|
On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 06 2011 08:03 aidnai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:29 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 07:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him. I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line. So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes? Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems. The guy who shared that 'anecdote' said 90% out, but what he described was 100% out, i.e. the girl was unresponsive/not conscience/unable to make any sort of decision or act of will. How do you know this? And how would she remember it then?
I thought about pointing this out when you kept asking people "what about 2 people that are 90% out". If they are actually able to decide to have sex and physically perform it, it's mutual consent. If they are as wasted as ADL described the girl to be, I guarantee they aren't getting it on and your hypothetical question is meaningless. Where did he describe her level of wasted-ness? I didn't read that anywhere.
Anyway, yes, I believe kwark that he would ban a girl for claiming to have raped a guy, especially if the story was told in the same nonchalant manner. He never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
|
Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you  I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread.
I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened 
Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
|
On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember? I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is. That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen. In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that. We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity. People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
|
On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember? I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened I'm always very good with this, I know. Show nested quote +Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is. That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful. Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves. Show nested quote +example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen. In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge. The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab. The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street. The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it. Show nested quote +Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that. We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person. Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people. Show nested quote +Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity. People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not. I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely. But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
|
On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember? I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened I'm always very good with this, I know. Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is. That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful. Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves. example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen. In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge. The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab. The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street. The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it. Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that. We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person. Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people. Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity. People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not. I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely. But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe. People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people. Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
|
I'm not sure what there is to discuss here, to be honest. People will dress however they want and should be allowed to do so. Whether or not that makes them more likely to be raped doesn't really matter. If a judge or officer said that they deserved it for dressing like sluts or that it factors in a ruling, then that's simply them trying to assert their opinion that people shouldn't dress revealingly, nothing else. In legal terms, there is no difference. No reason to bring out the heavy empirical data here 
Is this thread here to bait would-be rapists or to poke fun at religious activists? I think this gives the discussion quite a different focus that what the topic seems to ask for. That is, the cultural hegemony contested by the "slutfest" event and the scientific fact-checking approach by Silmakuoppaanikinko.
|
On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about.
Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
|
On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
.....
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
Would you care to take the converse, moral relativism, one step further?
If you're being logically consistent, moral relativism means that the acquisition of knowledge is impossible.
If you're tossing concepts/abstractions/universals like 'Good' and 'Evil' out the window, you're also tossing out things like 'Justice' and 'Truth.' Et cetera.
|
On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
He was banned for flaming and insulting, not because of his opinion.
|
On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
The problem is that he's arguing against a position no one is taking (at least, no one who is actually arguing in the thread. What RoosterSamurai (apologies if I spelt this wrong) was arguing is that we actually don't have innate rights, instead we have granted rights. Imagine a society that had no rules against theft. If people take things at will, there can be no right of ownership. If a society doesn't have anti-rape laws, then there isn't a right not to be raped (I'm not saying it isn't immoral, for the record. I'm arguing that there is no right for it not to happen).
In this specific case, the only argument is if it is moral/right/whatever you want to call it to tell women to not dress - for lack of a better word - promiscuously to protect them from rape.
On the argument that it is moral, we have people arguing that:
1) It mitigates the issue without causing undue harm to the subjects.
2) Common Sense suggests that it can lead to the issue in some cases.
Against it, we have:
1) There is no proof of correlation between dressing promiscuously and being raped.
2) People have rights to dress however they wish.
You'll notice that in these arguments, neither side is saying "the woman asked for it because of her dress." The side arguing that it is a fair request, which is the closest to that point, is simply saying that it could lower the chance of rape, and no one is hurt for wearing less promiscuous clothing until the rapist is caught.
In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
|
On April 06 2011 09:37 Enyalus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
.....
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
Would you care to take the converse, moral relativism, one step further? If you're being logically consistent, moral relativism means that the acquisition of knowledge is impossible. If you're tossing concepts/abstractions/universals like 'Good' and 'Evil' out the window, you're also tossing out things like 'Justice' and 'Truth.' Et cetera. I am, I don't believe in either per se. Or to be more correct, I am ignostic with respect to such concepts, extremely fancy word going one step further than 'agnostic' which means 'What these terms mean is so vague and so ill-defined that I can't even say that I don't know if they exist because I don't know well enough what they would mean.'
I mean, how can you even debate if such things as truth or justice exist, the concepts are too vague to be philosophically defined?
Even worse, define what it means for something to exist?
|
On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Sorry for a possible derailment, but you've got to be kidding me. The opinion that the "right to dress slutty isn't a civil right milestone " is in no way deserving of such a tone. Nor is it acceptable to call people "misogynist assholes", especially in a thread asking for "mature discussion" which is what the ban was for.
I'm not going to start on the actual claims ToxNub is making, whatever he/she is reading into Rsamurais post, I myself don't see that there at all, but I guess that's subjective.
In any way someone has serious anger management issues there.
On the topic itself, it seems to me just like the advice to not leave your purse or mobile lying in the car.
Yes, you should be able to leave anything in your car and not have it get stolen, but it is assumed that doing so increases the chance for your car being broken into.
Now while I am not sure if there actually is a corellation between "dressing slutty"/temptation and a rape occuring, the police officer seems to make that connection and thus gives said inflamatory advice. I don't get the outrage.
|
On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
This has nothing to do with women's rights...
On April 06 2011 09:37 Enyalus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
.....
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
Would you care to take the converse, moral relativism, one step further? If you're being logically consistent, moral relativism means that the acquisition of knowledge is impossible. If you're tossing concepts/abstractions/universals like 'Good' and 'Evil' out the window, you're also tossing out things like 'Justice' and 'Truth.' Et cetera.
Justice is based off our desire for vengeance. Truth can be objectively verified. Good and evil are constructs of our mind to describe things that are harmful and beneficial to us.
|
On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember? I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened I'm always very good with this, I know. Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is. That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful. Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves. example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen. In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge. The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab. The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street. The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it. Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that. We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person. Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people. Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity. People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not. I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely. But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe. People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people. Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this. Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing? You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple. Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious, but i think we can include slavery and torture. I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
|
On April 06 2011 10:05 buhhy wrote:
Justice is based off our desire for vengeance. Then surely it is relative?
Truth can be objectively verified. Lol no. Not in the empirical sense, only in formal sciences like maths, whose concept of 'truth' is also quite different from what you are accustomed to.
Good and evil are constructs of our mind to describe things that are harmful and beneficial to us. Oh lol no. People are often quite autodestructive and do the reverse which would benefit them and are too stubborn to realize it.
Most people wouldn't exactly consider voting republican a great evil or anything, it's still a bit autodestructive.
On April 06 2011 10:12 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember? I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened I'm always very good with this, I know. Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is. That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful. Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves. example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen. In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge. The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab. The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street. The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it. Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that. We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person. Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people. Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity. People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not. I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely. But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe. People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people. Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this. Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing? You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple. Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism? No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious Not at all, how about being murdered in sleep? In some cases, murder may be utilitarian, say a person who is hated so much that his murder actually brings more joy than it brings suffering. How about drugging someone and raping them without them ever knowing? How about murdering a person who is highly suicidal but doesn't have the capacity to take his or her own life.
Also, in nearly all cases, to make one person suffer means to bring joy to another person and the reverse. A lot of murderers enjoy the thrill of murder. Also, if you enjoy hamburgers, well, you get where I'm getting at.
but i think we can include slavery Slavery if anything brings joy to the majority. Like this guy from outer space with the pointy ears once said 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.', surely not that unreasonable a standpoint?
and torture Imagine the joy George II of America must have felt after torture brought him a possible Al-Qaeda link.
I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world. You know that all these things you listed where not considered morally bad in a lot of cultures. Indeed, in the one culture which formed the template of our modern legal system, democracy, and "freedom of speech".
|
On April 06 2011 10:12 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense. I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice. What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically. Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really. I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim. I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it. Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus. Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs. In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup. You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things. If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired. It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway. Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law. Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway. It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.) There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people. did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed : self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands? What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'. And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal. And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything. Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all. Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things. Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape. Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function? You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally. Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone. It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible. And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case. I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time. And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know. What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember? I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened I'm always very good with this, I know. Just to clarify,
"Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'"
was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else.
And the law is here to define what "harm" is. That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful. Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves. example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen. In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge. The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab. The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street. The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it. Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that. We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person. Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people. Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity. People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not. I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely. But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe. People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people. Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this. Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing? You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple. Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism? No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious, but i think we can include slavery and torture. I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
What about Sparta, where weak and deformed babies were killed, and all males are soldiers? What about the mongolians, who left heaps of severed heads in villages they conquered?
What about the samurai, who would commit suicide at the slightest dishonor?
Aztecs? Cannibals? Romans? Pirates? Some South American tribe that celebrates rite of passage by covering one's hands with thousands of poisonous ants?
Morals are ever shifting, and are constructs of society and parenting. They are hardly absolute. Don't forget, wearing skirts that ended above the knees used to be considered immoral, same with sex before marriage.
|
On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Honestly rape is wrong. Period.
Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
|
On April 06 2011 10:26 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 10:05 buhhy wrote:
Justice is based off our desire for vengeance. Then surely it is relative?
I am saying that justice is completely relative. We are on the same page.
On April 06 2011 10:26 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Lol no. Not in the empirical sense, only in formal sciences like maths, whose concept of 'truth' is also quite different from what you are accustomed to.
EDIT: lol I'm a retard, you're right.
On April 06 2011 10:26 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +Good and evil are constructs of our mind to describe things that are harmful and beneficial to us. Oh lol no. People are often quite autodestructive and do the reverse which would benefit them and are too stubborn to realize it. Most people wouldn't exactly consider voting republican a great evil or anything, it's still a bit autodestructive.
But people are still acting in the way THEY perceive is beneficial. How would you define good and evil?
|
On April 06 2011 10:32 buhhy wrote:
But people are still acting in the way THEY perceive is beneficial. How would you define good and evil? Like I said I don't define it, I don't know what it means, it's too vague, they are meaningless words and therefore I can't even answer if such concepts exist before a proper definition arises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
