/r/anarchism discussing morality about rape

...

He's talking specifically about rape. Please go ahead.

...

Rape establishes hierarchy. Hierarchy degrades the ruler and the ruled. I, a self interested egoist will not sacrifice a part of my self for power.

You can literally not rape a woman. They are meant to take penises in their vaginas.

It's what's been happening ever since we crawled out of the ocean. Rape is a fucking spook.

Do you think Mass Rapist pig will drop the soap in prison?

He is a mass rapist plus former cop, it doesn't sound popular in prison.

Yes, rape is one of the worst things you can do. Not the worst but really bad. And I say this as someone who spent a lot of 2015 satisfying my ex's rape fetish. And yes she was a feminist.

He'll go to cushie pig prison and be given a personal cell and personal shower time. He'll be fine.

Rape isn't a problem unless you make it one?

not an argument

I'm a Stirnerite and I'm against rape because I don't like it when people are hurt.

If raping 1 person saves the lives of 100 people, then it is entirely justified.
Doesn't matter, all that counts is the ideal, not the practicalities. Therefore rape can be justified. ergo consequentialism wins again.

Suck it, lowly deon-plebs.

No, I don't see how that dude being in prison makes my life better in any way.

...

i hate Holla Forums sometimes

how ironic
posting a picture of a Roman when the rape of a noblewoman was the catalyst that founded the Roman Republic

Those myths are Roman self reflections from an age where morals had long since died, the late Republic.

Lucius Junius Brutus wasnt a myth lad
they found Tarquins tomb in Corsica

fuck stirner. read žižek, rape apologists deserve life imprisonment

Would you be ok with me raping your mother and sister?

Heboautist, can you put on a trip so that we can block you already?

This, honestly. The sheer vindictive sadism of many people is kind of disconcerting.

hes a fan of stirner
he'd let you take the front bottom while he cut a hole into their chest cavity and fucked them between the ribs

By Jove!

Did you know Vespasian could LITERALLY heal people by laying hands on them?

Are you trying to say he can't, m8e?

spookhurt

a nobleman organising a coup because the prince of his nation raped his sister-in-law, and executing his only two sons for treason is alot more believable than fucking miracles

Consider the following: "raping" women of low morals and standards should be okay, especially if they're very slutty and easy to fuck. If she gets drunk or does drug with you and then have sex, you did nothing wrong.

Want to know how I know you're from Reddit? It's this shit right here.

What if the perpetrator is an oppressed minority?

Believing morals will save you from rape when there is anarchy is spooky. The threat of violence is the only thing holding a large number of people at bay.

Stirner never wrote that rape is okay. Pls, read Stirner before shitposting about him.

He didn't. He wrote that he didn't like to rape, which in stirnerism is no different to stating that you don't like to eat spinach.

how is forcing yourself on someone justified by them doing drugs? i dont get it

there's a reason why nazi's and leftists are largely social outcasts, and you're close to finding out why!

Stirner is garbage and so is anyone who thinks he has any merit

Isn't he that guy who was BTFO by Marx?

I agree that it's bad.
I have to wonder whether it would be quite so bad if society wasn't so collectively spooked on sexual ideology, but being in a position to consider myself an "other" from such ideology inherently renders me unable to comment for a lack of data.

It's one of those questions I prefer to just keep quiet about when it comes up in practical situations. (Which isn't to say I have sympathy for rapists. I just have to wonder if on the whole society being about 70% thinly veiled sex-references contributes both to the negative effect.)

Yes "Saint Max"

I wonder about that too. I mean, looking at history, rape must have been really fucking common. How did women back then deal with it? Was it as big of a deal to them as it is to women today?

Being okay with torture and not rape is spooky bullshit. So it's okay strip someone, beat and mutilate them, but if someone's hand slips to the genital region, suddenly that's inhumane.

...

Fuck I meant

It was much more a fact of life than for many women today. There are even documented instances of women being literally raped–carried off by their abductors–and becoming, apparently, happily married to them. Bride theft was a common practice well into the ancient world, and if Herodotus is to be believed, wasn't considered a big deal. In his Histories he mentions how contemporary Greeks didn't believe that Helen of Troy's abduction was what precipitated the war, because bride theft happened all the time and wasn't considered worth going to war over because everyone did it. It would be like burning your neighbor's house down because he stole your goat. Goats get stolen all the time brah, just steal some of his lambs and teach him a lesson.

Then there are things like the Rape of the Sabine Women, which is one of Rome's founding, if quasi historical, myths.

So really, rape was considered a fact of life, but how seriously it was viewed varied from culture to culture and the customs they had regarding male/female interaction.

...

All Marx did was write a bunch of ad homs against Stirner. I guess that's "BTFO" if you're a Holla Forums shithead.

It's not a spook though, morality doesn't exist. Try thinking first before replying.

Remove that blak flag please. Stirner was a useless retard. At least Thoreau went on to live in the wilderness by himself, unlike Stirner that complained but still enjoyed sucking the good things of industrial society.

Also he was petite bourgeoisie.

this post.
I try to tell this to moralfags all the time. Rape is not good or bad, its a concept. It will be viewed as good or bad or neither by different cultures. Putting people to death because they just so happen to be in a culture that views it as bad is really barbaric.

Women weren't considered fully human back then though. It's not a valid comparison.

poetry.

You are so fucking retarded

waiting for the revolution to improve your material conditions is why marxists are slave moralists to the core

What if the culture of the country or society where the rape occurred is against rape and gives rapists the death penalty?

Only one person makes it a point to mention the fact that he has an identity based on the fact that he is turned on by teenaged girls. That person is you.

lol. Not even close.
Maybe The German Ideology had a bunch of them but his more important works didnt mention stirner at all
for example, just because Neitzsche attacked Schopenhauer doesnt mean all his writings are ad homs vs Schopenhauer.

Stirnerfags aren't smart enough to understand Marx's other works. Give them a break.

Yeah I had to double take on that post, like what. You can't have it both ways.

dropped my flag

WEW LAD
If you read him you would know he says to utilize society for his own ends. And he didn't whine about industrial society, he just criticized cappies.

He worked at a co-operative milk shop, he wasn't petit-bourg. Fucking read him.

Nice reading comprehension dumbass, it was implying all that Marx said was- not "all Marx ever did in his life"

You are also retarded.

Can I have her number?

She's out of your league.

With regards to addressing Stirner that's all he did, which is what that poster was referring to.

Fix your yellow crooked teeth you disgusting britbong.

rape is completely fine. it is merely seizing the means of reproduction. Read marx, faggots.

Are you saying cultural mores affect the interpretation of people's subjective experience?

Given the cyclical nature of sexual abuse– you probably would. "He had a bad childhood" isn't just a meme.

This isn't really correct understanding of "why" but the point is actually more complex than this. Rape is not only viewed differently on a moral level but also understood differently as a concept through periods in history all the way up to the modernism.

The most fundamental change is the idea that rape has A N Y T H I N G to do with consent. For the most part it had everything to do with marriage. It's why today you have flat refusals to recognize the idea of spousal rape outside the west.

Not understanding the relationship between rape and marriage is the telltale sign of a bad historian but as far as it's usefulness to modern day it's limited.

first off all sex with men is rape
second off marriage to a white male is institutionalized rape

No one in the Union of egoists wants to be raped

The union of egoists is a spoke. They can fuck the right off.

Morality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality. Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this “human society,” I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it