Valizadeh argued on his blog last year that rape should be legal on private property.I don't agree, but I do have a modest counter-offer. How about if we make it legal to beat people who advocate for legalized rape, provided that it's done on private property? I think it could be a real learning experience that would teach an important lesson about the underlying principle at work in anti-rape laws. I suspect they would discover a new appreciation for that principle from the experience, one that could settle this debate once and for all.
“By attempting to teach men not to rape, what we have actually done is teach women not to care about being raped, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions,” he wrote at the time. “I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property.”
“I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds,” Valizadeh said.
I'm All For Learning Experiences
A pro-rape activist -- no, really -- is organizing events in 43 countries.
How about if we make it legal to beat people who advocate for legalized rape, provided that it's done on private property?
ReplyDeleteEh, it's worth a shot.
Sauce for the goose, and all that.
ReplyDeleteValerie
An idea whose time has come :)
ReplyDeleteHow about if we make it legal to beat people who advocate for legalized rape, provided that it's done on private property?
ReplyDeleteI thought that was already legal...
There's Cass again, advocating violence. *shakes head sadly*
ReplyDeleteI have to say, though, I'm with Ymar on this one.
Tom, that's a good sign to me though, that Cassandra is siding with personal action. She used to believe in the Strength of the Rule of Law so much, that anything and everything was up to the state, not to individuals at all. Obedience to Authority, above all else. Or Obedience to Society at least.
ReplyDelete"Vigilantism" was what Cassandra saw individual action as in the years before, even the "mild" forms advocated by Grim, such as the re introduction of the Code Duello or other such "beat each other up" procedures.
The Leftist alliance's train of utopian doom had already passed the point where beating people up could fix it, even in 2007, as judged by me. So I thought working problems out peacefully was better. If not, Civil War II was it, and it is what it is now after all. There was no "middle ground" for me. Non lethal force vs lethal force, no bar room fights in between.
I would still protect women, children, or other people I have a duty to, on my property or street. Although I don't consider that a brawl. I consider that as non lethal force, for all parties. Because if they do something to make me pull out the lethal force...