I didn't think you were; I thought you were implying that Star Wars regularly had that pattern.

Condemn the desire for something, while granting the desire to those denying it.

Exception: The Rebel Alliance wanted freedom from the Empire, and got it.

His frankly obscene antisemitic fantasies don't speak very well for him, either.

There are lots of other ways to interpret it! Forget not the words of the saints, that whenever you think there are two ways something could be, you should look for at least five ways. I'll name one, and let you think of the other two:

3. People who exhibit homosexual behavior do so out of a choice to rebel self-destructively against what would be good for them.

(This is a somewhat secularized version of what I take to be the Catholic Church's position on that particular matter.)

However, I think you mistook my point, which was a sort of self-sampling argument and not an argument about that particular topic. We shouldn't take our own perceptions of what's normal or natural very seriously on topics where we observe that there has been a lot of wibbly-wobbly change in perceptions of what's normal or natural ... because those topics are unusually likely to be ones where we've come to believe an unlikely local myth of normality or naturalness.

I'm not convinced that's actually true these days.

Anecdotes! I have contrary ones.

But what did you think of the Lisak & Miller study, and their definition of rape that you asked about?

There once was a popular perception that homosexuality was against human nature.

Quaint, ain't it?

Which definition of "rapist" was the study using?

Here it is. The interesting part is that they ask men whether they have committed particular acts (see the study for which) that legally constitute rape; they don't ask whether the men think of themselves as rapists.

Edit: also that reminds me of the argument against acceptance of gays based on statistics showing male homosexuals being ten times more to engage in pedophilia than male heterosexuals.

I doubt that claim — and I'm assuming you're using a folk sense of "pedophilia", since clinically that term refers to a predilection rather than an act that a person can engage in.

It seems more likely to me that gay sexual relationships which straddle the legal age of consent (in some states, this can mean an 18-year-old boy with a 17-year-old boyfriend) are many, many times more likely to be treated as a criminal issue than straight sexual relationships with the same age gap.

(Trigger warning for atrocities of war.)

Human soldiers can revolt against their orders, but human soldiers can also decide to commit atrocities beyond their orders. Many of the atrocities of war are specifically human behaviors. A drone may bomb you or shoot you — very effectively — but it is not going to decide to torture you out of boredom, rape you in front of your kids, or cut off your ears for trophies. Some of the worst atrocities of recent wars — Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq — have been things that a killer robot simply isn't going to do outside of anthropomorphized science-fantasy fiction.

The orders given to an autonomous drone, and all of the major steps of its decision-making, can be logged and retained indefinitely. Rather than advocating against autonomous drone warfare, it would be better to advocate for accountable drone warfare.

I find it likely that the percentage of rapists on LessWrong is roughly comparable to the percentage of rapists in U.S. colleges. Maybe a little lower, maybe a little higher, but not significantly different.

Given a base rate of 6%, I'd be astounded if the rate among male Less Wrong commenters were lower than 3% or higher than 8%; and I would dismiss out of hand a claim that it was lower than 1% or higher than 10%.

In general, I expect that rapists (as we're using the term here) are present in any large group, and that I have no way of distinguishing them from non-rapists.

It's to the benefit of women and normal men to develop accurate heuristics to distinguish rapist men from normal men. The "Schrödinger's Rapist" situation results from such heuristics being absent, or unavailable due to lack of information.

(Yes, I feel okay saying that the 94% of men who are not rapists are "normal men" … and that rapists are not.)

One of the bigger heuristics suggested by the Lisak & Miller study is that repeat rapists commit (on average) about ten times as many non-rape violent crimes as normal men do.

Some other studies suggest other heuristics: rapists have more anger and hostility toward women than normal men do, and rapists have less empathy toward women who have been sexually assaulted than normal men do.

You're pretty much advocating spending money to make people either feel guilty about what they choose to eat, or change their diet in ways that they aren't currently willing to do.

This seems like a fully general argument against all moral advocacy whatsoever.