• Coben
    I bet there are a few people who would rather have had Bernie Madoff et al betray them sexually than lose their entire wealth and security.Bitter Crank

    Well, that's the thing...how do we measure across crime types? What is the monetary value of a rape?
  • Bartricks
    So, just to be clear, you think that forcing someone to have sex with you is morally indistinct from forcing someone to play tennis with you? Note, the 'other things being equal' clause covers things like amount of force involved etc.

    Well, even if you think that, I think the vast bulk of people do not - their reason tells them that forcing sex on someone is far worse than forcing tennis on them, other things being equal. My evidence for that: most people I have spoken to have said so, and furthermore it is reflected in the laws of most lands, which would punish rape far more severely than forced tennis playing.
  • Bitter Crank
    You did not, could not, or would not read what I wrote.

    2. Bitter Crank is opposed to forcing people to play tennis or to have sex.Bitter Crank
  • Bartricks
    the point, which you seem to be having such a hard time grasping, is that the two are not morally equivalent as any morally sensitive personal recognizes. You, howeve, think there's nothing special about sex. Thus you are committed to the morally silly view that there's no ethical difference between forcing someone to play tennis with you and forcing sex on someone, other things being equal.
  • Serving Zion
    It is the one thing that you own but that belongs solely to the mother of your children.
  • Bitter Crank
    Hey, Bartricks: We're all smart people here. Of course I understand the distinction and moral significance of voluntary sex vs forced sex.

    You are the one that introduced the silly comparison between sex and tennis. I did not.

    Thus you are committed to the morally silly view that there's no ethical difference between forcing someone to play tennis with you and forcing sex on someone, other things being equal.Bartricks

    Don't be tiresome.
  • Bartricks
    that's question begging - I think you demonstrably don't. Look, if other things are equal - so we equalize all other properties, such as psychological fallout and so on - then still, forcing someone to have sex with you is an order of magnitude morally worse than forcing someone to play tennis with you - yes, or no?

    If yes, why? If no - then you hold the view I have attributed to you.
  • Bitter Crank
    Question: Is this some sort of game?
    Answer: The game is getting someone to agree with your non-sensical point.

    Yes, of course. Forced sex is rape and is several magnitudes worse than forcing someone to play tennis with you.

    Why? Because forced sex involves assault and battery, possible injury in the attempt, penetration (or the attempt) of another person's body, a possible pregnancy (which some jurisdictions will force the woman to endure), a denial of the victim's autonomy and dignity, and so on.

    Sex can be a non-unique behavior and still be irrelevant to tennis-playing behavior. There are a million non-unique behaviors that can be sorted into ten thousand categories. Some non-unique behaviors will be completely unrelated (celebrating Mass and playing Monopoly) and some will be more closely related (like fixing a flat tire on a car and changing the car's oil and filter).
  • Bartricks
    I don't think you understand what the 'other things being equal' clause means - it means compare forcing sex on someone with another act that is otherwise identical apart from that it does not involve sex but something else.

    So, let's say I go up to a stranger and stick my finger up their nose. That's wrong, certainly. But not as wrong as I stuck my finger elsewhere, yes?

    Perhaps the latter will cause more long term psychological trauma than the former. But there is no necessity to that, so just imagine that I have a short-term memory-wipe spray, and I spray this into the person's face such that she will forget immediately what I just did. I do this in the nose case and in the other case. So now the psychological fallout will be the same - namely, non-existent.

    Still, it is worse to do the latter than the former, isn't it?

    Why? Both acts involve the same degree of assault, both involve insertion. And in neither case will the affected party remember what happened. So, the difference in their moral wrongness cannot be attributed to any of those features. What, then?
  • Bitter Crank
    You are obsessed. And kind of a pain to be around, what with forcing people to play tennis with you, sticking your finger up their noses and into other orifices, and spraying them in the face.

    You might get more sex AND tennis if you just asked people nicely.
Add a Comment