>yes your honor my client IS a rapist, but why OUGHT he be punished?
The ought-is thing is really overblown. It's not like Rousseau's social contract where he wrote a whole book about it. It's just one or two paragraphs as I recall. And he's not saying "you cannot derive an ought from an is" just that many philosophers of his era, owing to a credulity for their own ideas, often do not consider that they are making a very wide move going from is to ought, and yet very few consider that they are doing so
>>24988777well it's more like, "yes your honor, my client does enjoy a right to appeal your verdict, and there's nothing you can say or do to insist that it ought to or ought not to be the case." the is-ought problem doesn't have any real bearing on jurisprudence because jurisprudence is already entirely on the side of the ought. nothing a judge decides pertains to what is - jurisprudence reviews past cases to get a sense of what is only in order to decide whether to preserve it or not - its not as if the existence of the precedent is ever binding on the judgement.
>your honor, my client didn't rape her, but he ought to have
>>24988806lose the to, it's cleaner
For giving women pleasure
>>24988822the reddit post is the most obvious male fantasy I've ever read. Seems like it was written by someone from chan as well>my mouth said no but my well lubricated vagina said yes>I try to be a strong feminist and hate my rapist for forcing me but I think of that night and I get wet.
>>24988822>>24988824>>24988841Well Hume did say we are creatures of passion.
>>24988777>OP is a faggot, therefore he OUGHT to be a faggot! You prefer that?
>>24988841Do men want to get raped as women? The entire way millitary hierarchy is structured and how eager some guys are to be actual gimp kekold bottombitch faggots based on an arbitratry rank system would suggest so.Trvke. All the totallitarian societies in the past had huge issues with FAGGOTS and TRANNIES among the ruling elite which is why they went so hard against "progressive" movements. It's not that nazis just hate fags, they HAVE to hate fags to just barely keep one another away from Cock. The same instinct that drives a man to worship and fellate some fucking "great man" nepobaby is what drives eunuch castratii gimps to take it up the ass. Something something paternal trauma i don't know but the above seems self-evident. Go read Himmler's journals. He'll switch from I'M YOUR TOP GUY HITLER I LOVE BEING AN UBERMANSCHE WE'RE GONNA BUILD THE REICH!! to "Erm.... i-i thought about w-wanting to take dick again..... i'm suuuch a clumsy nazifag... i need a strong man to correct me...!" basically from week to week.It's not exclusive to nazis but anyone hyperfocused on hierarchies is a FAGGOT either on the receiving end or the giving one. It's hierarchical derangement syndrome that forces people to take it up the ass. This includes people who're hyperobsessed on whether men are better than women. The truth of the matter? You're a Faggot capital F for even having the initial instinct to delve deep into such a topic. You have no real self worth. You need women, or someone, some abstract category of another man, to be below you because otherwise you're nothing and will default to your wretched cuckold gimp eunuch ways.
>>2498882118th century people didn't write "clean"
>>>24988821Has the language made naught progress since then?
>>24988777>confusing the idealized philosophical vacuum with basic effects in realityhe raped, he will be punished, according to the general social contract of the masses which is what keeps society going, there is no requirement of "oughts" for that.
for every action, greater or equal reaction.
>>24988777why ought he not?
>>24988822To be honest, shaming women for their biological inclination to accept rape is peak incel psychopathy. From a purely naturalistic perspective, there's nothing the forced female can do other than accept rape to ensure reproduction, it's a disadvantageous position.
>>24988896Ridiculous comeback
>>24988822i'm absolutely positive i could make you orgasm if i had you tied up in my basement, so i guess it's ok for me to tie you up in my basement, fag.
>>24988777I know you probably hate Hume and don't really care what I'm about to say, but I think that if you really think and apply his philosophy you get a pretty interesting answer to the question you seem to be implying.The classic "Hume's guillotine" can be summarized as "there is provable no direct causality between an is and an ought". But Hume took this one step further, going as far as to say that there is no provable causality at all, even between is's and other is's, or oughts and other oughts. This would seem to make life unlivable, as we rely on causality for even very basic things. The solution Hume gives is to simply shrug your shoulders and go on with living life. You have no obligation to prove every single action you partake in from first principles. Hume even said, to paraphrase, that when he's at a party with his friends he doesn't really care or need about the philosophical problems he wrote about, he simply relies on the customs and habits So if the judge Hume was talking to read and understood his work, he could just say "we have a custom of punishing rapists, which I am entrusted and desire to enforce" and have all the proof he needs to bypass Hume's challenge. Hume wasn't really trying to tell people how to live, more just dissecting the assumptions we have and saying "huh that's interesting, maybe we can use that somehow". He didn't believe that his observations really had any direct dominion over everyday life.
>>24988904say you have daddy issues without saying you have daddy issues
