LESSONS IN LOGIC: The “RIGHT” To Rape

This is a lesson in absurdity to illustrate a point.  PLEASE, if you read it, read it all.  That means you have to click the link and READ IT ALL.

Claiming A ‘Right’ To Health Care Is Equivalent To Claiming A ‘Right’ To Rape

NOTE: I shouldn’t have to say this, but, sadly, because of the ignorance of our modern society, it has become necessary to state such clarifications.  The following is meant purely as an illustration to help those who might not fully understand the underlying principles of our debate over whether or not health care is a right.  For the sake of clarity, I am stating – unequivocally – that it is not a right (see: natural vs. civil rights).  And to those who argue that it is or should be, I say that, if you claim health care as a right, then I am claiming the right to rape.

I believe the reason so many people in our society believe that health care is a right is because they have been intentionally deceived.  They have been made ignorant: indoctrinated rather than educated.  As a result, too few Americans still know how to reason through an issue critically.  But, even if this were not the case, we have no assurances that enough people would bother to take the time to do so in this entertainment society of ours.  And all of this is by design.

Our society is being “engineered” by people who believe they can direct the evolution of mankind.  The reason the issue of health care is so critical to their purposes is because it strikes to the heart of every individual.  We all experience serious illness; either personally or through members of our family and loved ones.  So it is an emotional issue to begin with, which opens the door to being able to manipulate public opinion about it.  In short, when it is emotionally charged, we are far less likely to stop and think things through.  And because health care is important to every member of society, it provides the perfect opportunity for control.  But what if it wasn’t health care we were claiming as a right, but the right to sexual gratification and reproduction?

Read the rest.

11 thoughts on “LESSONS IN LOGIC: The “RIGHT” To Rape

  1. this is an excellent post demonstrating how the bourgeoisie concept of right starts to fall apart in the real world. the only difference is that Joe thinks his idea of rights are eternal and divine while some liberal college student also thinks his/er concept of rights are eternal and divine. When in fact rights are personnel concepts they are nothing but an un-scientific opinions that cannot be derived from the material world.

    Rights are opinions not facts. And they should be treated as such.

    capitalism has things in reverse.
    In capitalism you have a bourgeoisie system and concept of rights in which humans try to make the best of it.
    What you should have instead is organize the people into having the ability to influence and create their world and have the people create a system that works.

    In capitalism the idea is to preserve the system and have any goals of the people conform to the system. For instance If the people want universal healthcare, this takes a back seat to the capitalist system. So the people don’t end up accomplishing the goals and have preserved the system.

    In communism. The people decide the goals and institute them. If the people decided to institute universal healthcare they would not be limited by any dead concept of rights or the divine.

    Truly it is communism the unleashes human potential. While capitalism ties them down to private property concepts.

    What is better? A people who decide privacy is important and protect it at any costs. Or a bourgeoisie state that claims to protect privacy, but violates it in order to protect the interest of the elites.
    Joe says democracy is unessential. But democracy is absolutely essential. Without democracy the people will be shut out of their own lives. While the ruling class who claim to protect them and their rights would have free reign.

    Joe your system of bourgeoisie laws and rights have failed and will continue to fail.
    Do you know why?
    Because every gov’t official you are against has sworn a solemn oath to the constitution. the constitution is not a magic document that stops abuses. The people are a real entity that can end abuse of power. That is why democracy is essential
    If you anti-democratic ideals were to go into effect. It would just solidify the powerlessness of the masses and open up more undemocratic unpopular actions(abuses of power).

    • Karl,

      OK, I’ll give you what you want. The bourgeoisie are stronger than your poor prols, so, please, sit in the corner, mind your station in life and stay quiet less they eliminate you. You have no rights, are owed nothing and have no claim to anything you cannot take. The people have no voice, either, so democracy has no more merit than your notion of the people/worker. Everything in this world is nothing, and the only governing force is might-makes-right. And the bourgeoisie is the might, which gives them the right to suppress you and your prolls — because natural selection says they are better than you guys.

      Now, please, don’t bother trying to reply. What you have say is irrelevant. I just explained the logical extension of your argument — based on its fundamental precepts. So, if you try to object, you will actually be admitting your ideas are self-contradictory, and the justification for the things you want and advocate for are actually predicated on the principles of MY paradigm — not yours.

      • The bourgeoisie are not super humans. They are the ruling existing class who exists because capitalism exists. Capitalism will collapse.

        You are right the worker’s have no rights. The workers don’t go around worshipping the feet of Marx waiting for rights to come down from the heavens. Marx never spoke about worker’s rights. I know you have not read Marx because you constantly present a mistaken right-wing funded theories of what Marx actually said.

        In short Marx said capitalism will collapse and the majority class(the proletariat) will form a new economic system based on collective property rather than private property.

        Might doesn’t make right. Might makes might. If I see someone punching a child in the face I certainly disagree with harming our future generations. But does my opinion somehow take a magical form and end child abuse? Does the child’s desire to grow up in a safe environment stop his abuser? Rights do not have an actual effect on the real world. does this mean I agree with whoever wields the might? No.

        By saying might is right you are saying I or anyone else should agree with the mightiest and their course of action.
        This is not what I am saying. I am saying might is might. Rights, opinions, feelings won’t change the world. Regardless if they are law or not.

        You deal in Laws and rights and other subjective notions.
        I deal in facts. Objective facts.
        Marx was not a new Moses, a new moralist, a divine law-giver. He was a social scientist. He saw a pattern of development and change in society. He said the current capitalist system will enjoy a period of prosperity and development, then fall into a period of crises, with each crises following more closely than the last.

        He did not say “Tax corporations at 53 percent, share 25 percent of profits among workers, give college students free birth control, set-up state-level health insurance exchanges.”

        All he said was, I’m paraphrasing “Capitalism followed feudalism, and socialism will follow capitalism and communism will follow socialism.”

  2. “When in fact rights are personnel concepts they are nothing but an un-scientific opinions that cannot be derived from the material world.”
    According to what? Your essentially saying that you cannot prove rights in a test tube, therefore rights don’t exist. Karl, by your own reasoning, your criticism of capitalism and promotion of communism carries no weight since neither can be derived from the material world either. This is the very essence of a lack of understanding in the basic laws of logic that Joe has been saying for a very long time.

    “What is better? A people who decide privacy is important and protect it at any costs. Or a bourgeoisie state that claims to protect privacy, but violates it in order to protect the interest of the elites.”
    Since morals don’t exist and judging something as “better” requires a moral judgement, we have an unqualified and trick question here. There are no grounds to raise this question.

    “Might doesn’t make right. Might makes might. If I see someone punching a child in the face I certainly disagree with harming our future generations. But does my opinion somehow take a magical form and end child abuse? Does the child’s desire to grow up in a safe environment stop his abuser? Rights do not have an actual effect on the real world. does this mean I agree with whoever wields the might? No.”
    Your presumptuous analogy has no merits. We have laws against domestic violence. We have law enforcement offices who enforce those laws. We have a criminal justice system that deals with people who commit domestic. Karl, do you live under a rock or something? In the case of your example, your opinion is irrelevant. The preservation of that child’s rights hasn’t been dispensed for you to preserve. You can cheer on the violator or the victim, but ultimately, your opinion would be irrelevant. Rights do have actual effect in the real world and it’s manifested in one extent to the legal system. Once again, you are looking to apply rights to a materialist perspective, and honestly you are going to come up disappointed since materialism and rights are irrelevant to each other.

    • “According to what? Your essentially saying that you cannot prove rights in a test tube, therefore rights don’t exist. Karl, by your own reasoning, your criticism of capitalism and promotion of communism carries no weight since neither can be derived from the material world either.”

      The economics crises and concentration and consolidation and internationalization of capital. All prove Marx’s analysis were right.

      Since morals don’t exist and judging something as “better” requires a moral judgment, we have an unqualified and trick question here. There are no grounds to raise this question.

      Better means what works better. The question of which engine is better for a small tractor, a v12 gasoline or a 3 cylinder diesel? Does not require a moral judgment. The question, which form of privacy protection is better? also does not require a moral judgment.

      If we had laws and no police officers to enforce them. The laws would be meaningless. It is the might of the police officers that stop law breaking. Not the laws themselves.

      ” your opinion would be irrelevant.”
      This is what I have been saying all along, and rights are opinions.

      • There is no “crisis.” The very word carries the proof of this in its definition. A “crisis” assumes something is wrong, but if the entire world is material, then the current order is the natural order of things, thus, there can be no “crisis.”

        Karl, Marx was wrong. He will always be wrong. He will always be wrong because he ignored too much of our reality — especially human nature. But he also ignored reason, and you have swallowed his error so completely that you now suffer from the same failings.

        • There is nothing wrong with the economic crisis. It was bound to happen. Capitalist say the crisis is wrong and needs to be fixed. Marxists and maybe some other non-capitalist realize capitalist production will produce crisis. Just like it is perfectly natural for a mule to be sterile. We do have a crisis of mule reproduction, but there is nothing wrong or unnatural about it.

          “Karl, Marx was wrong. He will always be wrong. He will always be wrong because he ignored too much of our reality — especially human nature. But he also ignored reason”

          These are just claims, can you please make a blog post presenting evidence. I would be glad to look at the evidence.

          • Karl,

            There can be no crisis — and YOU have said so. You have consistently argued that there is no morality and only the material. Therefore, there can be no “crisis” as the very word implies a judgment or value statement.

            In short, you have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the basics of simple logic — or — a total commitment to deception in order to push your agenda (maybe both???)

            Further dialogue with you is useless. You’re hopelessly lost.

            • There is a crisis of production. There is no need for right and wrong for there to be a crisis. If your house burns down, is that not a crisis?

              You are making no sense. There is no need for morality, gods, free-will, souls, for their to be crisis. A crisis is a physical problem.

  3. If rights were ‘natural’, then we would naturally be appalled at the idea of slavery, rape and murder would be non-existent, and tribes or nations would never contemplate war on one another.
    Your worldview is distorted by the lens of the fairy tales through which you view the world, Joe. Grow up.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.