You Know, I Really Think We Should Have This Discussion

Explain why rape would be wrong under communist society. Why is rape wrong when a women does not own her own body?

because it's not an autonomous choice. you're manipulating another autonomous agent for your own benefit.
no they're not. and that's why it's generally considered legal to fuck them.

What constitutes an autonomous choice then?

rape is okay as long as you are okay with people raping you

do you want to rape anybody?

this thread
is now




read bordiga

that all parties are equally educated on - and in control of - the exchange or collective action. obviously this won't always be the 100% case but this is how you reasonably determine the degree of its morality.

Zee pee is stored in zee balls.

which is why this doesn't apply to objects, plants, or animals. they can never be as synced with reality as another human, and can't ever make an equally autonomous decision.

So is it sort of like voluntary exchange theory, but with the education added in? How can you ever trust a women though. They are notorious liars, so everything they do is immoral according to you.

Also, femoids are inferior in intelligence to males. What is the border between autonomous and non autonomous?


Because, regardless of the value system: someone owns her body and you'd be defacing their property. Be they her Parents, Spouse, Government or God. Don't disrespect peoples/government/god's property m8.

your classification doesn't matter because there is an overlap.

your blanket statement equally doesn't matter. there are honest women and there are dishonest men. you have failed to say anything even remotely objective.

But there is also an overlap between dogs and humans, since they are both mammals. Where is the border?

You just asserted this without argument. Also, preservation of property after the revolution? How bourgeoisie!

total autism

not in anything quantifiable. maybe in genetic code, but we're not discussing genetics.
we're talking about intelligence, right? I would think Autism Level is currently the only decent way to quantify that.

If that is the case, what is the Autism Level cutoff?

We all know you have autism

I am offended and demand you apologize you impetuous nonce.

there is no cutoff. like I said, it's a way of determining the degree of morality.
there is no cutoff for what's "hot" or what's "cold", there's not a cutoff for the largeness angle of the revolution in a circle.
I'm not in the mood to get into an argument about what's considered "human" and what's not. There are books upon books for you to read about that subject.

But dogs have intelligence, so they too are part of the sliding scale.
In one sentence you admit that we would have to include dogs in our degrees of morality, but in another you say that there is no overlap and that we would therefore not have to. Really glaring contradiction you have going on here.

there is no overlap. do you know what an overlap is?

They overlap in intelligence. Are you saying dogs have no intelligence?

No they aren't, not anymore. flynn effect.