Paladin: the Rape Grandfather

wow... you are really trying to stretch this.
if she hasn't fucked you in two months willingly, move on bro. she ain't gonna.

People are allowed to sell rights to information, people are allowed to buy information, why is blackmail therefore frowned upon?

Like, say, actresses with high-powered movie producers?

I don't seek rentals on them to begin with.

Interesting. So you want more intense regulation where sexuality is concerned?[/quote]
so we're no longer moving goal posts, but switching stadiums, eh?


it sounds more like you just want to create conditions where you don't have to accept "no" from a woman.

So, extortion or not?

except it wasn't what the man in power offered to do for their careers, but what refusing him would do to their careers...

if not escorts, how do you get laid?

this?
"We've been going out together for two months. Have sex with me or I'm dating someone else."

empty threat.

she's already getting it from somewhere else anyways.

Well, you did agree that the rules change when sex is involved...

Read it however you like.

So, the former is okay, but the latter is not?

Horizontally.

Because powerful people have expensive secrets.

Bingo...(well, sort of... still kinda icky)

figures

So, the casting couch in Hollywood is okay as long as there are no active reprisals for refusal?

arguably, the casting couch itself is an implication of reprisal.

Fuck no. It could be they just don't want to get hurt so they let you do it. That is not consent. That is rape.

You need to really drink a big old cup of STFU because your responses are not helping your reputation in the slightest.

Now where is old pervy @Asyncritus to tell us all how paladin is right?

So, not bingo now.

was it what weinstein would do for or to their careers?

or what you would do to/for an intern, I suppose

Oh @Fisherman's Worf this thread has just brought the rape tendancies right out of @Paladin .

I thought it was a bit weak at first, but you knew he could not resist telling everyone how powerful and rapey he is.

I totally bow before this amazing troll. This is a great call out thread. The way you get Paladin to meltdown in anger and self humiliation is a work of a true master of their craft. May this thread have many pages.

The company would frown on that, I think.

probably because the power imbalance itself is coercive and rapey....

I think it’s pretty dangerous of you to take on WF’s resident incel.


Stay safe. Stay home.

Hierarchy isn't in itself coercive, and certainly not rapey.

in theory or in practice?

because in practice, that's probably half of it's traditional purpose in the first place.

as you've already taken us into the realm of the absurd, prima nocta?

Any bets on how long before @Paladin starts to post rape porn as examples of what he is talking about?

Let's say you were wealthy, and a woman found out about your wealth and decided to let you have your way with her. You then proceed to enjoy her company. Did you just rape her?

What! oh shit sorry I will go get a mop. Seems like I am just used to any fantasy leading to a spout of COVID isolation joy.........

no, you entered into a consensual transaction.
again, different than the implication of obstructing a career.

speaking of.... how's the wife/beard?

Just wait until you hear my modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people from being a burden to their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public.

Thank you.

I get the impression that you think my comment on deforming a person's statement in order to make a point adressed the underlying thrust of this thread. That is not the case. It only addressed the way of dealing with it.

Let me spell it out clearly using the following argument:

- All dogs have five legs.
- All tables have three legs so they will be stable on the floor.
Therefore, a dog is not a multiplication table.

That "argument" is faulty at all three levels of classical logic:

1) As concerns terms, it commits the fallacy of ambiguity because the meaning of the word "table" shifts between the propositions and the conclusion.
2) Both of the propositions are factually untrue.
3) The form of the argument itself does not validly support the conclusion.

That means that denouncing the argument is thoroughly justified, for a number of reasons, but that does not in any way indicate that such a denunciation implies disagreement with the conclusion. The conclusion, though it does not validly follow from the argument, happens to be perfectly true. (I use the word "happens" purposely...) This is not controversial. This is Logic 101 stuff. I am sure you know it as well as I do.

I get the impression that you are disagreeing with me in this thread because you somehow think that I am agreeing with Paladin's point that Trump has "consent" for his "grab them by the pussy" approach to women. I have already said, and I will state it again very clearly, that that is not what I think. I do not believe Donald Trump is definsible on that point. I think it is an unreasonable stretch for Paladin to pretend he is.

But it is clearly a fallacy to think that a denunciation of the form of an argument implies disagreement with the conclusion. Yet I get the impression that may be the error you are making here. I fully agree that Trump is wrong, that his statements do not imply valid consent, and that Paladin's defense of him could very well imply that there is a serious error in Paladin's own conception of consent. I am not disagreeing with any of that. I am only saying that the form of the argument used here is not valid reasoning, and should not be defended as such.

There are two major reasons for which I denounce this kind of blatantly fallacious "reasoning":

1) Such an approach allows those who have no grasp of sound logic to think that some "point" has been made when in fact there is no valid point there. (Something as silly as the "I don't understand how it happened, therefore aliens" meme, but not done sarcastically.) I don't think I need to point out the multitudinous occasions on which that has happened, and continues to happen, on this board.
2) Such an approach undermines the force of arguments when there is a valid point to be made (as here). It incites those who do not have a grasp of sound logic to focus on an easily refutable point, and think that they have somehow disproven the conclusion because the form of the argument is invalid. Therefore, when you have a valid point to make, it is extremely useful to make it in a valid way, lest you give ammunition to those who don't agree with you.

Not always. Not by any means. Certainly not in the sense that "consent" is used in reference to consent to sexual advances.

Looking forward to it!