Skip to main content

View Diary: Ux5: Shorter Maine GOP Legislator: Rape should be legal. No, seriously. (329 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Horseshit. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher

    Evolution is true, and our laws against rape are still absolutely logical and correct.

    PART of evolution includes the development of the ability to work together for the common good...which in turn means self-awareness, the ability to think and not simply multiplying mindlessly. If that were the end product of evolution, then single-celled organisms would be as far as we ever made it.

    It's religion which teaches us to "be fruitful and multiply". I could just as easily argue that creationists are the ones arguing that rape should be legalized--and frankly, considering that they tend to be the ones arguing  against abortion even in cases of rape, that's not a road this asshole should be trying to go down.

    •  Yes, but. . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says, qphilo

      My point has to do with intellectual accuracy. And that means addressing what your opponent is actually saying.

      And if you were to argue that religion inevitably leads to a belief that "rape" isn't really wrong, I would not accuse you of saying that rape is OK. I would correctly see that you were using that statement as an argument against religion, not an argument in favor of rape.


    •  You're right about many things (0+ / 0-)

      You are right that at the primary research level, it is generally agreed that there is no biological imperative to maximize the fertilization of as many females as possible.  

      You are also right that there are many routes to altruism that evolution admits.

      If you're wondering why you keep getting these notes, from me and others, it is because you chose to infer -- right in the diary title -- the fallacious conclusion that the speaker actually wants to see rape legalized.  As callous as the speaker is about rape, and as reprehensible as his beliefs are, this is simply not an inference that is licensed.  And I gave you a micro-treatise to help explain the reasons.  

      Conditionals in natural language are funny things.  They aren't just merely truth-functional, but also have a pragmatic component.  For example "if you need anything, my name is Shirley".  Well, heck, I'll bet her name is still Shirley even if I don't need anything.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site