|
On June 08 2011 01:47 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 21:39 DrOmni wrote:On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..." and "... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings. Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article: "A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations." and "A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms." which sounds a lot like "but simply a bias in interpretation." citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic  Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it. Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging. My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components This is a double standard. Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are. You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females. Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..." and "... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings. Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article: "A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations." and "A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms." which sounds a lot like "but simply a bias in interpretation." citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote:
to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO.. No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another? Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently. Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
Of course it would be true different in the genders where reversed. Where was I not clear about that? This has been my point all along. I believe you did actually take crazy pills 
Meanwhile, I have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, I might be more worried if a boy did something similar, making more of an effort to reach out.
|
On June 08 2011 02:36 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely. All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist. I'm astounded by this line in particular: "it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident." Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
|
On June 08 2011 03:17 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 01:47 Mordiford wrote:On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 21:39 DrOmni wrote:On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:
[quote]
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..." and "... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings. Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article: "A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations." and "A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms." which sounds a lot like "but simply a bias in interpretation." citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it. Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging. My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components This is a double standard. On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:
[quote]
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females. Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..." and "... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings. Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article: "A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations." and "A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms." which sounds a lot like "but simply a bias in interpretation." citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote:
to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO.. No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another? Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently. Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit. Of course it would be true different in the genders where reversed. Where was I not clear about that? This has been my point all along. I believe you did actually take crazy pills Meanwhile, I have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, I might be more worried if a boy did something similar, making more of an effort to reach out.
Wait, so you've been going over why this would be a different case if it were three boys for purpose? How the boy could have enjoyed it(or was more likely to) than a girl at that age? And how ANY of that is relevant to the situation?
I'm thoroughly fucking confused now, I can't tell if you're back-pedalling or just genuinely inconsistent.
So if this exact same thing happened with 3 boys stripping a girl, your reaction would be similar to what it is now? You'd want the boys to receive the same punishment/rehabilitation or what not that the girls are receiving?
Regardless of all this, you still perpetuated a double standard throughout all your posts to this point, I'm so fucking confused right now.
|
On June 08 2011 03:25 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 03:17 Asjo wrote:On June 08 2011 01:47 Mordiford wrote:On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 21:39 DrOmni wrote:On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..." and "... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings. Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article: "A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations." and "A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms." which sounds a lot like "but simply a bias in interpretation." citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it. Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging. My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components This is a double standard. On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. ..." and "... As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings. Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article: "A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations." and "A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms." which sounds a lot like "but simply a bias in interpretation." citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote:
to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO.. No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another? Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently. Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit. Of course it would be true different in the genders where reversed. Where was I not clear about that? This has been my point all along. I believe you did actually take crazy pills Meanwhile, I have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, I might be more worried if a boy did something similar, making more of an effort to reach out. Wait, so you've been going over why this would be a different case if it were three boys for purpose? How the boy could have enjoyed it(or was more likely to) than a girl at that age? And how ANY of that is relevant to the situation? I'm thoroughly fucking confused now, I can't tell if you're back-pedalling or just genuinely inconsistent. So if this exact same thing happened with 3 boys stripping a girl, your reaction would be similar to what it is now? You'd want the boys to receive the same punishment/rehabilitation or what not that the girls are receiving? Regardless of all this, you still perpetuated a double standard throughout all your posts to this point, I'm so fucking confused right now.
haha ... yes, that's why it's a terrible read. And I don't blame you that you have missed out on a few twists and turns through the discussion (well, as long as you don't call me an idiot for your own shortcomings  ). It quickly lost its goal and ended up in an emotional discussion and one of semantics.
The sidetrack that you're referring to was that I was originally trying to point out the ambiguity of the situation by saying that it wasn't inconceivable that the boy actually enjoyed it. This I did both to balance the unnuanced indignation represented in the calls for a jail-time as well as to point out that there could be alternate reasons for the mother of the boy (other than her being a responsible adult, with a sensible and proportionate reaction to the incident) and why it would not necesarily be in the best interests of the boy to start a court case. Here, at long discussion ensued, calling for me to explain how this could even be possible. From the top of my mind, I listed a few reasons as to why it might be different from the boy than a girl in a similar situation. These were then nitpicked, and to expose a few misleading meta-arguements concerning debating, I decided to half-heartedly expand on those reasons when requested to do so.
The other part of the debate that happened has been about explaining the intuitive understanding that people might have of such a situation, why this causes them to react in a particular way, and why it isn't necessarily bad or a double standard.
|
Now imagine if this was 8th grade boys doing this to a girl
:/
|
On June 08 2011 03:45 Asjo wrote:haha ... yes, that's why it's a terrible read. And I don't blame you that you have missed out on a few twists and turns through the discussion (well, as long as you don't call me an idiot for your own shortcomings ). It quickly lost its goal and ended up in an emotional discussion and one of semantics.
Just skimming the last few pages, but I'm fairly certain that the problem is that your stance is illogical and incoherent.
Or maybe I'm simply not getting what you're trying to say. I'm, once again, fairly certain it's the former, but clarification would be nice.
If what you're saying is that you'd approve of the same (or lack) of punishment regardless of gender, then that's reasonable. If you're also saying is that both sexes have, on average, differences, that's also reasonable. If you're saying that the sex differences on average should influence sentencing in individual cases, that's ridiculous.
|
On June 08 2011 03:19 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 02:36 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely. All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist. I'm astounded by this line in particular: "it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident." Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that? I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault".
Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place.
Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused.
|
On June 08 2011 04:04 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 03:19 Asjo wrote:On June 08 2011 02:36 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely. All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist. I'm astounded by this line in particular: "it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident." Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that? I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault". Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place. Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused.
I have explained all these things before - the topic of intent has even been discussed a few pages before this. Your comparison fails because you are comparing a person who did something (manslaughter) with a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse). In the example you mention, if the guy was deemed to be right, it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, by the way.
Let me put it simply for you, since this is mostly just semantics:
Rape/molestation = sexual abuse
Forcefully pulling down someone's pants = prank/bullying
|
On June 08 2011 04:04 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 03:45 Asjo wrote:haha ... yes, that's why it's a terrible read. And I don't blame you that you have missed out on a few twists and turns through the discussion (well, as long as you don't call me an idiot for your own shortcomings ). It quickly lost its goal and ended up in an emotional discussion and one of semantics. Just skimming the last few pages, but I'm fairly certain that the problem is that your stance is illogical and incoherent. Or maybe I'm simply not getting what you're trying to say. I'm, once again, fairly certain it's the former, but clarification would be nice. If what you're saying is that you'd approve of the same (or lack) of punishment regardless of gender, then that's reasonable. If you're also saying is that both sexes have, on average, differences, that's also reasonable. If you're saying that the sex differences on average should influence sentencing in individual cases, that's ridiculous.
I have argued purely from a logical standpoint, even to a degree where I have addressed small things brought up by others in detail, even though they had little relevance to the discissuon. Of course, my reasons for not wanting to punish girls or boys for an incident such as this are probably affected by emtional reasoning to some degree, but it's also partly a moral issue.
If it's hard to follow the line of reasoning, I suggest you start with my first post. That way, it's easier to see what I'm actually saying rather than how my posts are represented by those who seek to "prove me wrong".
|
On June 08 2011 04:12 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:04 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 08 2011 03:19 Asjo wrote:On June 08 2011 02:36 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely. All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist. I'm astounded by this line in particular: "it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident." Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that? I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault". Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place. Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused. I have explained all these things before - the topic of intent has even been discussed a few pages before this. Your comparison fails because you are comparing a person who did something (manslaughter) with a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse). In the example you mention, if the guy was deemed to be right, it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, by the way. Let me put it simply for you, since this is mostly just semantics: Rape/molestation = sexual abuse Forcefully pulling down someone's pants = prank/bullying
Forcefully pulling down someone's pants (while holding them on the ground, video taping it and putting the video on youtube) = molestation. I'll let you do the transitive math.
I don't know what you think is okay to do to other people but frankly I not sure I want to.
In addition either you decided not to read what I wrote or you ability to understand text is a little weak, the situation I specified is one in which:
a) "You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial" -> I think you got this part hurray!
b) " try and convince the judge that ... the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal." -> didn't get this one apparently
c) because "you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed" -> you also skipped over this part.
In addition:
"a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse)."
Really? I'm pretty sure video footage released to the public takes out any form of doubt on whether or not they did it. You could be trying to argue here that what they did wasn't sexual assault but I believe I already covered that and you tried to wave it off as "technicality".
|
On June 08 2011 04:27 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:12 Asjo wrote:On June 08 2011 04:04 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 08 2011 03:19 Asjo wrote:On June 08 2011 02:36 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely. All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist. I'm astounded by this line in particular: "it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident." Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that? I'm not going to bother repeating myself about the double standards. In regards to your second point, however, you seem to be confusing my use of actual "sexual abuse" and was in legal terms could possibly be called "sexual assault". Firstly, I don't see how the future sexual intents of these girls with regards to the victim has any bearing on how what they did to him should be viewed. You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial and try and convince the judge that because you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed that the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal. Similarly the fact that these girls probably have no intent of doing anything further to the kid isn't an excuse for what they did in the first place.Potential for repeat offence is frequently taken into account when deciding the extent of judicial punishment the accused should receive but it has no bearing on whether or not you're guilty in the first place. Secondly, as sexual assault is a subset of sexual abuse my point stands. The kid was sexually abused. I have explained all these things before - the topic of intent has even been discussed a few pages before this. Your comparison fails because you are comparing a person who did something (manslaughter) with a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse). In the example you mention, if the guy was deemed to be right, it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, by the way. Let me put it simply for you, since this is mostly just semantics: Rape/molestation = sexual abuse Forcefully pulling down someone's pants = prank/bullying Forcefully pulling down someone's pants (while holding them on the ground, video taping it and putting the video on youtube) = molestation. I'll let you do the transitive math. I don't know what you think is okay to do to other people but frankly I not sure I want to. In addition either you decided not to read what I wrote or you ability to understand text is a little weak, the situation I specified is one in which: a) "You wouldn't walk into your own murder trial" -> I think you got this part hurray! b) " try and convince the judge that ... the fact that you killed the first guy is no big deal." -> didn't get this one apparently c) because "you have no murderous intent towards the family of the guy you killed" -> you also skipped over this part. In addition: "a person who could have done something (risk of sexual abuse)." Really? I'm pretty sure video footage released to the public takes out any form of doubt on whether or not they did it. You could be trying to argue here that what they did wasn't sexual assault but I believe I already covered that and you tried to wave it off as "technicality".
I assumed that you had just put in unclear terms, with "first guy" referring to "the first member of the family that you killed". Changing your example doesn't really add to the logic of what you're trying to say.
I now get that you're simply, once again, talking of pulling down someone's pants as sexual abuse, even though I clearly use that to refer to other acts, such as rape. I'm not sure why you would willfully mislead me. Regardless, the conclusion still is that this might be "sexual assault" in legal terms, but it isn't sexual abuse in actual terms. I don't see what keeps confusing your here. Either way, it's just a game of words that doesn't really add to the discussion. You're trying to promote your definition because it indicates a great severity. However, it doesn't really change what happened. They did not engage in unnapropriate sexual contact, perform forceful sexual acts, they simply pulled down the pants of the boy. While that might be a terrible experience for the boy, it's still just that. He might suffer the same emotional damage for being laughed at after a school presentation. The reason that it's a serious situation is that it clearly highlights the lacking empathy of the girls, which would be a problem to address. I would tend to agree that the most severe part of the act was them posting it on the internet (something which I also stated earlier in this thread).
|
|
|
I've decided to make a summary post of some interesting points that Asjo has posted since I joined this discussion on about page 32, hopefully this will help him realise the circles he's going in.
Asjo on providing Evidence:
Of course I shouldn't. Scientific proof in no way dictates debates.
Asjo on sexual equality before the law:
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality.
Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different.
People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe.
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Asjo on double standards:
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation.
Asjo on the utility of law when defining sexual assault and/or sexual abuse:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2011 06:34 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:20 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. Ok you just keep going with lines like "Many people will have heard..." and "Generally, people will react very strongly..." without any evidence or citation, statistical or otherwise. But instead of arguing about role reversal and how "Generally people react" I'm just going to throw out there that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care about the perception of the situation because in this incident it was girls bullying boys. So without further ado, here's the Canadian law (where I live, its very similar to the American law on the subject outside of texas...) regarding the qualification of sexual assault: Definition of assault: + Show Spoiler +Assault 265. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Application (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Consent (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. citation: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-83Sexual contact: + Show Spoiler +SEXUAL CONTACT The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s039.htmWhich fairly clearly outlines that "(s)he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" is assault and that furthermore "This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault" whereby consent is defined by "no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant" and furthermore the act becomes sexual by the removal of clothing which falls under "The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of...". To add some additional evidence before I state my point, here's the legal statement of gender equality: + Show Spoiler +Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. citation: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_15Hence, as "Every individual is equal before and under the law ... without discrimination based on ... sex" and as shown above the act which the girls preformed easily qualifies as sexual assault. Given this I don't think anyone should care about your personal rationalisation about hormones, the intent and/or further intent of the girls involved, or whether the double standard is justified; the boy in this article was sexually assaulted which is a criminal offence and should be brought to court in accordance with the law. And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ... Incorrect please see above. Sexual assault is clearly defined outside the bounds of intercourse. I'm not talking about the law in technical terms. I'm talking about the motivation for making such laws and for how they are actually being used and interpreted in practice.
And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ...
I now get that you're simply, once again, talking of pulling down someone's pants as sexual abuse, even though I clearly use that to refer to other acts, such as rape. I'm not sure why you would willfully mislead me. Regardless, the conclusion still is that this might be "sexual assault" in legal terms, but it isn't sexual abuse in actual terms.
That's all I really have to say on this. you've been inconsistent, argued that your common sense should define criminal punishment, promoted double standards endlessly without ever recognising that you're doing it, refused to cite any evidence for anything you say as it "limits discussion", indicated that the law is merely "technical" and has no place in this discussion, and determined that your personal definition of sexual assault and/or abuse should be the defining point of discussion with regards to this thread.
Best of luck to anyone else who tries to say something here.
|
That was disturbing to listen to.
|
I don't see the point of quoting some of my posts only to repeat past points that I have refuted. It's not so strange if you find it hard to follow my reasoning when "I don't want what I talk about to be limited by what I can find scientific articles to support" becomes "science limits discussion"
|
On June 05 2011 14:46 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 14:43 Hakker wrote:
Justice? punishment? they just took the kids clothes off lol
if anything in 5 years he'll look back on how lucky he was.
3 14 year old boys forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old girl, and they go on the sex offenders register. 3 14 year old girls forcibly restrain and remove the clothes of an 11 year old boy, and its a harmless prank that maybe got a little bit out of hand.
This. Those dump b**ches should get punished.
|
The people still debating this have taken the time to actually WATCH the video before making claims of him possibly enjoying the situation, right?
|
On June 08 2011 05:06 dogmeatstew wrote:I've decided to make a summary post of some interesting points that Asjo has posted since I joined this discussion on about page 32, hopefully this will help him realise the circles he's going in. Asjo on providing Evidence: Asjo on sexual equality before the law: Show nested quote +The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. Show nested quote +Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. Show nested quote +People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Show nested quote +No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Show nested quote +Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Show nested quote +The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Asjo on double standards: Asjo on the utility of law when defining sexual assault and/or sexual abuse: + Show Spoiler +On June 07 2011 06:34 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:20 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. Ok you just keep going with lines like "Many people will have heard..." and "Generally, people will react very strongly..." without any evidence or citation, statistical or otherwise. But instead of arguing about role reversal and how "Generally people react" I'm just going to throw out there that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care about the perception of the situation because in this incident it was girls bullying boys. So without further ado, here's the Canadian law (where I live, its very similar to the American law on the subject outside of texas...) regarding the qualification of sexual assault: Definition of assault: + Show Spoiler +Assault 265. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Application (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Consent (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. citation: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-83Sexual contact: + Show Spoiler +SEXUAL CONTACT The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s039.htmWhich fairly clearly outlines that "(s)he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" is assault and that furthermore "This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault" whereby consent is defined by "no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant" and furthermore the act becomes sexual by the removal of clothing which falls under "The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of...". To add some additional evidence before I state my point, here's the legal statement of gender equality: + Show Spoiler +Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. citation: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_15Hence, as "Every individual is equal before and under the law ... without discrimination based on ... sex" and as shown above the act which the girls preformed easily qualifies as sexual assault. Given this I don't think anyone should care about your personal rationalisation about hormones, the intent and/or further intent of the girls involved, or whether the double standard is justified; the boy in this article was sexually assaulted which is a criminal offence and should be brought to court in accordance with the law. And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ... Incorrect please see above. Sexual assault is clearly defined outside the bounds of intercourse. I'm not talking about the law in technical terms. I'm talking about the motivation for making such laws and for how they are actually being used and interpreted in practice. Show nested quote +And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ...
Show nested quote +I now get that you're simply, once again, talking of pulling down someone's pants as sexual abuse, even though I clearly use that to refer to other acts, such as rape. I'm not sure why you would willfully mislead me. Regardless, the conclusion still is that this might be "sexual assault" in legal terms, but it isn't sexual abuse in actual terms. That's all I really have to say on this. you've been inconsistent, argued that your common sense should define criminal punishment, promoted double standards endlessly without ever recognising that you're doing it, refused to cite any evidence for anything you say as it "limits discussion", indicated that the law is merely "technical" and has no place in this discussion, and determined that your personal definition of sexual assault and/or abuse should be the defining point of discussion with regards to this thread. Best of luck to anyone else who tries to say something here.
Pretty much this.
Look over your own post and you'll see how inconsistent you are and how many illogical arguments you make, it's almost incomprehensible and incredibly tiring to go through since every few pages it's on to something new that's completely at odds with what was established to that point.
|
way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
|
On June 08 2011 23:56 splinter9 wrote:
way too many idealistic 16 year old school boys with all the answers in here. In life there are double standards everywhere go learn to live with it.
Can someone please bring up the stats of how many rapes happen women on man vs. Men on women. I don't know the stats by my guess is that they are staggeringly in favour of the latter. You guys can fight it all you want with your revolutionary equal-ism talk. But you just have to realize that boys doing this to a girl is totally different. Mind you its not inexcusable for the girls, to act like this.
For those of you that seem to think men and women are equal, can you explain why i have balls and my wife doesn't?
Another piss poor stereotype here, we aren't all 16 years old. You and your wife are EQUAL in regards to your rights as a person, like me and my wife are EQUAL. Why should what hangs or doesn't hang between your legs allow you to more or less rights? It shouldn't, and doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
