"Even if it were true that 'rock stars' do not have to force anyone to have sex, it does not follow that a 'rock star' did not force someone to have sex."
"The 'rock star' defense relies on a flawed structure, suggesting that not needing to force sex equates to never having done so."
The article critiques the 'rock star defense' employed by R. Kelly's lawyer, which suggests that a rock star does not need to force anyone into sex. The argument claims that being a rock star inherently grants immunity from coercion. However, the author demonstrates that just because someone does not have to force sex doesnât mean they won't; the reasoning is deductively flawed and only superficially resembles valid arguments in logic. The piece underlines the danger of conflating celebrity status with accountability for actions.
Read at A Philosopher's Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]