On 12/7/05, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <<http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47735>> > > To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is > committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man > who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the > absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of > sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of > sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a > wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who > insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a > woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be > inherently distasteful. > > ... > > And while "might makes right" is the true essence of atheist amorality, > it is not exactly the most convincing means of attempting to assert the > moral evil of the rapist. As for Utilitarians in a demographically > declining West, it is quite easy to make numerous cases for the > inherent common good of rape on societal and social Darwinist grounds > that are more powerful than the comparatively nebulous cases to the > contrary.
Fool, you aren't advocating this, right? 'Cause there are many arguments on Utilitarian grounds to the contrary. ~Maru Offense by Omission? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
