuck this is an infantile, puerile and completely implausible scenario which should make its progenitor ashamed to have even mentioned it.
@Joshua Shaffer(#144):
Doesn’t answer the question, why is it so bad that those concepts get removed as well.
@Joshua Shaffer(#142):
And there lies your problem. Needed to make a hypothetical world to even be able to get your rape excuse going. One of your problems is that to get a valid thought experiment (unlike yours) you need to check if the thought experiment enables us to acquire new knowledge about the intended realm of investigation without new empirical data?
And the short answer to that question with regard to your question (Is there any time that the goals justify the means, in this case the means is rape) is: “No”, the slightly longer answer is:”No, because we have already established by real world (re)actions that the goal doesn’t justify any and every means to get there”.
This has been articulated over and over in a hundred different ways to you. And the only thing you keep doing is complaining that we won’t give you a valid (no matter how far fetched and insane) reason to rape.
So yes you are a rape apologists.
Joshua Shaffer #107:
Perfectly logical, Mr Spock – ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one’. At the risk of invoking Godwin, I’ll just point out that this is more or less Nazi-style eugenics in reverse – instead of forcing people to be sterilized and/or killed so they can’t have kids for the ‘benefit’ of the human race, it forces someone to have children, via rape, for the ‘benefit’ of the human race. So, even within the ludicrously unrealistic, bizarre framework of your mental wankery which you have dubbed ‘thought experiment’, the result is STILL pretty fucking abhorrent.
Frankly, it seems you want this to be as vague as possible so that there is maximum leeway for someone, anyone, to come up with a scenario/reason that rape is A-OK, and you don’t seem to get that the part that is wrong about rape is the ‘rape’ part. This means there simply isn’t going to be one.
@Vadim Sharifijanov(#151):
Sorry the trolly experiment doesn’t compare. That one was used to see how people would chose when there were different groups involved. The difference between killing 1 person you know or a group of people you don’t & killing 1 person you don’t know or a group of people you don’t know. And that over several different iterations (anything from children to skin color differing from the testee to perceived wealth). Not this poorly disguised ticking time bomb scenario presented to us.
Ooh, ooh, I’ve got a thought experiment for Josh:
Is it possible that rather than being really clever, you’re just an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
Good, no RAPE. Bad, RAPE. Are there any questions? Being obtuse isn’t deep. It is being an epsilon make who is STUPID,
Saad @147
Absolutely. Haven’t played FC4 but Vaas remains one of my favourite game villains ever. As it happens, I just started binge-watching Orphan Black and was pleasantly surprised to see the voice of Vaas, Michael Mando, turn up as the protagonist’s somewhat unhinged drug-dealer ex-boyfriend. Might be a bit of typecasting, but he does it so goddamn well I don’t mind.
Minimum viable population.
There. End of thought “experiment”.
And the answer is, “it doesn’t work.”
So can we move on to discussing individuals who are not quite as evil as this Joshua Shaffer, now? More comparatively wholesome people like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham?
There’s never an end to this thought experiment, As all answers are valid.
Shame that those who claim to value intellectual discourse would only defend it when it doesn’t offend them.
Incidentally “Would you allow X in order to accomplish/avoid Y?” is not a valid thought experiment.
Doesn’t have the right structure.
Actually, the correct answer is: “Kill Joshua Shaffer.”
If you find yourself in a population of humans so small that your personal reproductive decisions will make or break the survival of the human species, and you have a uterus, and the other person, who has testes, is willing to rape you, then you should kill that person. If you’re really keen on continuing the human race, you can steal his sperm first. Maybe let him get that rape in. Then he can die happy. Either way, definitely kill him because eventually he will try to control you and kill you if he can’t control you. Since Joshua Shaffer is a person known to be willing to rape people to ensure the survival of the human race, if you happen to become aware that your small population of surviving humans contains Joshua Shaffer, feel free to preemptively kill him.
If you’re a person with testes, this isn’t really an issue, because you probably don’t want to rape anyone, and any people with uteruses are even less likely to want to rape you. It would really only be an issue if Joshua Shaffer or another rapist were part of your group.
So I think it’s really important to remember that, in the context of this thought experiment only, killing Joshua Shaffer would be a moral good.
This has been a thought experiment. Not a death threat. Nobody should ever kill anyone ever. Killing is always wrong.
Wrong. Any answer that allows rape is invalid!!!!!!!! What a mother fucking stupid epsilon male loser you are….
And that is precisely why it lacks the proper structure to be a thought experiment.
Because the fundamental feature that distinguishes a proper thought experiment from intellectual wankery that just wastes time and effort is that there IS a subset of valid answers out of a larger set of invalid answers, and by engaging in the exercise you can discover what those answers are.
@Joshua Shaffer(#162):
Wrong, there is a structure to a valid thought experiment. As I pointed out your attempt to find a way to validate rape isn’t one. Go back and reread my comment at #155.
Clearly you have no concept of what a thought experiment is if you’re creating rules that don’t need to exist for them, Amphiox.
Exactly the point that Mr. Shaffer studiously avoided engaging with on YET ANOTHER Facebook thread.
So:
-His ‘thought experiment’ has no wrong answer, but still sees it as useful.
-He’s publicly stated that raping his mother would be morally acceptable within his hypothetical, and he believes that these threads will reflect well on him.
-He’s willing to post dick pics in response to taunting.
-He knows that his ‘thought experiment’ is repugnant enough to get him banned. Hell, if he read the OP he knows that he *will* be banned as soon as PZ sees this.
From the above evidence it appears that Joshua Shaffer is entirely driven by some unknown insecurity, one that craves validation enough that even the most negative of responses will assuage that clawing void.
I was going to call him a straw vulcan, but on reflection the lack of rational thought he’s displayed makes that label incorrect. If only there were a word, something short, something pithy, that encapsulates such behaviour….
Yay, Death threats. Was wondering when that would happen.
It is mental wanking by losers. Winners have reality based thought experiments, as they must learn from them. For example, triage for emergency room doctors.
Only rapists believe any justification for rape has no wrong answer. Everybody else knows rape is always a wrong answer…..
Rapists don’t deserve death for their crimes? Especially repeated crimes?
-Not necessarily useful, but engaging.
-Haha, in the frame of this impossible scenario yes. Absurd, but if i’m not going to be logically consistent then how can i effectively argue my side?
-Yes, Very matter of factually, non-sexually, fuck you my dick is gorgeous, Don’t bring it up if you don’t want the opportunity to see it.
-It’s only repugnant to those who are incapable of objective intellectual discourse. I.E. you.
If i craved validation, then why would i spend most of my day being given death threats, insulted, and otherwise attacked over a thought experiment?
It should be noted also that, unlike amoebas, humans need to do more than just cook up an offspring in order to ensure species survival. Humans, quite famously, are a social species that requires functioning, harmonious, cooperative groups in order to survive. And thus, for any group as small as the ones in these hypotheticals, survival would absolutely require the elimination of destructive elements like Joshua Shaffer.
@Joshua Shaffer(#168):
Then give us the rules seeing that we don’t know them. I doubt you’ll be able to get those seeing that what Amphiox and I did was paraphrase parts of the official definition. So yes continue to bob and weave in your pathetic attempt to get us, or anyone to agree for that matter that your brain dead ‘thought’ experiment is a way to excuse rape.
Not death threats.
Merely thought experiments.
suggestive actions…..particularly HYPOTHETICAL actions…are not threats.
Joshua Shaffer @ 162
This isn’t intellectual discourse. This is valueless. Your ‘thought experiment’ is poorly designed and presents no ideas of value, nor does it inspire new ideas that couldn’t be better discussed in other contexts. It’s the sophomoric product of a tedious and arrogant mind, and deserves nothing but ridicule. It deserves to be flunked out of an Introductory Philosophy course for lack of understanding and severe lack of empathy.
Shoo.
Joshua Shaffer, you are a horrible person. There is no way to justify rape, ever. Rape is not and should never be used as a game, and that is all your “thought experiment” is, a nasty little game. If you are an example of likely last survivors, better the humans die out; the cats would do a much better job. And by the way, stay the hell away from my daughters.
All of you who have explained and explained and explained why rape is never justified, thank you.
Hmm, let’s see. There is actually scholarship on the subject of thought experiments.
I bolded the things that your failed attempt at a thought experiment neglects.
According to this source, a thought experiment has a three part structure:
You’ve done (1), but by your own admission, you have not done (2) and (3).
Ergo, your scenario is not a true thought experiment.
You saying provocative things and then observing people being provoked is not an experiment. Unless your research subject is “How much of an asshole can I be?” In which case, well done.
But that’s not what is meant by “thought experiment.” That’s not what you’re doing.
oh and btw…..
since we had to endure the horror on FB:
http://iloveyournudity.tumblr.com/image/83063330137
If it’s a death threat, then that means you think your scenario is plausible.
But before you said your scenario is meant to be implausible.
Which is it? Am I threatening to kill you? Or is your scenario implausible?
Joshua,
I didn’t see any death threats just an absurd thought experiment. I thought you were in favor of those.
nope, naming specific names to kill are death threats. good try death threat apologists.
Feminism = where death threats are horrific unforgivably only when you’re on the receiving end.
where are the threats?
all I see is a bunch of hypotheticals.
Either you’re defending death threats against me or you’re defending absurd hypethical thought experiments.
Either way i win.
“Thought experiment” – the familiar refuge of the two-fisted wanker all-too-enamoured of their own intellect but far too stupid to figure out they have nothing substantive to contribute.
Reminds me of Sam Harris and his ludicrous 24-esque Terrorist Time-bomb Torture Tales.
I didn’t realize this was about winning. If they were real death threats, wouldn’t you want to point out where they were made?
Oh no, us evil feminists may drive another brave hero into the arms of the MRA brigade. Your “thought experiments” will not be missed, Joshua.
Gee, you ignore the bodily autonomy of a woman to rape her. You acknowledge you bodily autonomy to kill you can be ignored. What is your problem loser? Oh, you aren’t anything more than an epsilon male being killed for not being respectful to females…..Don’t like it coming back to haunt you, shut the fuck up….
Evil feminists?
Reactionary? yes
Hypocritical? yes
Evil, not quite familiar enough with you to call you evil.
Precisely my point.
Let us suppose, for a moment, that everything has gone according to Mr. Shaffer’s hypothetical, including the rape and the subsequent survival of the human race.
You then face the prospect of raising children, presumably with the assistance of Joshua Shaffer the rapist. Even if he decides to vamoose while the child/ren are helpless impediments to survival rather than potential allies, chances are he’ll be back later to rape your daughter or kidnap your son, depending. That is what rapists do. But if he stays then he’ll be inculcating his anti-social, pro-rape values into your children. Either way, he’ll treat you as a resource rather than a person, and your whole community will be poisoned with violence and trauma as a result.
So yeah, it’s best to just kill him, in a survival situation like that. If there were more people you could afford to try to humanely imprison Joshua Shaffer the rapist, but since there’s so few of you, that’s a luxury you can’t afford.
Again: in the context of this thought experiment only, which, as Joshua Shaffer himself has stated is utterly implausible, killing Joshua Shaffer is a moral imperative.
Thought experiment. Not a death threat.
Neither. They are just saying that in the hypothetical you described it would be better for the mother and child to prevent the father from existing since the father clearly doesn’t have their best interests at heart. That you chose to interpret that as a death threat against you, seeing that they labeled you as the father, clearly indicates that you are not only a rape apologist but also intending to rape.
So it’s not about “thought experiments” in which “all answers are valid” or about interesting philosophy, it’s about “winning”.
Gods of Aesir, these people are frustrating. There’s a certain whiff of the frat-house about him.
Not at all. The gender of the victim was never disclosed, which could equally have been a sentient non-gendered machine that refuses to manufacture human beings as it is anyone else.
WHERE DID ANYONE THREATEN YOU????????? CAN’T ANSWER A SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION?!!?!?
You are evil and hypocritical. If you can penetrate a woman against her permission, she can stick a knife in you against your permission. Or, do you not believe women are your equals? Evidence required to support that delusional claim…..
What are you winning? I thought this was a thought experiment. I thought you just wanted to provoke thought. And debate. Well, congratulations. You have. You have succeeded in provoking me to thinking a lot about how, if I found myself in that hypothetical scenario with you, I would go about killing you or any rapist. This has ramifications beyond your implausible scenario, since being attacked by a rapist is something that could realistically happen to me.
I am actually finding this quite useful. I thought you were in favor of this.
Trolly McTroll @188,
Nope. That hypothetical scenario in which a Joshua Shaffer was pre-emptively killed to protect the remaining breeding population was both following on from and satirising your desire to engage in rape fantasies. Maybe they don’t focus much on reading comprehension at Fedora U. Or maybe you’re too thick to realise when you’re the butt of a joke.
But the “kill Joshua Shaffer” scenario is also intended to raise a point that those who propose these hypotheticals invariably ignore, which, unsurprisingly, is the agency of the women in question in *response* to the threat of rape.
Invariably these things are always structured as a binary decision for the men to rape or not to rape, and seems to view the women as passive sacks waiting in line to either be or not be raped.
Real women are going to act in their own self defense, and seek strategies to avoid being raped, up to and including lethal force. And the would-be rapists will have to escalate in kind.
So a certain proportion, indeed the majority, of the attempted rapes are going to end in failure to achieve the supposed “goal” of furthering species survival by producing a viable offspring. And some will end in the death of the would-be rapist, and some would end in the death of the would-be victim.
So the scenario will rapidly attrit your already minuscule/hovering on the brink of extinction population of breeding age adults.
It nine months plus 20-odd years for this rape scenario to produce a single viable breeding adult. It may take as little as nine seconds for this rape scenario to result in one LESS viable breeding adult in the population.
Welcome to Extinctionville. Population: 1 Joshua Shaffer.
It don’t work.
End of thought “experiment.”
This isn’t a though experiment, it’s a jerking experiment.
Results are predictable.
Only one logical response to that bullshit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzhRJX8KnVk
.no embed
Exactly. As has already been said, it’s not a thought experiment, it’s a rape fantasy.
For a group that prides themselves on caring about the truth, there is quite a gross amount of intellectual dishonesty among the atheists here.
Or maybe it’s a simply miscommunication.
my “winning” is in reference to you are either saying i am worthy of death threats, which sort of completely proves that you are all a bunch of emotional wrecks, or that you are saying absurd hypothetical thought experiments are permissible to participate in and manufacture. Which shows you are all acting like a bunch of emotional wrecks.
Joshua Shaffer @107
Not if the inaction is due to not subjecting human beings to rape.
To carry your scenario to fullest fruition, you would have humanity raping each other in perpetuity. When it comes time to offer your son or daughter up, I suppose you feel that would be a “lesser crime”?
Only someone who has never been raped could callously approach this scenario as a simple “thought experiment” and come to the conclusion that “What’s a few rapes to keep the species going?”
Fuck off.
Funny coming from the person who said this.
Sounds like the intellectual superior man is offended by something and i whining about it.
Also, fuck you and fuck off, shit for brains.
No death threats, Joshuah. Just an observation that, in your admittedly implausible scenario where a person raped another person in the name of continuing the species, the rape victim in the scenario’s most rational path is to kill the rapist at the earliest opportunity.
Do you agree or disagree?
Can’t you be less emotional about this? Nobody is actually going to kill you. It’s just a thought experiment.
Where? You rape somebody, they can’t kill you for raping them? Both involve violations of bodily autonomy. You want you body intact….you leave other bodies unviolated…..
Basically, if the situation panned out, then all of humanity would be rapists. Would that really be a horrible crime to just let such a species die off? If you think it is, then you are a rape apologist and put some kind of dogmatic worship of “humanity at all costs” above “humanity intact.”
Remember when I said he was avoiding dealing with the fact that his “thought experiment” doesn’t meet the criteria of a thought experiment?
He’s doing that again.
Fewer people are sexually gratified by thoughts of trolleys.
Although I suppose the number is non zero.
@Joshua Shaffer:
Aside from that there has been a thought experiment that invalidates your fevered fantasies.
Judith Thomson did that one. Clearly managed to get show a difference between the concepts of “right to life” and “the right to what is needed to sustain life.”, you are arguing for the latter while the following discussion about that thought experiment came down to that the first argument is valid, the second argument isn’t.
Or to put it in perspective of your wish to rape, the human race does not have the right to do anything it needs to do (again that pesky the goal doesn’t justify any and all means) to survive as human race.
So go to your cave and accept your loss since you have been beaten on the subject by a woman who put up a real thought experiment on the matter before you were even born and using that managed to point out that your variant of the ends justify the means is invalid.
That’s one way to think about it. Since all possible interpretations are neither right or wrong, because of the implausibility of the situation and the unrealistic nature of it.
I accept your retraction of your complaint about receiving death threats.
No, the only right answer is that rape is not permissible in any situation. Not even to save the species. Period.
Joshua, you aren’t listening to the commentariat. If all possible interpretations of this “experiment” are supposedly valid (that interpretation is actually invalid, as has been explained so thoroughly so many times, but I’ll leave that for now,) then what is the ultimate point of this exercise? It can’t lead to some final truth, and it can hardly lead to any meaningful discourse since every time somebody brings up a good point invalidating your poorly-masked opinion you fall back on the “all interpretations are valid” nonsense. If there is an actual endgame to this whole charade, please elaborate. If not, then you have no legitimate purpose. Which is it?
There’s humor in the coincidence your icon is a duck, which is notorious for being a species that has evolved rape as part of its evolutionary reproductive process.
Species evolve pretty to do pretty horrible things all the time, ARguably objectively eating meat is a pretty horrible thing, because getting meat involves killing, which we universally agree to be undesireable.
But because we’ve evolved along the concept of killing many of us see nothing wrong with killing an animal to eat it.
Your concept of morality is very lucky to have evolved to where rape isn’t an acceptable part of it, like with ducks.
As animals, our ultimate goal is the continuation of our species, should this scenario somehow actually take place, and rape somehow become a necessity for our survival, we would cease to see anything wrong with it. Just as we don’t see anything wrong with killing other creatures to eat them.
Here’s a thought experiment:
I find myself, presumably after some cataclysm, as part of the sole remaining population of humans on Earth. The population is relatively small but genetically diverse enough to ensure the survival of the species if we begin breeding immediately and at a particular rate.
One of the population pipes up and floats, as a hypothetical, raping anyone unwilling to breed (presumably, their scenario doesn’t end at forced intercourse but involves forcing any female rape victims to carry any pregnancy resulting from rape to term). This person (proudly, and with a laugh) says they’ve mentioned this “thought experiment” to other groups within the population and they’ve been told to fuck off.
The group I’m part of also tells the person to fuck off. This person invokes the extinction of the species as a crime far greater than rape and then shows us his penis, telling us how handsome it is. We make him fuck off and then post guards to ensure he stays fucked off.
We win!
—
Thought experiments are fun.
WRONG. ANY ANSWER THAT ALLOWS RAPE IS WRONG, SINCE IT CAN LEAD TO YOUR DEATH….
Until you quit lying and bullshitting to yourself, loser, there is no way you can quit lying and bullshitting to humanity. Which is what you are doing.
Yep, rapist.
@Joshua Shaffer:
I’m still waiting for to give that definition on how to make a workable thought experiment. Seeing that we don’t know it and you do.
Hank_Says #220:
Eminently plausible, and with a clear point.
Well done! Mr. Shaffer should take thought experimentation lessons.
just something to participate in. Because why not? Because some people might be insulted or offended?
No philosopher worth his salt would allow that to prevent them from conducting such a thought experiment.
his or her or it’s. whichever pronoun they would prefer.
… with the ability to think, reason, rationalize, empathize and moralize, we should have the ultimate goal of reducing suffering.
Trying frighten off anyone with opposing viewpoints.
You lot are no better than the religious nutjobs you claim to condemn.
@224 SallyStrange
Thank you! I shall be offering a course in the Summer.
But not to Mr Shaffer, as he’s demonstrated with blinding clarity that he couldn’t pass the entrance exam with an automatic electrified exam-passing machine.
@Joshua Shaffer(#225):
So when are you going to give us that definition? Oh and that proof that others support you? And how are you going to counter that thought experiment by Judith Thompson? And how does your rape fantasy differ from Hitlers when he decided to exterminate the Jews to prevent the extinction of the Aryan race?
Actually, Mr. Shaffer’s tiresome twaddle has been dealt with, at length, on other occasions, since his brand of argumentation is so everloving predictable.
Here are some much more interesting thought experiments:
http://alexandania.com/2014/11/22/upfordebate/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2014/04/06/an-obvious-alternative/
You aren’t a philosopher, but a rapist. If you were a philosopher, you would have defined your terms, and when wrong, shut the fuck up.
Thank you for admitting with prima facie evidence you have been trolling. Loser you are, you keep up the pretense this was an intellectual exercise. You want to rape….
And yet a majority of you will submit that forcing other creatures to suffer for your own pleasure or advancement is acceptable.
If you’re going to make that argument, then you’re going to need to be consistent.
Douche:
Who’s trying to frighten you off? People are telling you to fuck off, but that’s a very different kettle of chips.
Oh, so the label of rapist isn’t reserved for those who have actually raped now?
That’s crazy, is every man is a rapist now? Please define what makes someone a rapist.
Am I missing something, or has there been no attempt at justifying this?
Actually, if there is no positive value to the exercise, if it’s “just something to participate in,” then people being insulted or offended is a damn good reason not to do it.
There’s no redeeming value.
And you’re going to make people upset.
This equals don’t do it to most people.
Actually, yes they would, as evidenced in my citation above, in post 181, which I already linked to, and you already ignored once.
A good thought experiment “consolidates knowledge in a way that minimizes the demand on your memory and expedites the acquisition of new knowledge by raising helpful leading questions.”
Insulting people and offending them with references to traumatic experiences both taxes their memory and slows the acquisition of new knowledge.
This is science.
Why do you hate science, Joshua Shaffer?
@Joshua Shaffer(#235):
As soon as you start defining a few things for us and provide proof for some of your other assertions.
Just to start I have 4 for you.
1) What is the definition of a thought experiment
2) Proof that others support you
3) Counter argument against the Judith Thompson thought experiment
4) Argument that you aren’t following in Hitlers footsteps with your rape fantasy
@ Joshua Shaffer, #225:
No philosopher worth his salt, when asked what the purpose of their thought experiment is, would be unable to give an answer. No philosopher worth his salt would create a thought experiment without considering whether or not the benefits of such an experiment outweighed the harm that it might cause. No philosopher worth his salt would create such a poorly designed thought experiment.
Don’t criticize other people for not being good enough philosophers when you are such a shitty philosopher yourself.
Isn’t that ‘self-admitted trolling’, a bannable offense? Where is that banhammer? It’s lying around here somewhere…
“yankin their chain” just to watch their reaction, is cause for being banned. watchit.
If you can establish that a thought experiment is capable of being harmful, then you are a greater philosopher than any has ever existed.
Ahh yes, someone says something that offends others and it’s automatically trolling. Silence him immediately.
@Joshua Shaffer #225:
Why not? The better question is why? Why use such a heavy, problematic, and painful topic, if all you want to do is shoot the shit? I’ve been around the block long enough to see plenty of drive-by trolls strike up these sort of conversations about rape and, without any actual point to the exercise itself, the motivations start to fall into some combination of three categories: First, just to piss off feminists. Get everybody all riled up at a simple thought experiment, then stand back and make disapproving noises at all the emotion flying around. “It’s just a thought experiment? Why can’t you approach it from a logical, detached standpoint, like I do?” Second, to back feminists into a corner: “Feminists would be willing to let every single person on the planet die to prevent one rape! They’re horrible!” or “Feminists say that rape is never allowable, but if [completely unrealistic scenario] they’d be okay with it!” Third, these arguments are an attempt at a “wedge” to make rape somehow allowable. “It can’t be a moral absolute if it’s allowable in this completely impossible fantasy, so maybe it isn’t so bad after all.” If you aren’t actually going anywhere good with this whole thing, it starts to look more like you’re heading in one, or more, of those directions.
Look, the vast majority of the discussions we get around here from newbies are similar to the above. When you jump in feet-first with a purposefully offensive, spiteful topic you have to work extra hard to prove you’re arguing in good faith. And you, Joshua, haven’t done a whole lot to disprove the null hypothesis here – quite the opposite, in fact. If you want people here to take you seriously, state your position and defend it. But you know that won’t work out well for you, because your position isn’t all that secret. You’re just hoping you can dance around the issue and avoid a ban long enough to earn more MRA points.
Yep, it includes those who would rape given the chance to do so with imputity. Except you leave yourself open to a knife in the belly by your own logic….
YEP, ANYTIME IT INCLUDES RAPE OR SLAVERY….
SallyStrange @ 200,
An all-expenses paid one-way trip to assholeville.
See, he’s already won.
Joshua S @ 219,
We have to follow the goals of evolution about as closely as we have to follow the goals of Yahweh. Dimwit. The whole point of ethics is that we have responsibility for our choices.
No, you only need to admit you are WRONG even to discuss the stupidity you so lovingly try to defend…..
No philosopher worth his salt would not, when envisioning a thought experiment, first run through it in private, and if finding manifestly embarrassing and obvious weaknesses in it, like this one (not the least of which it failing to even meet the necessary definitional structural criteria to even qualify as a “thought experiment”), discard, again in private, and not propose it in a public forum, and make a utter fool of himself.
Not to mention expose himself to the world as despicably evil.
@ Joshua Shaffer, #241:
You have got to be kidding me. People have already explained to you why your thought experiment is harmful. Try to pay attention.
Here’s the “point” that Joshua’s trying to make: if you have to do something immoral to save morality, then immorality is totally moral. See, that’s some sophistimicated
theologyphilosophy right there. Now of course it’s just totally coincidental that the immoral act is rape; it could’ve just as easily been killing kittens or throwing acid on the Mona Lisa.<barf>,
There is a condition called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. One of the most common, most visible, ways that PTSD shows up is in soldiers (sailors, marines, etc) who have seen combat. Rape survivors sometimes, not always, but sometimes have PTSD (or PTSD-like symptoms). The triggers differ from person to person. It may be smells, It may be being touched in a certain way. It may be sounds. It may also be running across someone who cares so little about his or her fellow human beings that he or she just does not give a shit about them. You are treating survivors as things, as objects, not as human beings. I have been reading your drivel and I am not looking forward to dreaming tonight — you have triggered some very unpleasant memories for me and, I suspect, others. Stop treating people like things. That is what my rapist did. For almost two years. And I think that you and he would have gotten along just fine.
Please leave.
Ok, but if humans were reduced to a population in the low hundreds, and food was scarce, would it be ok to hunt people for food? I really wanna be a cannibal.
@Joshua Shaffer:
Why do you have time to respond to trivialities like you did in #241 but not time to actually define what a thought experiment is. You know that gets people thinking you don’t know what a thought experiment is and are now trying to pretend you don’t notice people asking for a definition, especially after you claimed said people don’t know the definition.
You know if you were a real man (and not one of those MRA rape apologists) you’d have been able to admit you were talking shit and apologize by now.
2) Why are you avoiding bringing proof of others who have thought about this? Is it because you tried to do an appeal to (undefined) authority to bolster your fantasy of when it’s okay to rape (which is never btw). You need others to help you seeing your current inability to even hold a conversation.
3) Why are you not refuting the thought experiment by Judith Thompson? You’d think a great philosopher who finally has figured out a way past that pesky morality embedded in the fact that the ends don’t justify the means would have heard of that one or the others which came to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means.
Guess you aren’t a real man then but one of those MRA rape apologist assholes seeing you can’t admit you didn’t even bother do the basest of the basest groundwork needed to counter established thought experiments.
4) Why are you not trying to explain why your argument about extinction and that it justifies any means to prevent it from the argument that Hitler made about the extinction of the Aryan race and that it justified any means to prevent it?
Could it be that there is no way to differentiate between the two and you rather not admit that since it would end your argument or would require you to admit that killing 6 million Jews was a good thing since it was to prevent extinction?
Because, participation is optional, wish to participate? go ahead, don’t wish to? nobody is forcing you to.
I love thought experiments that don’t have easy answers, i hope others do too.
Extinction, I.E. NO MORE PEOPLE, what could possibly be anywhere close to as frightening as that for a normal person?
Rape, something we generally agree to be absolutely impermissible under any circumstance.
What if the only way to stop our extinction was to do something that is unjustifiable? What is more unjustifiable than rape?
The thought experiment only works BECAUSE of our strong reactions against rape, and as such many of the responders chose outright extinction of our species.
If that doesn’t tell you something about yourself as a person, then i can’t think of what would.
Joshua Shaffer #176
Oh Joshy, you don’t fail to deliver do you?
You propose a hypothetical….. (sorry, just had to pause to laugh yet again) a hypothetical that you claim has no wrong answer and you’re calling it objective discourse?
Your inability to think through the things you say shall become the stuff of legends:
“Gather ’round kids, I’m going to tell you the tale of Joshua Shaffer, the most unaware human to ever stalk the earth….”
The hypothetical scenario of shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre was used to demonstrate that free speech is not absolute. That hypothetical (i.e. thought experiment) was used as a justification for governmental retaliation against war protesters in violation of their free speech. Indeed, it is still used today, about 5 decades later, in ham-fisted attempts at restricting speech. A single thought experiment in a single court case 5 decades ago has been used and is still used as a tool to restrict the speech rights of people across the world.
@Joshua Shaffer (#254)
So you are saying that attempting to wipe out all Jews was a good thing since Hitler was really frightened about the extinction of the Aryan race by the Jews.
david@127 made me lose several minutes looking up tvtropes to remind me exactly what scene his post reminded me of.
I didn’t get exactly whatever it was I was thinking of, but it did send me to the equivalent from Monty Python.
You’re not that egotistical, are you?
Not everyone shares your irrational fears. Your irrational fears do not carry moral weight.
It is doubtful that many normal people lose much sleep at night fretting over the possible extinction of the human species, over more immediate and personal concerns like paying the next mortgage on time, or making that big job interview, or, you know, being raped….
Yep, your defense of rape and your own disembowelment tells us all we need to know about losers like you. If you want your own body intact, you don’t misuse the bodies of others. DUH.
Ok, but what if it was the apocalypse again and the dinosaurs came back and the only way to hide from the pterodactyls was to distract them by fucking? And, like, there was a pterodactyl bearing down on these two dudes but one of them wasn’t in the mood? Then what? It’s a question with no right answer.
Actually, the right answer is to fuck the pterodactyl.
Well, because i’m only one person and can only give due attention to one response at a time. So here is your answer to this particular one.
Please see this link for the definition http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
My thought experiment is basically, as stated previously, “What if something that is unjustifiable is the only way to prevent the extinction of our species, would you permit it to prevent our extinction?”
The end result is finding out if you are willing to do the unforgivable thing to prevent our extinction as a species, or to at least explain reasoning why you believe it wouldn’t be possible/shouldn’t be done.
So your’e saying that a person’s emotions are preventing them from giving an objective answer?
That’s fine, and valid, but that doesn’t mean the question shouldn’t be posed.
Joshua Shaffer, #225
So why haven’t you posted that slavery hypothetical on Facebook yet?
Quite cowardly and hypocritical of you (as was expected from the beginning).
Shaffer:
The prospects of society-approved large-scale rape and of carrying the children of rapists should be pretty goddamned frightening for any “normal” person.
@Joshua Shaffer(#264):
You didn’t even bother to read the first link Google gave you.
From the part you quoted:
Oh and you might read further down. That one happens to have a reference to Judith Thompson in it. Took you long enough to find it.
That said:
Yes or no, why can’t you answer a simple yes or no question?
In #254 you wrote:
Right, the question was stupid, based on stupid presuppositions, and not thought through before being posed. Which is why you can be disemboweled, by your own logic, for raping a woman, against her bodily integrity. You didn’t think that through. STUPID.
This, however, is more than just a thought “experiment” (it doesn’t actually meet the requirements to be an actual thought experiment). This is a thought “experiment” conducted on an open forum KNOWN to be frequented by rape survivors, some of whom have OPENLY talked about how things like this trigger them and cause them intense emotional pain.
It is that SECOND part, where the harm is accrued, that makes all the difference, and it is your refusal to take that part of it seriously, Joshua Shaffer, that makes you an evil person.
For sure! And if that’s the direction you believe it would take, no doubt many would agree that it would be preferable to go extinct.
But that doesn’t mean those who disagree should be considered rapists.
Be posed WHERE?
Feel free to pose that question, to yourself, in private, to your heart’s content.
But not in a public forum known to be frequented by many individuals known to be painfully triggered by the topic.
Just because hypotheticals about starvation cannabilism should be allowable to be posed doesn’t mean they should be allowed to be posed without restriction to a group of survivors of the Donner Party.
Now you’re just blatantly misrepresenting people.
@Joshua Shaffer #254:
So it’s option #2 then. Furthermore, you’re proving your own incapability to actually carry a thought to its logical conclusion. I’d wager that the vast majority of posters in this thread, probably closer to a unanimous majority, would very much like to see the human race continue. What we object to, however, is a society which relies upon rape to perpetuate itself. We don’t want to live in a society where there’s a real possibility we would be raped because others deem it “necessary,” and if not existing is the only alternative to that then so be it. The fact that you seem to prefer the opposite says a whole lot about you.
Could argue semantics all day if you wish, i’d rather not though.
Did i win totally now? Godwin’s law and such?
To answer, He believes he was doing the right thing. I personally think he was a fucking asshole, to put it mildly. Of course the answer is No. A million times no.
@Joshua Shaffer(#272):
We never said you were a rapist, just that you are a rape apologist and possibly a wannabe rapist looking for any excuse
That said when do I get my yes or no?
In #254 you wrote:
You agree then that Hitler was doing the right thing in his attempt at exterminating the Jews since he was really frightened that they were trying to wipe out the Aryan race? Yes or No.
New thought experiment:
If the survival of the human species requires that food be given to only one of, but not both, who should be starved first, for the greater good, Joshua Shaffer, or theDukedog7?
“Rape survivors sometimes, not always, but sometimes have PTSD (or PTSD-like symptoms).”
actually, domestic violence/ family abuse/ sexual assault survivors quite often have PTSD for at least a short-term period, if not long-term. I know that even after 4 years since leaving my abusive ex, I was susceptible to flashbacks and episodes due to the combination of my bipolar and ptsd. I now cannot chance going without medication.
Joshua Shaffer @276
Yet you whine when people think you’re a fucking asshole. Why is that?
You’re losing.
Gee, everybody here has the same attitude about you loser. Nothing but an asshole, who couldn’t think their way out of torn a wet paper bag with a GPS, book of clues, and other hints…..
It’s a long thread, so I can’t be sure.
But has Joshua Shaffer brought up dolphins yet?
Ok, then, Joshua Shaffer, who would you rape?
You were kind enough to answer my first question, it would be nice if you’d answer this one too.
The hypothetical was created without any plausible means of holding it to a single logical conclusion.
The details are left up to the individual responder to decide, If you decide that the human race becomes dependent on rape to survive, and feel that is less acceptable than extinction, then your response of extinction totally makes sense.
But if you’re more objective, and recognize that nature doesn’t give two fucks about morality, that rape could have just as easily already been a part of our reproductive process, Then what is lost through extinction of us as a species might seem to be a far less acceptable outcome.
@Joshua Shaffer(#276):
Thank you for killing your own argument.
Since the fear generated by the threat of extinction is not an argument to perform any action that is deemed necessary to prevent said extinction you just admitted that your rape at any cost thought experiment can only generate one conclusion. No you do not rape if that is the only option to prevent extinction.
Oh good, Egnor joined in. Careful folks, we’re about to reach terminal levels of smug repetitive idiocy in here.
Joshua is the usual Vulcan Atheist troll: say provocative thing, claim moral superiority when people are provoked, claim victory.
Nevermind that people aren’t Vulcans (and shouldn’t aspire to be), nevermind that the logic/emotion dichotomy is false, nevermind that thought-experiments are supposed to be defined rigidly enough to tell us something about the choices involved, and definitely nevermind that the provocative question always says more about the asker than askees. Joshua is just looking for ammunition to talk about how closed-minded and emotional those irrational Free-FROM-thought bullies and their radical feminists are, with any of the many communities that will offer him kudos for such sentiments. They’ll offer him solace for being unjustly called a rape apologist when all he did was try to invent a scenario where rape was permissible.
If only he had first invented a scenario where making absurd hypotheticals about rape in public fora were permissible, he wouldn’t be in this predicament, but there you go.
If that’s all there is to the question….
OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, if you’re asking if i would rape to save humanity, crudely interpreted, that i would have a tougher time answer, but would probably ultimately lead to saying yes.
Only a rapist says that. You are your own worst enemy. You are one stupid fuckwitted idjit without empathy or the concept women are your equals in EVERY way.
He has no interest in actually engaging valid criticism, and selects the posts most easy to twist to reply to. Cherry-picking, motte-and-bailey arguments, pursuing “victory” instead of truth; there’s no reason to talk to this horrible person. Knew that it was pointless as soon as I saw his avatar icon. Ugh. Gross.
@ Joshua Shaffer, #225:
You could have come up with all sorts of unjustifiable actions. And yet you chose an unjustifiable act which generally involves members of a privileged class (to which you belong) attacking members of a less privileged class. You chose an unjustifiable which is more widespread than any comparably unjustifiable act. You chose an unjustifiable act which has been perpetrated against many people in your audience. You chose an unjustifiable act that far too many people are all too eager to justify.
You could have easily chosen an unjustifiable act without these features . . . but you didn’t. That, out of all the unjustifiable acts imaginable, you decided to go with rape is incredibly telling.
Dolphins, no. Ducks, yes.
One possible response, not the definitive one by any means.
Not until he, like you, apologizes for being an MRA asshole who doesn’t think women are his equals….
Sorry loser, the only answer is “rape is always WRONG”. Which is why you are a loser, who doesn’t understand bodilty autonomy. Your rape they means the woman can disembowel you. Don’t like that, change your attitude….
Even if failure to do so means dooming the human species to extinction?
What a hypocrite you are.
@Joshua Shaffer(#293):
Which means you lied in #276 when you said what Hitler did was wrong.
What he did was one possible response to prevent the extinction of the Aryan race by the Jews.
So you admit that he did the right thing by (amongst other war crimes) kill 6 million Jews.
Rapist.
i understand the passion and emotion involved, but i didn’t expect complete and total resistance, considering thought experiments are pretty much all well understood to not represent the desires of the participant. Unless you believe schrodinger hated cats (which could be true)
My only regret in choosing rape is the distraction it has caused from the actual thought experiment itself. But i stand by it being the only example that would make any sort of sense and actually pose any sort of conflict in the questioner.
I have a feeling that most who respond are actually afraid to respond truthfully, as they would rather be a part of the “in” crowd who says all humans should die off before one more rape occurs.
Joshua Shaffer @ 287:
You already said you would, up at 107, remember?
I was just asking for your pick of victim.
As a thought experiment, of course.
My last comment was intended as a response to #254 and #264, not #225. Though, looking back over the thread, it could probably work as a response to #255 as well. After all, Joshua Shaffer completely fails to actually justify his thought experiment there as well.
I assure you that’s not true in the slightest. i engage as i see it, as i am only one person i can only effectively tackle one criticism at a time. Please, present yours and i will attempt to find it and respond appropriately.
Joshua @301,
I can’t speak for the rest of the commentors, but personally, if I had to choose between rape and forced pregnancy or letting the human race go extinct, I’d say bring on the next sentient species, we don’t deserve to live.
And you get more and more vile with every rape-apologetic comment. Have you no shame, sir?
@Joshua Shaffer #284:
Wow. I haven’t seen an appeal to nature before. I’m so impressed. Nature isn’t a person. Nature can’t care about anything. Nature may not care if an individual human is harmed, but then again nature doesn’t even care if humanity continues existing. Even then, rape was a part of humanity’s reproductive process for a very long time, but guess what? We got better. Just because something is, doesn’t mean it ought to be.
Let’s put it another way around: Why would you rather live in a society where rape was as accepted as in your “thought experiment?” How is that better, in your mind, than society simply not existing? I find that the answer to this question usually comes down to the answerer picturing themselves as the rapist, rather than the victim: “I hate this as much as you do, but it’s for the good of humanity.”
That won’t fly for this exercise, though. Put yourself in the other shoes, assuming empathy isn’t impossible for you. If the existence of society were completely dependent on raping you, how would you feel about that? Keep in mind that it couldn’t ever be consensual from your standpoint, otherwise it’s not rape. So come up with some situation where you’d never say yes, never give consent, and then realize that this would be happening in perpetuity. Not just for you, but for thousands, maybe millions like you. Because there’s no conceivable scenario grounded in reality where just one rape would be sufficient to keep the human race from extinction. It would have to be an ongoing program of abuse to achieve that goal.
@140 Joshua Shaffer
Well yes, but that isn’t what you said before.
You also have no argument for this being a bad thing. It isn’t a bad thing.
The woman is not a participant, but the victim loser.
You admit to advocating rape, and that women are lesser than than men, but based on the “golden rule”, can disembowel you if you rape them…bodily autonomy and all? I don’t think that was your goal…
Gee, sounds like a rapist. Acts like a rapist, must be a rapist.
The human species only deserves to continue if rape and slavery are eliminated. DUH.
Except your response is the same. RAPE THE WOMAN, NO CONSEQUENCES TO ME…..
Forced contribution in reproduction of humans in the face of denial of consent. I should say, would cover male raping female, female raping male, people forcing machine to create humans by sentient machine, cybernetic genitals gaining sentience and refusing to allow humans to reproduce, any manner of potential hypotheticals.
…forced contribution in SEXUAL* reproduction…
Yet you would rape, as admitted above. What a LOSER YOU ARE.
WHAT PART OF RAPE DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND….
@Joshua Shaffer(#304):
Not really you pick 1 thing out of a list that 1 person gives you hoping that that will be enough.
I mean I expected you to take the bite when the demand came to give a definition. Seeing that a Google search and then a copy paste would suffice. And you did that, just like not reading the stuff you copied.
Then you thought you could get away because with a bit of waffling but finally answering what seemed a simple question. Which you couldn’t even do because the moment after that you articulated that what Hitler did was the right thing to assuage his fears of extinction.
And the rest is dodging, bobbing and weaving to try and admit you are wrong. I especially liked that you claimed to get a death threat while the people here only followed your reasoning to its ending and that was that the rapist has to die since the rapist clearly isn’t doing things in the best interest of the victim and the possible child. What makes matters worse is that you only started shrieking about it when your name got attached.
Doing that would mean acknowledging the victim as an actual individual person, rather than some vague hypothetical category.
New thought experiment!
How many posts will it take for him to actually do that?
Joshua, too late to backtrack. Your lies are exposed for posterity rapist….
@233 Joshua Shaffer
I dare you to support your assertion here.
Could you at least justify this premise? The others you’ve refused to justify, but at least justify this one.
Something. Give me something, here.
@Joshua:
You still haven’t finished with me BTW.
Why are you not trying to explain why your argument about extinction and that it justifies any means to prevent it from the argument that Hitler made about the extinction of the Aryan race and that it justified any means to prevent it?
Joshua Shaffer @228:
Having read this far, I’ve seen no one trying to “frighten off anyone with opposing viewpoints”. I have seen plenty of people argue that this “thought experiment” (which is nothing of the sort) is pointlessly offensive wankery on your part. You, like many anti-feminists and MRAs (you walk, talk, and act like one) look for any justification for rape to be an acceptable act. You’re looking for that get out of rape free card, bc for some reason there simply must be a scenario in which rape is acceptable. As Saad has pointed out a few times, I look forward to reading a thought experiment from you on how slavery should be acceptable.
I’ve also not seen any death threats against you. I have seen SallyStrange make use of your horrible “thought experiment” to point out that the victim of rape in your highly implausible hypothetical might not want to be raped, and might take steps to ensure their safety. Steps that might include self-defense. But then, you’re not concerned with the well-being of this hypothetical victim. You’re more concerned with the continued survival of the human race (though you’ve provided no argument for why our species ought to continue; and no ‘good, evil, and morality might be eradicated’ is not an argument).
I note you’ve also not addressed the problem of population bottleneck mentioned by HappyHead @78:
Here’s the thing, Josh (can I call you Josh? After your
turdthought experiment already ruined the early part of my day by popping up in my facebook newsfeed (much like PZ), I kind of feel like I know you. Cool?), you totally lack imagination. You think you’re posing a question that is SO EDGY and SO RADICAL that you’re simply going to BLOW OUR MINDS with you’re philosphizing. But really… most of us have heard it before.No matter what you fucking say, I know you get a vicarious thrill out of hurting strangers. Otherwise, why bother? Why envision a scenario that will hurt as many women as possible AND THEN defend it at every opportunity that comes up? Because you’re a creepy little fucker, that’s why. Because you want us to be raped.
I’ve read several different threads with your bullshit and I’ve yet to see sufficient justification for saving the human race. Yes, I know you wanked on about the death of human morality or whatever the fuck, but in the long run, what does that matter? If we were suddenly wiped out, the planet would be able to recover from the harm we’ve done to it. Honestly, the planet is better off without us fucking everything up.
Sorry, misread that.
as amphiox stated, That would change the nature of the thought experiment into some sick and twisted fantasy. Which is not the purpose, and would be impossible because i have no desire to “choose” anyone. I wouldn’t wish to harm someone like that.
Note that relying on rape to “prevent” the extinction of the human species means repopulating after a big genetic bottleneck with a population filled with any heritable traits that predispose an individual to choose to commit rape.
It would, in short, mean a forced, rapid, major evolutionary shift in the psychology and behavior of the average individual of the species, as the price for “survival”.
New thought experiment!
Would a species in such a state be worth preserving?
You’re presuming my intentions? fascinating. Never did i claim it to be original, I often see this question too. what i NEVER see are rational answers to it, only angry responses such as yours.
This question seems to be like the secular equivalent of drawing mohammad. Which is precisely WHY it needs to be asked.
“No philosopher worth his salt ” is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Joshua, I sympathize. I too have tried to pose questions that cause people to rethink their axioms and processes, and got banned for it from Salon TableTalk, another hotbed of goose-stepping political correctness.
One of the threads, as posts used to be called, ran to 2500 responses, though. You’re probably making people think. You can tell by the outrage, most of which is likely caused by the pain of rethinking, no matter how fitfully.
Hang in there. Scientists, although few in number, may come to your aid. There are worse things than rape, like getting run over by a train in the classic morality conundrum.
Angry responses and misogynistic responses, of course.
I’ll condemn any misogynistic responses with far greater disdain than the reactionary ones, as reactionary responses are valid and understandable.
Joshua Shaffer @ 304,
Nonsense. I’ve not presented the strongest arguments, spend ten minutes and read the comments above, There are dozens of strong refutations of your “thought experiment” from the top of your spurious argument to the bottom. If you were honest in your “inquiry” you’d want to seek out the strongest arguments, not need to have them fed to you. Look up the Principle of Charity. It’s the foundation of honest inquiry and the search for truth.
But you don’t want truth or honesty, you want to stir up hornets and cause trouble. That’s why your avatar is what it is, that’s why you linked the picture you did in the other thread, that’s how you decide what posts to reply to. You wouldn’t know what actual free-thought was if it bit you on the ass.
@310 Joshua
Lol.
Serious question: do you really think anyone is conflicted here?
Basically no one cares if humanity goes extinct. If you used “not getting enough sleep” instead of rape, I’d still say I just don’t care about extinction.
No, it doesn’t change the nature of the thought “experiment” (it’s not actually one) at all.
It’s already a sick and twisted fantasy.
In the proposed scenario, however, SOMEONE has to get raped. Who will it be? Your attempt to ignore the individuality and humanity of that victim only further demonstrates what an immoral and depraved individual you yourself are.
One of the (among many) reasons the original thought “experiment” is a sick and twisted fantasy is in fact precisely this refusal to recognize that an INDIVIDUAL, a PERSON, a VICTIM, is getting raped.
If ten percent or more of the population were regularly killed by trolleys and onlookers, we’d rightly chastize philosophers for continuing to callously use their experience for asinine thought experiments.
Thanks for the support, Ormand Otvos.
You little shit.
You do realize there are people reading this who have actually been raped, right?
Hey, Joshua,
What if the human race were facing extinction, and [for reasons] the ONLY WAY to save it was for you, Joshua Shaffer, to suffer an advanced and terminal case of testicular cancer? And this cancer could be medically induced.
Would it be moral for the other survivors to force that on you?
Given your answer to the rape scenario, I must assume your answer to this one would be “yes.”
Now: what have we learned?
–What’s that? We haven’t actually learned anything except that it’s easy to invent implausible extreme scenarios in which horrific actions can arguably be justified. Scenarios which accordingly tell us nothing about the real world and offer no moral insight whatsoever, and therefore make for shitty, pointless thought experiments.
Now ask yourself this: why did you pick rape? A form of torture which all too many children, women, and men in the real world have experienced–yet you, personally, are highly unlikely to ever experience or have to worry about?
Hmmm?
Why did you choose rape as the mechanism for saving your hypothetical world, as opposed to something awful that might realistically happen to you? Something deeply unpleasant that there’s a fair chance (though far less likely than a woman’s chance of being raped) could really happen to you.
Joshua Shaffer @254:
Why do you find the extinction of the human race to be so frightening?
Who is this “we”? You clearly think there exists a wildly implausible scenario for saving the human race-one that wouldn’t work even if it wasn’t morally reprehensible-that involves raping someone.
We’ve gotta save the human race and the way to do that is by violating the rights of at least one member of our species. Another problem with your pathetic scenario is that you don’t appear to believe that all humans have rights.
Dude, your “thought experiment” doesn’t even work, as others have pointed out.
BTW, why do you think that raping someone will save the human race if it’s on the verge of extinction?
Josh, you never answered:
Why is humanity worth preserving?
Ah, another “philosopher” that doesn’t realize that emotions are not the opposite of rationality.
And, you’ve had plenty of rational answers both here and elsewhere: bodily autonomy (should be) absolute, that if the population was that low, rape wouldn’t change anything, and that women deal with rape and rape culture every damned day and really don’t need skeptibros wanking off about it.
false. Tom Foss. Death seems to be a permissible aspect entirely in thought experiments.
Sexual violence, specifically rape, overwhelmingly seems to be less permissible than mass murder, or non-sexual torture.
Because, of course, feminists are doing their job. Which i will praise now and forever. I say without a hint of irony, that the work of feminism has generally been for good.
I’m certainly not going to be shamed into silence for simply posing questions that make people uncomfortable.
Joshua Shaffer 323
And another laugh out loud* moment from the the Joshster. Truly,he has all the self-awareness and none of the usefulness of a dead salmon.
*A laugh tempered by the understanding that him and his wannabe vulcan ilk are harmful, compassion-less assholes.
Joshua Shaffer @ 323:
So, it’s only a positive moral choice if it’s someone you don’t know raping someone you don’t know?
Odd that you wouldn’t volunteer, but chose to sluff off saving the human race on to someone else.
May I ask why not?
No, it isn’t.
“No surgeon worth his salt would operate using unsterilized scalpels.”
“No True Scotsman!”
You miss the point of No True Scotsman.
And I am not surprised.
Folks, we’ve got us two real, live Dunning-Kruger victims here.
Here is a summary of your thought experiment:
Is it okay for me to use violence to force my opinion on someone else? To which the answer is of course not. In your “thought scenario” that doesn’t actually contain enough detail to be one, the other person could have a very legitimate reason for wanting the human race to end. Your opinion is not necessarily the correct one, and you are not justified for committing brutal and violent acts to get your way.
The real question here is why would someone choose, out of all possible examples of violence, rape to use in their scenario if not trying to be an apologist for it. There are many, many, many examples you could give that are not grotesque, insulting, and possibly trauma inducing. Which is why there are only two real reasons to choose rape as your example. Either A, you are intending to offend people and hurt those who have experienced it in the past, or B, you’re trying to find a scenario in which rape sounds plausible. Neither is good, and you can go fuck yourself though I know you will camp this thread feeling a compulsive need to get the last word in, as if you’re doing anything more than digging a deeper hole.
@Lady Mondegreen(#342):
I’m afraid I’m to blame for that I told Joshua to get back-up since he couldn’t manage a coherent argument even though (according to him) the survival of humanity depends on it. Didn’t mean to get more knuckledraggers but people who can actually hold an argument at my level (and that isn’t that high a bar to get over) or better.
@329 Pansky “Basically no one cares if humanity goes extinct.”
I do, although the internet is whittling away at that care.
I once, in a gregarious mood, roamed the downtown streets of Berkeley asking random strangers, mostly college-age, if they felt the human race deserved to survive? More than half said no. That’s a bad sign.
Maybe reminding people of their, and their species, are mortal, makes them emotionally unstable. Trigger was a horse, though. Or part of a mechanism.
@338 Joshua Shaffer
K but no one said you should be ashamed for merely that reason. You should be ashamed for your poor moral thinking abilities, your difficulties with logic, and your cluelessness that prevents you from realizing these faults in yourself.
Don’t worry, I have no desire to actively give you any more web traffic than this, Your idea of “Freethought” isn’t one that anyone serious about the concept would share. Plus your writing style is a bore.
@Brive: Yes, and the sun revolves around the Earth. It was proved in the court of the Inquisition, and Galileo even signed off on it. Now kindly go derail in the Thunderdome.
@Joshua:
Your reading comprehension skills are totes amazing, Joshua.
Oh and Joshua you still haven’t explained the difference between your argument about extinction and that it justifies any means to prevent it from the argument that Hitler made about the extinction of the Aryan race and that it justified any means to prevent it?
@347 Joshua Shaffer
lol
Right back at you!
@Joshua Shaffer #347:
That’s honestly the best you can do? “Plus your writing style is a bore?” Truly you are a master of rhetoric.
What an intellectually dishonest liar you are.
The RATIONAL answer is “No, because it WOULDN’T WORK to save the species anyways” and expending resources and effort to do something that DOES NOT WORK is NOT RATIONAL.
The EMOTIONAL answer is “No, that is morally repugnant, and death and extinction would be preferable to survival on those kind of terms”
This is a classic example of reason and emotion converging together, quickly and EASILY, on the right answer (because, guess what, we all descend from a long line of ancestors who used emotions to make decisions, and we would not be here if decisions made with emotions did not, in fact, turn out on average to be good ones, for the survival of both the individual AND the species).
And both of these were given to you, on this thread within the first 100 posts, multiple times.
So stop lying Shaffer, you have seen PLENTY of rational answers, and some of which were both rational AND angry. You’ve just deliberately ignored them all.
Can PZ just ban the homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic and all ’round vile Dukedog7? Their comments add nothing of substance or value to any conversation they’ve been involved in.
****
Joshua Shaffer @287:
Great-you’ve found the scenario in which rape is morally acceptable to you, just as everyone knew you were doing. Now fuck off you vile, reprehensible, shitstain.
****
brive @288:
No.
Any other stupid ass questions you’d like to pose?
Oh, and you wouldn’t happen to be a ‘Pitter by the name of brive1987 would you? Because he’s a vile human being.
****
Ormond Otvos @296:
What venom? I’ve seen people vehemently express their opposition to any attempt at justifying rape, which moral human beings ought to do, even in a hypothetical scenario involving the near-extinction of humanity.
Also, the resident nitwit and his allies (such as yourself) aren’t having your speech censored in any way. So your frozen peaches aren’t under any threat.
How and in what way?
Before you answer those two questions, please explain what you mean by “political correctness”.
Probably the same way it would be here in the real world you disgusting rape apologist.
Rape is non-consensual sex.
It’s a denial of the bodily autonomy and human rights of the individual being raped. It’s an immoral act that treats the victim as a thing to be used, rather than a human being. And that’s exactly the case in the hypothetical scenario posed by our resident fucknuggett, Joshua Shaffer.
@Amphiox #352:
I believe Joshua is using a self-referential definition of “rational.” I.E. “Joshua Shaffer is a completely rational person, therefore any rational response would agree with Joshua Shaffer. As no responses have been received which agree with Joshua Shaffer, no rational responses have been received.” Any fool can spot the fault in that, but then again Joshua Shaffer isn’t just any fool.
tony@336,
That was one (of a number of) clue-ins for me that he’s not interested in any actual discussion. If he’s religious then the idea of “no more humans” doesn’t jibe with the whole eternal afterlife thing, so, you know, terrifying.
I think it’s a strong assumption he’s an atheist, though, which suggests he comes across his atheism by means other than his brains. There’s going to be a time after humanity, just like there’s going to be a time after each human – we all die. His admitted fear of this and his bloviation about the “end of morality” really screams out to me as someone who’s an atheist because it’s empowering or a good excuse to stir up trouble, not someone who comes to it honestly.
That’s my view on it at least!
Positive moral choice? Where did you come to that conclusion that i think there is a happy ending to this? It’s a shit situation to be in, that’s the appeal to the hypothetical thought experiment. Forgo morals to save humanity or let humanity die? A question as old as philosophy itself i’d imagine.
I’m confused by your following… err.. accusations… Are you taking this like, seriously as if it’s a real life scenario? Because it’s not.
Freethought:
Free thought is not “free from skepticism”. You have presented no third party evidence, therefore, everything you said is dismissed as fuckwittery. If you were a freethinker, every post would be linked to third party evidence. LOSER..
Can you pose them to Shaffer? So far he won’t justify his axioms.
I even asked politely and everything.
I have stated numerous times that all responses are valid, because of the implausibility and unrealistic nature of the question, all answerers are free to come up with the details themselves.
There is an objective answer and an emotional answer, but there is no right or wrong answer.
@Joshua Shaffer, #325:
I’ve stayed out this so far. I can’t believe that this has gone over 300 comments, but I thought I’d point out a few things to juxtapose against your denials of rape apology/promotion.
Um, no.
Presumptions come before evidence. People read your words and came to conclusions about your intentions based on evidence.
If you don’t understand the word “presume” you might want to withhold your use of it until you get a chance to study up a bit more.
savant:
That’s the thing, I have yet to hear any argument that humanity is worth saving.
From where I sit, Earth would probably be better off without us. We’re fucking this place up hard and fast.
(Jesus, somehow I’ve become a misanthrope and I didn’t even notice it until now.)
You presented evidenceless opinion pretending it was third party evidence. You said nothing that was supported by evidence, therefore you were dismissed as a fuckwitted idjit. Try looking up freethought before you pretend you are engaged in it. No third party evidence, no “freethought”. just mental wanking by you, and dismissed as such.
And I’m a little pissed that saving the species is thought to be an agreed upon moral action.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and whatever.
You could give PZ even less web traffic by leaving now and not coming back.
Lots more people share PZ’s idea of freethought than yours.
And on the hierarchy of usually positive values that may on occasion come into conflict and necessitate choosing one over the other, treating other people with compassion and decency (ie NOT choosing to deliberately trigger them) >>>>> your idea of “Freethought”, or indeed anyone else’s idea of the same, any day of the week.
You voluntarily choose to continue to be an evil jerk, rather than change your behavior and make yourself a better, more decent person when your evil jerkish behavior is pointed out to you. Understood.
brive @297:
Ah, I’m even more certain that you’re the same brive1987 that was banned from here, and pals around with the ‘Pitters.
Joshua Shaffer @302:
I don’t believe you and there is no evidence in this thread to support your assertion. You come across as a heartless, apathetic, rape apologist who doesn’t understand *why* rape is so awful.
Again, you haven’t posed a thought experiment, and even if this were one, it’s not like it hasn’t been posed before. You’re not a special snowflake. You aren’t the first rape apologist to pose this “hypothetical”. I’m sure you won’t be the last either.
Aaaaand once again, you demonstrate your asshole credentials. You don’t care that its entirely possible that your “thought experiment” has triggered people who have been sexually assaulted or raped (and Pharyngula is a blog frequented by many survivors of sexual assault and rape).
You stand by it despite the fact that you have no proof that your scenario will result in saving the human race, nor why it’s so important to do so. Additionally, you have no problem violating the human rights of at least one person (and probably more bc two people cannot repopulate the human race alone), which means you don’t believe human rights are universal.
Stop projecting. Not everyone is an immoral shithead like you.
@Joshua(#356):
And answered multiple times.
There is a difference between ‘the right to live’ and ‘the right to what is needed to sustain life’.
The conclusion applies to your warped fantasy as well and is: The goal doesn’t warrant any and all means to reach it. So yes even thought experiments done before yours have concluded that death (in this case of a species) is the right if there is a conflict between those two concepts.
Also you still haven’t explained the difference between your argument about extinction and that it justifies any means to prevent it from the argument that Hitler made about the extinction of the Aryan race and that it justified any means to prevent it?
The objective answer is “no”.
The emotional answer is “no”.
The right answer is “no”.
The wrong answer is “yes”.
This was settled within the first 100 posts. Indeed, it was all settled before you even showed up here, Shaffer.
Which does beg the question as to what the hell you’re still doing here.
People are taking you seriously, as if you proposed this to others in real life, and as if words used in real life actually mean things and actually affect people – and thus society and the world, if sufficiently influential.
People seriously don’t want you and your pro-rape agenda to seriously impact the culture in which people are attempting to live lives that will change things seriously for the better, should they have enough time and energy left after insuring the bare minimum necessities of a serious society, like the ability to seriously interact with other human beings without being seriously violently assaulted.
Thus, despite your scenario being hypothetical, your serious proposal that such a scenario should be seriously proposed for reasons derived from the same logic that convinces many we should seriously consider drawing Mohammed is being seriously opposed by serious people in real life.
We know what real life is. We know what matters in real life. Fighting a pro-rape agenda matters.
Seriously.
Where am i exhibiting any of the above?
-Poor moral thinking
Well, that’s up for debate, and no body would ever win that one. Because morality is a unique and confusing concept itself.
-difficulties with logic
Please point to where i have had difficulties with logic.
-cluelessness
Well, i may or may not be guilty of that, how could i possibly know? Though when you start calling someone a rapist and giving them death threats, it’s difficult for them to focus on much more than that.
jebuswept
I left this at #110.
*takes a deep breath*
Your “thought experiment” is neither thought provoking nor challenging, it is simply the question “Is it ever OK to rape someone?” The answer is NO. The fact that you, Joshua Shaffer, say “Yes” is the reason you are called a rape apologist.
audley # 361,
I’m pretty much an eternal optimist but I understand what you mean :) Defining what worth is in that case, and what better off even means without us around is a pretty interesting question though!
No, you don’t.
If you did, you wouldn’t have posed the question at all.
OT:
Nice to see you, Audley.
And thanks to people who did quite a bit of work making sure Joshua Shaffer’s fucked up comments didn’t get to stand unopposed.
actually, Joshua, in the fb post, you denied that even a man with a uterus could get raped and become pregnant….because that requires more parts….and you couldn’t impregnate your mother, cuz she is menopausal. you are now changing your stance on the limitations on the scenario….probably because of the shitstorm of people ready to rip your BS to shreds.
sadly, not once have you even acknowledged your part in causing undue stress to survivors.
savant:
If you haven’t read The World Without Us, I recommend. It’s basically A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT outlining how the Earth would change if humans suddenly vanished. It’s interesting, in any case.
chigau:
You haven’t actually missed anything.
Joshua Shaffer @ 356:
No, I’m asking you to think.
In specific, I’m asking you to think about who you’d rape in the situation you yourself posed.
That’s the point of a thought experiment, yes? Thinking?
So, what are your thoughts on who you’d rape, given the situation you brought up?
Because, frankly, if you haven’t thought as far as there must be a victim – a specific victim, not just some nebulous non-person – in your scenario, I’d have to say you don’t seem to have thought all that far in your thought experiment.
I didn’t accuse you of anything, I was just surprised you seemed unhappy with taking your thought experiment to the next step. You asked me to think, and the results were the question I asked you. I didn’t shy away from your question, don’t shy away from mine.
*waves at Crip Dyke!*
@Joshua Shaffer(#369):
Well you failed logic when you agreed that the fear of extinction wasn’t a good reason for Hitler to try and prevent said extinction by trying to wipe out the Jews and then argued in your next post that the fear of extinction should allow the person who fears the extinction to pursue any and all options to prevent said extinction.
Which would mean that you agreed with the course that Hitler said, but one post earlier you said he was wrong on that.
I’m sonot sorry that you can’t have your cake and eat it.
@Joshua Shaffer #369
Well yes, to confused noobs like you it is.
I already did. Go back and re-read my multiple posts.
where am i doing that? More than a uterus is necessary to successfully birth a human being, my friend. You could have said “for the purposes of this discussion” or you could have even said “you’re a female” OR you could have said that “you are being raped as you are right now.”
Or anything, The question is vague to allow creativity in the response, the response should make sense.
@ Joshua Shaffer #359:
I’m sorry, what? I can piece together from context that you believe your answer is the objective one. What I don’t get is how you come to that conclusion. We’re talking about morality here, remember. From a purely objective standpoint – that is, leaving aside the subjective position of humanity as a whole – it doesn’t matter whether the human race continues or not, so your position is just as emotional as any other.
Yeah, good work. It’s tough work to hiss at the guy posing a hypothetical thought experiment.
the response should make sense…but your overall scenario shouldn’t?
“people forcing machine to create humans by sentient machine, cybernetic genitals gaining sentience and refusing to allow humans to reproduce, any manner of potential hypotheticals.”
how in the EVER LOVING FUCK do those scenarios make sense?!?!?!?!??
If we’re free to hypothesize anything we want, free from any and all real life referents, then I’ll simply hypothesize that in any surviving population large enough to actually have a non-zero chance of surviving no matter what they do, there will always be enough individuals willing to engage in consensual reproductive activity to sustain the survival of the species.
I will further posit that the potential victims of rape and those with whom they cooperate with will be sufficiently resourceful and cunning (humans being cunning and resourceful creatures) in self defence that the death rate among the potential rapists will always exceed the rate at which they can successfully reproduce by rape.
Or maybe I’ll just, hypothetically, simplify the whole scenario into the cold hard rational mathematics of the reiterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. The rapists are the Defectors. The ones who engage in consensual sex but also passively allow themselves to be raped are the Naive Cooperators, and those who engage in consensual sex and also respond to rape threats by murdering the shit out of the wannabe rapist at the first available future opportunity are the Tit-for-Tats.
And we’ve known for decades that in a long game Tit-for-Tat (and its variants) wins.
Joshua @ 369
Oh, goodie. The most recent one is:
Strawmanning the position of others, hyperbole. Obvious hyperbole, indicating how disinterested you are in truth.
Previously you have continued to ignore the strongest opposition to your arguments, time and again. As I said before, if you were actually interested in truth, you’d be actively hunting down those strong arguments to test your ideas against – you’d be engaging the idea that your thought experiment is utterly invalid and poorly formed, that you’re working from a biased position, that your “experiment” says nothing of use and that your intentions aren’t what they say they are. That’s what people do when they want to actually know something. They don’t just talk, they listen. carefully.
Not really your bag, though.
Joshua, we understand your “thought experiment.”
You (and your defenders) do not understand our objections to it.
All I’ve seen from you are claims that we’re “politically correct” and “emotional.”
You have not addressed the substantive objections to your thought experiment. You clearly don’t understand your opponents’ positions.
I won’t insist you respond to my #335. But before you pat yourself on the back for being the most rational person in the room, you’d better think about what others have said.
Audley@377,
Read it, loved it! A great book. Didn’t take it as a strong reason for us to disappear, though, more just a case for how we ought to respect nature and be a bit more humble about our accomplishments. You know what they say, after all. “Damn Nature, you scary!”
And those first philosophers actually did a pretty bang up job of answering it. To the point where nothing you’ve said has added anything to what was already known on this topic 3000 years ago.
You’ve been wasting everyone’s time trying to reinvent fire, and burning a lot of bystanders with your feeble sparks in the meantime. Just go to the corner store and buy some matches already, and go home.
sadly, not once have you even acknowledged your part in causing undue stress to survivors.
Joshua Shaffer @225:
Oh, yeah “under what conditions is rape morally permissible” totes needed to be asked.
And you still offer no justification for why the human race ought to continue if the options are rape to save our species or die off.
@327:
I look forward to you condemning your own comments then.
@347:
You don’t understand what freethought means.
Freethought:
****
brive @339:
Sure. Because outrage over attempts to justify raping someone are just instinctual and rote. You go with your vile self. Really. Please just go.
He doesn’t seem to understand either the objections to his position within the thought experiment, or the objections based on the externalities of the thought experiment.
He can’t even function within the scope of his own myopia, let alone address the whole context.
A good point.
To explain, all life does what it is capable of to survive. For life, morality doesn’t exist. From parasites to cannibalistic reproduction to infanticide.
Objectively, A species doing what it must do to survive is the only measure of its success.
For a species to allow itself to go extinct due to its adherence to a concept that it itself is the only species capable of is clearly the most emotional of the two.
Joshua Shaffer @ 382
Yeah, see, this? This right here. This is the easiest way to tell this jerk isn’t interested in truth or anything other than disturbing shit. The intention of the point was obvious, but instead of interpreting it charitably and taking the strongest form of that argument, he selects the weakest, and picks at semantics, then declares himself the winner. Cowardly.
Look, if someone is dim enough to think you can have an “objective” answer to a moral dilemma, they don’t have much room to be positing moral dilemmas. If there were an “objective” answer, it would not be a moral dilemma. The point of a moral dilemma is to pit values against each other; how one answers depends on how one prioritizes those values. Prioritization and valuation are inherently subjective processes.
But go on, Phil 101 dropout, keep talking about how good at logic you are.
I’d like to take a moment to apologize to any survivors who felt distress at the sight of this discussion. What you went through is inexcusable, and everyone involved in any manner deserves justice.
My empathy is with you.
@Joshua:
I’m still waiting for my answer about what the difference is between your argument about extinction and that it justifies any means to prevent it from the argument that Hitler made about the extinction of the Aryan race and that it justified any means to prevent it?
I mean someone who is as good at logic as you claim you are that should be easy, right?
IGNORING IT DOES NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY
sadly, not once have you even acknowledged your part in causing undue stress to survivors.
oops.
though you can only sympathize.
“Just not enough to stop my pseudo-philosophical masturbation.”
It’s not a moral dilemma, extinction isn’t any more or less moral than fire, or a black hole, It’s a natural process.
Objectively, preventing our extinction as a member of our species is highly favorable.
savant:
You’re totally right– the book wasn’t advocating humanity’s extinction in the least. Otherwise, I would be horrified, not recommending it. ;)
But, in the parameters of Josh’s “thought” “experiment”, it’s interesting to note that humanity dying out* will not necessarily negatively impact Earth. Which he refuses to admit, because without that assumption, his entire point is null.
*I’m assuming that since babies can apparently survive, we’re not talking about aliens nuking us or some shit.
Poor baby.
Did you miss the part where you’ve been informed, multiple times, that actual rape victims read this blog and be confronted with your mental wankery?
Wankery, because it’s pointless, Joshua. The Trolley Problem(s) offer real moral dilemmas and demonstrate widely-shared cognitive and emotional biases. The violinist makes people weigh the values of individual autonomy and human life in the abstract.
Your scenario is a sophomore “What if?” question, not a philosophical thought experiment. It’s pointless and meaningless. AND harmful.
Chew on that, kid.
I doubt he actually empathizes, he just knows the words he’s supposed to say to make the offense ‘disappear’. If he actually empathized, he wouldn’t have ever decided to publicly voice this tripe.
Nope, your mental masturbations say otherwise. You don’t give a shit about women. Your whole dismissal of their feelings is noted above, and you can’t take it back now. You should never had gone there. What a rapist you are.
@Joshua Shaffer
Ah. Once again fancying yourself prepared for the role of a moral teacher? It’s not just one genius insight into one particular moral question that you’ve got to offer?
How Dunning-Kruger of you.
My, do you have enough to be represented by electron rest-masses? Or isn’t there enough to measure?
So says a rapist, morally bankrupt, and dismissed as an utter and abject loser.
Joshua Shaffer @398:
Based on your hypothetical and your comments here, I don’t believe you when you say that rape is inexcusable (bc you’ve expended a lot of time and effort in making excuses for rape). Nor do I believe you when you say rape victims deserve justice.
Would the person(s) being raped in your hypothetical also receive your “empathy”? Would their rape also be inexcusable? Would they also deserve justice? What form would said justice take in the world of this hypothetical given that rape is deemed permissible to save the human race?
Hitler’s ideas of an “aryan race” are not backed scientifically, there isn’t even a concept of a “human race” in science, as far as i know. So his delusions and fear mongering are invalidated. So no, his actions weren’t excusable because his fears weren’t rational to begin with.
Joshua Shafer @ 403
No it’s not. Avoiding death as an individual is highly favourable – to that individual who survives. Morals apply to individuals, not clades, not phyla, not species.
You’re wrong. Genetic fallacy, i think? I don’t care, fallacy labels are stupid. You’re wrong. Objectively.
Joshua Shaffer, #403:
Joshua Shaffer, #107
If you’re gonna troll, at least troll consistently.
I like bad fan fiction better than faux-philosophical thought experiments. Or best of all, bad fan fiction that uses faux-philosophical thought experiments!
The alien leader nodded. “So you see our dilemma, Captain. The only way for our species to survive is for around half of our population to make a sacrifice and bear the burden of qu’nar’tok.”
“Uh… right,” said Kirk, wishing the universal translator was more reliable.
“Of course, while qu’nar’tok is a burden, it’s hardly a worse fate than the extinction of our entire species. Well, at least, that’s what about half of us think, anyway.”
“Then what’s your problem?” asked Kirk. “The half that thinks it’s worth while undergoes qu’nar’tok, and your species is saved!”
“Uh, well, there’s a little problem. Only one half of our population is genetically capable of undergoing qu’nar’tok, and they’re generally the ones who are opposed.”
“So, roughly speaking, the members of your species who think that qu’nar’tok is an acceptable price to pay to preserve the species just happen to be the ones who know they won’t have to pay that price themselves?”
“Er, with a few exceptions on both sides, yes. Generally speaking.”
“Well, perhaps our ship’s doctor could find a genetic workaround that would allow those of you who favor qu’nar’tok to undergo it themselves.” Kirk began to flip open his communicator, when the alien stopped him.
“Uh, no, I’m afraid that would be — most impossible. Our scientists assure us of that.”
“Okay. And you’ve tried offering incentives to undergo qu’nar’tok? Material comforts, the eternal gratitude of your society, being memorialized for all time in song and verse? Statues erected and buildings named in their honor?”
“Uh…. sure. Yeah. Let’s assume we’ve tried that. I mean, yeah, of course we thought of that,” the alien stammered.
“So let me get this straight. There’s something so dreadful that your people won’t do it for any consideration up to and including the preservation of your species, and the only people who think it’s a fair sacrifice are the ones who are conveniently incapable of being asked to make that sacrifice. And what is it you want me to do?”
“Why, use your weapons and technology to help us force this obviously crazy half of our population to undergo a fate they consider worse than extinction!”
“Um. Sorry. Prime Directive. Gotta go! Mr. Scott, one to beam up!”
Later, on the bridge…
“Captain, I have personally witnessed you violate the Prime Directive on thirteen separate occasions,” observed
Spock. “Why did you suddenly choose to invoke it with such vehemence?”
“Spock, you animal! They were asking him to essentially enslave half their population!” snarled Dr. McCoy.
“You will observe, Doctor, that I did not say that I disagreed with his decision. Logically, the opinions of those who could not themselves bear the sacrifice were biased and must be disregarded. Only those being asked to bear the burden could fairly weigh the consequences and make the logical decision, which they did. To override their logic using force would be… barbaric.”
Kirk clapped a hand on both his officers’ backs. “Gentlemen, for once I think we’re all in agreement. This isn’t a matter of choosing logic over emotion, or vice versa. The decision was entirely clear-cut either way. Still, would have been nice to know exactly what qu’nar’tok is. See what you can do about that translator, will you, Lieutenant Uhura?”
Uhura smiled. “It was a …. temporary glitch, Captain. I’ve already restored it to full regular function.” And indeed, she had already removed the “glitch” she had herself inserted upon realizing what the situation on Planet Wanker was. Sometimes it was helpful for things to get lost in translation.
Neither is your cavalier dismissal of women as your equals and worthy of the same rights you expect you to have.
Still losing loser. Your only choice is shutting the fuck up. That is the only way you don’t dig a deeper hole…..
I don’t comment here much any more, but I just had to remark on the fact that MRA rape-apologists are almost universally libertarian shitweasels, who will cry “Collectivism” as a pejorative to describe any action to forward the welfare of the group if it inconveniences any individual (well actually, them) in any way. Then we have this:
The ultimate collectivist argument. If the species becomes extinct, the last few people will die, as every other person ever has died. The end.
I know being as logic-impaired as JS is, he won’t see the contradiction, but we’re not all quite so purblind.
don’t mistake my inability to convey ideas as well as i’d wish as inconsistency, Tom Foss.
@Joshua Shaffer:
Don’t worry. We’re quite well aware that you believe, “Should I rape or not?” poses no moral dilemma.
The practical dilemma isn’t so much, “Do we take action X to save the species?” as it is, “Do any of us know where Joshua Shaffer lives, so we can avoid that place like a plague?”
Yup. I get the impression he’s very young; I hope he can learn better.
Audley @ 404
it’s a great little book, I agree, with lots of fascinating details – anyone else reading this, go check it out, great book. By and large I took it as a cautionary story about how ephemeral our world is – the human world, not the natural world – and how we ought to try to bring ourselves more in sync. Not going primitive, but acknowledging and respecting the natural world more than we do so now. It was good for that!
We don’t.
You’re pretty consistently unable to convey ideas well.
Joshua Shaffer @403:
One of the flaws in your premise is that there is no evidence that raping someone(s) can save the human race from extinction. And even if it could, a society that condones rape for any reason doesn’t deserve to survive bc that’s a society where human rights are not universal and could be violated at any time by the people in power under the “greater good” justification.
screechymonkey @ 414,
Applause!
I’ve been watching the heck out of the old Star Trek episodes. They’re really my favourites. Every one of them offers interesting commentary on society at the time, and a lot of it is still very applicable to today. Really wish that the later series of Star Trek had kept that to the same degree!
@joshua(#411):
Set 1)
Fact: According to Hitler there is an Aryan race
Fact: According to Hitler the Jews are trying to cause the Aryan race to go extinct
Fact: According to Hitler this justified the destruction of the Jews.
Set 2)
Fact: According to your hypothetical there is a human race.
Fact: According to your hypothetical not raping will cause the human race to go extinct
Fact: According to you this justifies raping.
Fact: You said Set 1) is wrong
Fact: You said Set 2) is right.
Fact: Set 1 is logically equivalent to Set 2
Fact: wrong = right is logically inconsistent
Solution:
You either accept that what Hitler did was right or accept that the ends do not justify the means and that raping a person to keep the human race alive is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJOTKR6LpYE
that comes to mind….
Here’s a hypothetical thought experiment: If Joshua Shaffer was better able to convey his ideas, would he be any less of a fucking creep scumbag trying to make a thought experiment out of a violent act of bodily violation?
@219 Joshua Shaffer:
@395 Joshua Shaffer:
Consistency in logic is not your strong suit. Stick to your day job.
Joshua Shaffer @411:
I wonder, is your hypothetical solution to averting the extinction of humanity backed scientifically?
Very Rev. Battleaxe @416,
Yes, I was wondering about that, too. Of course, we don’t know if any particular “I just want to rationally explore when it would be rational to rape someone” troll is a libertarian, but the argument style is very similar, and in any event it’s curious that you rarely see libertarians drop into such a thread to disagree based on their belief in individual liberty.
brive@430,
I’ve never really seen him give briefings despite the assertions. If you were to be a reader of his blog – or, you know, this article – you might understand why he’s not saying much right now.
If you read his blog you might even get an inkling of an answer to your questions.
brive take your question and bugger of with it to the Thunderdome, This is not the thread to ask about it. Well in your case it is since you are backing Joshua and from the moment you entered the discussion have been trying to derail it from the fact that Joshua is a logic impaired wanna-be rapist full fledged rape apologist pseudo Vulcan tone trolling asshole who has been trying to get others to agree that there is a hypothetical scenario that would justify rape and not even managing that since what he thinks is a thought experiment is just counter factual reasoning (if you can call what he does even reasoning).
screechymonkey @ 431, The Rev @ 416,
I’ve always found most libertarians are very vocal when it comes to extending their rights, and pretty quiet about defending the rights of others. No idea if this applies right now either, but it seems like a trope.
brive:
Either engage with the topic of this post or just fuck right off. I think you know which I’d prefer.
You know, if it weren’t for the rape apologia in Joshua Shaffer’s posts, this would actually be a pretty funny thread – some dumb fuck comes along with a really poorly thought-out piece of mental wankery that they think is a really deep ‘thought experiment’, which has not only already been thought of and addressed a good couple of thousand years ago, but gets quite brutally and emphatically dissected into really, really small bits of quivering jelly over the course of 400+ posts, during which, it is shown, in exquisite detail, the numerous ways in which it is so badly thought out. However, the person with this ‘thought experiment’ is so utterly clueless that they don’t even see it happening.
It reminds me of that saying about playing chess with a pigeon – don’t, because all that will happen is they’ll knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, then fly away thinking they’ve won.
Humans aren’t the only species that engage in non-consensual sex. Ducks, lions, parasites, monkeys.
Perhaps these ideas of consensuality, informed consent, the collective (species) good, the drives of Life itself need to be brought into the discussion as more than veiled references, since they’re central to the discussion.
Incidentally, I’m one of those atheists the godbotherers chafe about. In the process of shredding their silliness, I’ve managed to shred a bit of my own, and morality is a concept I treat lightly, or accept en passant.
We just do what we do because we have instincts, homeostatic mechanisms, cultural norms. If you actually think the earth cares about us any more than we do it, think again. Dilbert’s got it right.
I also think Joshua is more than holding his own, especially in style and politeness. I’m always surprised at the level of rhetorical competence that can be combined with asshattery, insults and opaque morality, such as is showing here in the Two Minute (Hour/Day?) Hate.
Carry on, kids. It’s life, and life only. h/t to Bobby the Z.
I hardly think PZ’s long list of efforts towards promoting secularism are pertinent to the fact the brive is a slymey rat turd, or why it’s relevant to the violent fantasies of hypothetical sociopaths like JS.
I want to know what this organization is doing about organizational organics, as regards to its organs.
Also, light pollution.
Yours very sincerely, etc.,
I.P. Freely (Mrs.)
Yeah, responses like that. (440)
brive and Ormond how about it. Seeing that you two decided to come here to try and help Joshua.
Are you willing to take the challenge do deconstruct the simple logic structure I build?
At least that will be more entertaining then those amateur attempts at derailing this thread.
So how will you extricate Joshua from the trap I sprung on him and disentangle Set 1 from Set 2 in my argument at #424, without also exposing yourself (even more) as rape apologists or possibly even wannabe rapists.
Which organisation does PZ have? I don’t know of any.
Though judging by Ireland, and various other places including a lot of states of the USA it seems to be coming along nicely whatever organisations are involved.
On the Joshua front, he has denied currently being a rapist himself.
Given that I cannot think of any rational woman who would have sex with someone who they knew acted as such a douchebag I can only think of three scenarios.
1) Joshua has only had sex with women who are not making rational decisions.
2) Joshua has not had sex with women at all.
3) Joshua has had sex with rational women but concealed his douchebag nature from them, which had they known about it they would not have consented, and thus constitutes rape.
Brive cannot be banned swiftly enough or intensely enough. Not that I’m bothered by what they’re alluding to, because who they’re referring to was a victim and has made it sufficiently clear their remorse, for what it’s worth, and the events. I view them as a victim of adults who used him as a proxy to engage in heinous acts. But people like Brive would give no quarter to any victim of grooming if it meant slightly siding with the opposition. Quite pathetic, actually, that the torrent of abuse that they are putting a victim through, by making them justify, re-justify, apologize, feel pain… They are simply revictimizing him, and that’s not simply pathetic, as my stream of conscious put it. It’s downright fucking vile.
So yes, Brive, your’e a vile little shit and throwing you halfway to Jupiter wouldn’t be near far enough.
Ormond, No True Scotsman is a pretty simple concept. As you’ve misunderstood that, you’re probably not bothering the god-botherers all that much. I suspect they’re just embarrassed for you.
And, yes, we get it. You don’t care about the feelings of rape victims, but you care about the tone here.
Your concern is noted.
443: Your equivalency of the Hitler argument with his moral dilemma argument rests on the usual overflexible definitions implied in each of postulates.
Your emotions interfered with your logical construct.
Simply, Joshua’s scenario would be rational, Hitler’s was based on paranoia. They’re in no way equivalent, so the paradox fails. The logics pass in the night, to be poetic.
This isn’t a “vibrant marketplace” of ideas. This isn’t productive argument or debate, and you guys haven’t come here to further your understanding or confront tough issues. If you think this is a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” then you don’t know what the term means.
Ormond Otvos @439:
He’s holding his own? That’s just laughable.
Joshua has failed to define what a thought experiment is.
He has also failed to create an actual thought experiment.
He has failed to address whether or not his hypothetical is reasonable to begin with (i.e. is it even possible to save the human race from extinction by raping someone(s)).
His lack of logical consistency has been pointed out more than once.
He doesn’t appear to understand that human rights-including the right to bodily autonomy-are meant to be universal, not context-dependent.
As for polite? He’s not being polite you fucking asshole. He’s advocating for rape being permissible under a specific set of circumstances. That’s Rape Apologia. You’re a fool if you think politeness is all about not using coarse language. Joshua’s use of civil language doesn’t make him polite when he’s talking about violating human rights. If he weren’t playing the “when is rape acceptable” schtick, he might not have gotten the response he has. Imagine that-people are angry at a rape apologist making apologetics for rape, and *some* of those people using ::gasp:: coarse language that makes pearl-clutchers such as yourself reach for their jewelry as they collapse onto their fainting couch. Stop acting as if civility is of utmost importance in a conversation. Especially when the conversation involves rape advocacy.
Also, this is a rude blog. Go read the fucking commenting policy.
I haven’t seen anyone say they hate our resident asshat (or you, or brive). I’ve seen plenty of disdainful comments, but nothing about hating anyone. Personally I think you folks supporting Joshua are shitheads, but I don’t hate any of you.
Ormond Otvos @442:
Let’s take a look at Tethys’ comment @440, shall we:
What exactly, do you take issue with in this comment?
PZ has a history of promoting secularism, but it isn’t relevant to this thread.
Brive sure does sound just like a ‘Pitter.
PZ’s support of secularism isn’t relevant in this particular conversation, which involves an apathetic asshole looking to justify rape.
So again, what’s your problem with this comment? Oh, I forgot, you’re a civility/politeness above all else fool and Tethys didn’t use language you approve of. Bless your heart, you poor, poor dear.
449: I got a good chuckle from that “Personally I think you folks supporting Joshua are shitheads, but I don’t hate any of you.”
None of your other statements about Joshua are true.
Ormond Otvos @447:
It’s reasonable and logical that the human race, if threatened with extinction, can stave off that threat if some unknown number of the population have their human rights violated by someone(s) raping them? Why is that a reasonable position? Is there any evidence that such a thing would even work to begin with? If so, where’s the evidence?
All of that is before we even grapple with the awful idea of living in a society that is so worried about the survival of humanity that violating the rights of some portion of the population is deemed necessary. “We’re worried about humanity. Let’s go rape some humans to save the human race!”
Good god. That was the most pretentious attempt at communication I’ve seen since the last Slymepit infestation.
It’s already been pointed out–numerous times–that a serious population bottleneck could not be overcome by the scenario Joshua proposed.
Besides, the point flew right over your head. It’s a thought experiment. You’re supposed to forget the genesis of the scenarios and their lack of realism and accept them as given.
Ormond Otvos @447
What scenario? There is only a skeleton there for a scenario. Joshua even said that we should fill in the blanks on that scenario. How are we to take that to mean anything? Anything and everything, including paranoia, is a justifiable means of determining the answer, because there is no (according to Joshua) right or wrong answer.
What a horrible ally to have in your corner, someone who can’t even keep their defense of anything actually said but must invent a strawman benighted in cardboard armor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
yeah, I know
wikipedia
.
but which kind is Joshua Shaffer using?
I cannot determine…
@Ormond Otvos(#447):
Oh cut the crap with the expensive words. Doesn’t work on me.
First assertion: Flexibility in the postulates, just an assertion unless you prove it. And yes you made the claim, you prove it.
Further you are now stuck proving that it matters that what Hitler thought is paranoid and that what Joshua thinks isn’t.
And you need to do that to make your point instead of just asserting as you have done now.
Worse for you I don’t even have to provide a counter proof since what matters is intent, the intent to prevent extinction.
So bring your proofs that nullify the facts or the connection between the facts but not this handwave crap to just dismiss the argument.
Brive
I did? You must have a focusing problem. Just because I’m in the comments section defending a victim of rape from assholes like you doesn’t mean that I’m accountable for… whatever your fucking point was there.
Do I look like a fucking group to you, imbecile? The reasons I gave are my own. You are too stupid to deal with.
@chigau (違う) (#456):
He claims to be using this link which he didn’t even bother to read except maybe for the first line or two or he’d know what a thought experiment was. Then again it was awfully nice of Google to give a link to a full primer on what constitutes a thought experiment, how to recognize it and so on to make it look like he knew what he’s babbling about. I just wish he’d actually read the thing and did some background reading from the bibliography.
Ormond Otvos the asshole who doesn’t know how to use commenters’ nyms or blockquote to ensure the conversation is easy to follow @452:
I’m glad you found that humorous. It’s possible to think someone is a disgusting fuckwit without hating them. If that’s something you can’t do, then I feel sorry for you.
I love it. You just assert something and it’s automatically true, huh? My statements about him are backed up by the evidence in this thread, i.e. the things he has said. If you think my statements about him are in error, then point out where I’m wrong and explain why. Simply saying “you’re wrong” ain’t going to cut it.
I’ll even help you out-
You say I’m wrong. Scrolling back, I see that I actually am, bc he provided a definition @264. So there’s one thing I’m wrong about.
You claim I’m wrong about this. In SallyStrange’s comment @181, she not only provides a definition of ‘thought experiment’, but also discusses the proper form they should take-a form that Joshua isn’t following. So if I’m wrong, please explain how he has created a valid thought experiment.
You claim I’m wrong here. Please show me where Joshua has provided evidence that saving the human race via raping people is even possible.
Tom Foss points out Joshua’s inconsistencies @413. So does thomasjbarrett @428.
Given the fact that he’s posed a scenario in which human rights are violated (which would mean they aren’t universal), it’s clear he views human rights as context-dependent, rather than universal.
So by all means, demonstrate that my comments (other than the one I’ve admitted) about Joshua are wrong.
457: “the intent to prevent extinction.” Yep, and intent is inscrutable.
Your ball.
There were rape allegations against Krauss? I must have missed that.
I know about misconduct by Krauss that’s been taken very seriously indeed, and I know he’s pals with an admitted ephebephobe, but the Slymepit apparently thinks it knows more than I do.
“False allegations against monopodman”–again, I missed the part where they were determined to be false. Anyway, the point was that Grothe claimed no one had complained of harassment at that TAM. He lied.
As for your incoherent sentence about MS–the details of what Shermer did weren’t lost. It’s true he’s offered two or three incompatible versions of what happened that night–but in none of them was he drunk.
Yup, the allegations against Radford have been withdrawn. Apparently the ‘pit think that somehow proves that people shouldn’t discuss claims of rape, assault, or harrassment.
We already knew they think that “take such claims seriously,” “trust, but verify,” mean “all claimants are always right!!!”
Shoo.
Ormond Otvos #461
I copy/pasted your nym and added the comment number in order to make this comment.
It took about 3 seconds.
Your excuse?
424: By his lights, in his system, Hitler was right. (His system was not our system.)
Joshua posited an extinction event, and by our system, morality is not absolute, ends DO justify the means, and death of the species trumps all.
What a perfect non sequitur.
Can you prove this theory? no of course you can’t.
To say “This is the only way it can be” shows you have a small mind devoid of of creativity and should stay clear of thought experiments to begin with.
The whole thought experiment is a completely bogus for two simple reasons.
First of all, let’s make a similar one. Would I commit false testimony if it was the only means to save innocent people from genocide? Yes. That does not mean false testimony is suddenly okay outside of the context of throwing Nazi death squads off someone’s trail. A thought experiment that is only valid for the event of humanity being on the brink of extinction AND no other course of action but allowing nonconsensual sex being available is basically useless for every situation that does not fit both of those parameters. When humanity is, in fact, close to extinction we can start talking about these bizarre scenarios as if they make any sense.
There’s also the other, unstated assumption that women would necessarily be the victims in that stupid fantasy. Woman on man rape makes babies all the same, idiots.
Poor slyme and their soon to disappear comments. No wonder they need to attack PZ’s relevance to secularism. Between the saga of Anita Saarkesian and GG, all the outing of various sex offenders within atheism, Reddits harassment policy, and the tales of 4chan/ 8 chan , I would say the SJW and feminists faction are making the slyme feel quite threatened. The man tears are, as always, delicious.
There should be a gotcha between bogus and for.
Joshua Shaffer @466
I’m glad someone is telling us to stay away from thought experiments. I bet they’re a real hazard, but I’m not sure, because I haven’t seen one in what seems like ages. If you ever find any, Joshua, be sure to keep us posted!
466: Describe the extinction scenario, using numbers, and current genetic theory in mind. Joshua.
Joshua Shaffer
golly
you just, like, toss these words out
Says the guy who started this whole mess by contriving a ridiculous scenario with a single possible solution.
Damn straight i do, if you provide an answer and say “This is absolutely how it is, so your entire premise is false.”
You’re damn straight i’m going to “toss those words out”
Theory? Kid, it isn’t a theory, and, in science, theories (and hypotheses,) don’t get “proven.” They get strengthened with evidence, or not, but they’re always provisional. Never “proven.”
Anyway. I was relying on previous comments by commenters who presumably know more about population math and extinction threat than I do. My point was that your little scenario is not particularly realistic, but that’s the LEAST problematic thing about it, and I’m not sure why you picked it to respond to.
Now, since you’ve decided to address me–regarding a comment that was not addressed to you–why don’t you address my comment #335, which was addressed to you.
I’ll check back in the morning. Bedtime now.
Ironic that Joshua is dismissive of this idea:
Because he supposes it can’t be proven.
Meanwhile, he feels his idea to repopulate humanity is reasonable, yet hasn’t provided any evidence in support of it being a workable solution.
Joshua Shaffer #475
Are you drunk?
@Ormond Otvos(#461):
Only my ball after you brought those proofs, you know the ones I asked for in the lines you studiously ignored.
That said intent is only inscrutable if it hasn’t been articulated.
And unfortunately for you both sides made their intent clear. To prevent an extinction through any means necessary. You still need to do more then just asserting you are right to get out from the problem that the world has judged that as a big no no.
From these twisted roots, a future Sam Harris may grow.
Anyone got any RoundUp(tm)?
@Ormond Otvos(#464):
Sorry you can’t weasel out of this by stating his system wasn’t your system.
The only way to get out of that is to provide proof Hitlers assertion that to save the Aryan race he was justified to wipe out the Jews (and homosexuals and mentally retarded and gypsies) because for him the ends justified the means and the death of a race trumps all isn’t equivalent to Joshuas and your assertion that to save the human race you are justified to rape because for you and Joshua the ends justify the means and the dead of the human race trumps all.
Whoops forgot this:
Are not equivalent.
brive @480:
You’re just bound and determined to derail this thread, aintcha? I imagine you think that since you’re likely to soon get banned by PZ that you ought to be a pest for as long as you can.
I dunno a lot of people made good points but I keep coming up on one major snag.
mainly that once someone whips their genitalia out in an argument there’s really no reason to consider them anymore.
40 pairs. I wonder how big the groups were? Did they practice consensual sex? Quiverfull doesn’t. Neither do Mormons. Or Muslims. Or Hindus. Culture is a wonderful thing!
http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c
Alert about the lying scumbag Slymer@471 has been sent.
I love how the Slymers take the opportunity to sneak into a thread and post. It’s clear that they can not respect boundaries set by people, and simply MUST comment on anything to do with rape and yet they wonder why people call them rape apologists.
It’s quite clear why Joshua Shaffer came up with his absurd “thought experiment”: it’s an attempt to produce at least onescenario in which rape would be morally acceptable. As to why Shaffer thinks that is a worthwhile goal, we can only speculate.
Clearly it would be most unwise for anyone to turn their back on Mr. Otvos, or let him get them alone or in any sort of vulnerable position.
It’s weird, it’s like brive doesn’t want to be taken seriously, because they don’t use logic or evidence, only assertion. Is that intentional? Why would someone do that? Such a mystery…
Brian Pansky @495:
Pseudoskeptics move in mysterious ways.
Three statements, strung together in the semblance of an argument that is supposed to hang together, and yet each contradicts the other two.
If morality is not absolute, then ends only justify the means if you personally want them to, and the death of the species trumps nothing.
And neither is your idea of a hypothetical survival situation that can be remedied by rape. And not only is there not even a concept of it, there is actually a well established, well researched, and well demonstrated concept in science that shows that it is in fact not possible.
What an intellectual hypocrite you are, Shaffer.
Wait, is Joshua Shaffer the rapist really unclear about basic population ecology?
That’s hilarious.