Where do we draw the line on freedom?
We shouldn't yell “fire” in a crowded theater (especially with
NRA members around), but there are areas where the limits of freedom
are not so clear. For instance, getting into a car.
Should a person be allowed to get into
a back seat? What if there's another person in there too, should the
law step in then? What if they were drunk during the commission of
this act? For that matter, should a person be allowed to get drunk in
the first place?
Some feel that these actions exceed the
limits of freedom and that anyone who gets into the back seat of a
car should suffer some consequences, like say being violently raped.
That is the opinion of ancephalic
menstrual clot James Taranto, whom the WSJ, incredible as it seems,
pays. Their money got them a
delusional failure at attempting to join a debate on whether a
commander should have authority to overrule a formal court-martial.
On this complex legal question, mister Ambulatory Bloody Discharge
opined, in summary:
Woman. Pussy. Me want fuck. Y U no let me. U mean. BWAAAHHH.
When rational human beings called him
on his misogyny, he interrupted his fapping to stories of Ariel Castro to explain(sic) that a woman blocking
another woman's advancement is a “war on men”, that
started in the 60's when women
wanted freedom to get in a car with their co-workers without
getting raped.
they wanted sexual freedom. Well what is female sexual freedom? It means, for this woman, that she had the freedom to get drunk, and to get in the backseat of the car with this guy.
Which brings me back to my original
question. Is it reasonable to allow a person the freedom to get into
a car? I'd say any person should have that freedom. Hell, even the freedom to get drunk if they want.
(Although, if the person was James Taranto, he's not getting in any car I'm in.)
No comments:
Post a Comment