The original comment is creepy but the response is nonsense. Are you, the reader of my comment, doing everything possible to prevent rape? Really, everything? Do you ever sleep? Well then, what a weird way of saying you’re ok with rape.
You have a point, but you chose the wrong argument. Drag disagrees with you, but wants to see people discuss the best version of your argument, so:
As long as giving birth is legal, then rape victims will give birth to rape babies. They’ll be pressured into it, or lack education, or develop an attachment to the baby. If we as a society have decided rape babies should never be born, and there is no acceptable circumstance, then we should simply outlaw giving birth. If it’s illegal to have a baby, there will be no rape babies. This is the only way to stop all of them.
If you think making birth illegal is a bad idea, because you think restricting everyone’s liberty is worse than letting rape victims give birth to rape babies, then there is a situation where you think rape babies are an acceptable sacrifice. This isn’t a judgement, it’s just a point about the reply in the image. Everyone is willing to accept rape babies in some situations. The reply is hypocrisy.
This reads like mental gymnastics to blame everyone but rapists for this problem. Obviously the victim should have the right to choose what to do like they should be able to if they have sex with someone, and me saying that doesn’t make me “okay with rape” or “okay with rape babies”. The comment you’re replying to is a shit take and I don’t get why you would take the time to try to rewrite it in order to defend it.
Drag didn’t do it to help the author of the shitty comment, but to help us.
When we’re arguing against bad ideas, especially when we’re doing so in a place where our ideas are predominant, we should be arguing against the strongest possible version of the ideas. If you get used to arguing with a strawman version of the argument, when faced with a smart person who actually has those ideas you may get entirely trampled and their ideas appear to onlookers as the better ones. This is applying the principle of charity, but it’s also a way to improve the strength of our own arguments.
The original comment is creepy but the response is nonsense. Are you, the reader of my comment, doing everything possible to prevent rape? Really, everything? Do you ever sleep? Well then, what a weird way of saying you’re ok with rape.
Shut up, trash mouth. Think before you speak.
Huh.
Are you doing, um, anything to even help? I doubt it.
Besides, what a pants a fire level of stupid you’re putting on display. Since I sleep, I’m also ok with rape?
What the fuck ever. Weirdo.
You have a point, but you chose the wrong argument. Drag disagrees with you, but wants to see people discuss the best version of your argument, so:
This reads like mental gymnastics to blame everyone but rapists for this problem. Obviously the victim should have the right to choose what to do like they should be able to if they have sex with someone, and me saying that doesn’t make me “okay with rape” or “okay with rape babies”. The comment you’re replying to is a shit take and I don’t get why you would take the time to try to rewrite it in order to defend it.
Drag didn’t do it to help the author of the shitty comment, but to help us.
When we’re arguing against bad ideas, especially when we’re doing so in a place where our ideas are predominant, we should be arguing against the strongest possible version of the ideas. If you get used to arguing with a strawman version of the argument, when faced with a smart person who actually has those ideas you may get entirely trampled and their ideas appear to onlookers as the better ones. This is applying the principle of charity, but it’s also a way to improve the strength of our own arguments.
Drag doesn’t like seeing people be misunderstood.