The coexistence of contradictory judgments would be impossible only for a mode of thinking whose ‘correctness’ already presupposes that it proceeds in accordance with the law of non-contradiction, which therefore cannot be derived from the impossibility of such coexistence.
>>524184637
>>524184637shidfard
K
>>524184637Exactly my dude
>>524184637Men’s rights therefore rest on a simple demand: if bodily autonomy and civilian immunity are real principles, they must apply universally. The moral system already recognizes this when it condemns forced childbearing and marital rape as violations of a woman’s bodily autonomy, insisting that “woman’s body, woman’s choice” admits no exception based on necessity, marriage, or social need. In those cases, compelling a woman to use her body against her will is correctly treated as an absolute injustice.Yet the same system compels men to surrender bodily autonomy through conscription, forcing them into violence, exposure to death, and loss of civilian protection. What is defined as an intolerable violation in one case is normalized as duty in the other. These judgments cannot both be universally true. Their coexistence is possible only because bodily autonomy and civilian immunity are not treated as universal principles, but as selectively applied ones.This selective suspension follows a consistent structure: a principle is affirmed, an exception is introduced, and the affected group is reclassified so the principle no longer applies. The contradiction remains, but it is tolerated because consistency is not the criterion—authority and necessity are. The same logic that condemns forced pregnancy while enforcing forced combat reveals that rights are not grounded in universality, but in power.Crucially, this structure also explains why radical escalation becomes intelligible within the system’s own logic. When peaceful demands for equal application of principles are denied, and when the system itself teaches that force, necessity, and reclassification are legitimate tools, extreme responses become structurally predictable rather than morally inexplicable. A framework that selectively suspends rights does not merely permit instability; it produces it.
