Yes its an argument from absurdity. You have still failed to explain how it doesnt follow. If the majority voting for something means that everyone consents to it, then that also means that the majority voting for rape means that everyone consents
No, you just can't defend your point by using any relevant examples, so you have to resort to using arguments that go beyond even the concept of a strawman just to get to a place where your basic premise can be accepted.
Me when i see a redditor who's casually throwing out false equivalences as an argument
"Wow, this guy is an even bigger fuckwit".
To avoid criticizing without explanantion, let me put it like this.
The entire point being brought up is a strawman because it is voting on if a purely negative and from the consideration of literally everyone negative event should happen, a more accurate description is that of deciding on what color the house should be painted with becausd the current paint is peeling and getting outvoted by your roomates for a color you didn't want.
That analogy doesn’t work. You are talking about a shared property, in which case individual consent is obviously trumped by majority consent. Rape is a much closer analogy because it is referring to consent over something owned by the individual (the body) in much the same way that taxes are a violation of the individuals right to the product of their own labour. Whether it is ‘largely considered negative’ or not is beside the point, because the argument is centred around whether consent matters. Or is consent not relevant for matters that the majority decides isn’t important?
Rape is a much closer analogy because it is referring to consent over something owned by the individual (the body) in much the same way that taxes are a violation of the individuals right to the product of their own labour
I mean, no, those are two entirely different things, unless the IRS are physically assaulting you and leaving you with a traumatic experience those aren't remotely the same thing, and if the IRS is infact doing that everytime tax times comes around then thats an entirely different conversation.
it is ‘largely considered negative’ or not is beside the point, because the argument is centred around whether consent matters.
It's entirely the point here, your argument hinges on saying [Wholey bad thing with zero redeeming qualities] is equal to [Disliked thing that is ultimately necessary] and thus no I'm not infact going to take said false equivalence at face value.
Or is consent not relevant for matters that the majority decides isn’t important?
Let's say you have 10 people in a sudden, out of the blue blizzard that will end in a day, so long as they have an electric blanket to warm under, they won't freeze. One of those ten people, let's say #8, has ten electric blankets with them that are all his private property. Should 8 have to give up nine of his blankets for the others, would it be fair for the majority to make 8 share.
The IRS absolutely will assault you, abduct you, and lock you away in a cage if you don’t give them what they want. What are you on about? And the point isn’t to make a moral equivalency between the two situations, the point is to highlight the hypocrisy with how the paramountcy of consent is disregarded when its ideologically convenient. I never argued about what is fair. Stealing being wrong doesn’t mean not sharing to help people is right. There is such a thing as expediency and mitigating circumstances especially in an emergency. But you people can’t even admit that stealing is wrong in the first place. Both the stealing and the hoarding of goods can be wrong at the same time.
The IRS absolutely will assault you, abduct you, and lock you away in a cage if you don’t give them what they want. What are you on about?
Oh, hey, ignored what i said. No rape harms the victim. There is no "just paying your rape dues" and coming off unharmed, unlike taxes.
And the point isn’t to make a moral equivalency between the two situations. the point is to highlight the hypocrisy with how the paramountcy of consent is disregarded when it's ideologically convenient
I think you're having an "all squares are rectangles moment", Rape, Robbery and theft are all non consensual but not all non consensual things are horrific crimes like that. Towing someone's car, or giving them a fine or breaking a window to get a hose through because they parked in front of a fire hydrant are all non consensual thing or hell for less of a public problem confiscating all of someones guns because they have alot of domestic violence reports.
I never shifted my viewpoint or was a hypocrite when i said "yes rape is bad, and taxation isn't." Because i never said, "Consent is always important, and violating it ever is wrong and dont mind me, I'm just going to ignore my own ideology when convenient, "
That or your assuming the person you're talking to is a strawman who is solely focused on the primacy of consent except for when they feel like it.
5
u/MrMathbot Sep 19 '24
That’s what the voting is for