Well, not all the time.
Or: A plausible defense against random fellatio on the street?
For you see, as per Shaw's riposte ("Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.") to the golden rule, (of which there exist many formulations; the most trite being "He who has the gold, makes the rules" to the more conventional "do to others what you would have them do to you") a more holistic approach to the ethic of reciprocity is required.
A better approach may in fact involve doing unto others as you would think they would want done to them. This helps avoid the differing tastes problem, but yet it overlooks a crucial fact: the lack of easily obtainable information as regarding taste.
This is where the random fellatio on the street comes in (that was a terrible pun). I have it on highly, highly reputable sources that this problem is reaching epidemic proportions. It most likely is the single greatest threat to our productivity (working families) and the glorious new epoch under the RUDDVOLUTION (Party policy dictates it must always be in bold, and always in capitals. Because that is the nature of this change.)
Now, how best can we balance the ethical dilemma of allowing the freedom of random fellatio on the street, with the dangerous possibility of it spiralling out of control? Simple: Large enough data sets. I propose that their be a nationwide census of random fellation, in order to determine whether, we, as a nation, are prepared to abide and tolerate random strangers giving us oral sex. It will be a taxpayer-funded revolution of epic proportions.
And of course, the revolution will be televised.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment