|
On August 25 2012 09:46 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:17 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:
[quote]
Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy.
And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true. A half-truth is worse than a lie. It's rhetoric disguised as truth to make it go down easier. The system of laws exists to protect the defendant, to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that innocent people aren't punished. Don't let yourself be focused so much on what is happening with the rapists that you allow miscariages of justice and witchhunts to be conducted. On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true. It's not hard to believe. The problem is that there's just not much that can be done about it. Why? Because proving rape in many cases is hard. In many cases, it is simply impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occured. The only ways to convict in such cases are to either lower the burden of proof in a rape case, or to deny a rape defendant the right to face his accuser. Both of these in the US are unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned, doing either would be antithetical to the pursuit of justice. Rape is a bad thing. But while we're trying to punish the guilty, let's not allow our standards of justice to be compromised. Ugh. Here's the part of my post from the previous page: The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist. The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. This is a legal problem and this is a cultural problem. And whenever it's brought up there's tons of men immediately dismissing it as not a problem. That's also a problem. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/We prove rape all the time and rapists still go free. Okay? And this idea that there is "nothing we can do about it" is very much part of the problem. Repeatedly posting the same link over and over is not going to make me follow it. Indeed, seeing it now for what has to be the 20th time makes me never want to even go to the site. The standard for "proof" in legal matters is conviction. If a defendant was set free, was acquited, then by definition, rape was not proven. There is a difference between "I know he's guilty" and "I can prove he's guilty in a court of law." If the prosection can't make their case for a jury, then it wasn't proven to the degree that the law requires.
Well, go away then. If you're not going to look at a link that precisely shows how we can alter and fix rape laws in legal and correct ways (and why such changes need to be made) then why are you even here talking?
We can institute affirmative consent laws (which is probably the most ridiculous problem with the system). We can change the culture and procedure so that the rapist is actually on trial rather than the rape victim. And we can change the procedure to encourage rape victims to come forward more. We can do all of these things.
But you keep yammering on about how there's nothing we can do. Bullshit.
Edit: I keep posting this link because every single point people keep bringing up in this thread and this debate in general is dealt with and addressed very well by the article. I think 90% of this thread would go a lot smoother if people actually read what was in there.
|
On August 25 2012 09:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:41 Mora wrote:On August 25 2012 07:03 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:
As I have shown countless times in this thread, our rape laws are completely impotent at dealing with rape in every context whatsoever. Rapes are underreported, when they are reported, they are under-prosecuted, and even when they are prosecuted they are under-convicted.
This idea that there are lots of innocent men convicted of rape is absolute nonsense and has no empirical basis whatsoever. Judges and Juries are in absolutely no hurry at all convict rapists even after multiple accusations of rape over and over again. To think our justice system deters rape at all means that you're not informed about reality.
The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist.
The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. I think this is a bit over the top. Prosecuting rape is difficult because evidence for rape is difficult in many cases. The presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove that no consent was given beyond reasonable doubt. There are many cases where it is simply not possible to do so. The only just solution in these cases is to let the defendant go. That's how our justice system works: if the state can't make its burden, the trial is over. The law "is impotent and unfair to rape victims" because it's hard to be fair to them without also undermining the presumption of innocence. It's not a question of the "absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape;" we cannot take a victim of any crime solely at their word. Are there societal problems around rape? Absolutely. But the legal system is designed to protect the rights of the defendant first and foremost. Regardless of the crime. To change that would be to undermine our very system of justice. Very well said. No. Not very well said. Terribly said and horribly misleading. The notion that we can do nothing about this is exactly why nothing is being done about this. There is no particular reason why the law has to be impotent in terms of rape.
What's wrong with what he said? We need to be fair to those accused of rape and sometimes the nature of the crime makes it impossible to gather evidence to sufficiently convict them. It's sad, yes. If I had a daughter I would tell her to be very careful when she choose her friends, but with that being said there is still a very dangerous gray area. Where would you improve the laws?
|
On August 25 2012 09:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:46 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 09:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:17 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are.
People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other.
Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true. A half-truth is worse than a lie. It's rhetoric disguised as truth to make it go down easier. The system of laws exists to protect the defendant, to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that innocent people aren't punished. Don't let yourself be focused so much on what is happening with the rapists that you allow miscariages of justice and witchhunts to be conducted. On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true. It's not hard to believe. The problem is that there's just not much that can be done about it. Why? Because proving rape in many cases is hard. In many cases, it is simply impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occured. The only ways to convict in such cases are to either lower the burden of proof in a rape case, or to deny a rape defendant the right to face his accuser. Both of these in the US are unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned, doing either would be antithetical to the pursuit of justice. Rape is a bad thing. But while we're trying to punish the guilty, let's not allow our standards of justice to be compromised. Ugh. Here's the part of my post from the previous page: The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist. The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. This is a legal problem and this is a cultural problem. And whenever it's brought up there's tons of men immediately dismissing it as not a problem. That's also a problem. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/We prove rape all the time and rapists still go free. Okay? And this idea that there is "nothing we can do about it" is very much part of the problem. Repeatedly posting the same link over and over is not going to make me follow it. Indeed, seeing it now for what has to be the 20th time makes me never want to even go to the site. The standard for "proof" in legal matters is conviction. If a defendant was set free, was acquited, then by definition, rape was not proven. There is a difference between "I know he's guilty" and "I can prove he's guilty in a court of law." If the prosection can't make their case for a jury, then it wasn't proven to the degree that the law requires. Well, go away then. If you're not going to look at a link that precisely shows how we can alter and fix rape laws in legal and correct ways (and why such changes need to be made) then why are you even here talking? We can institute affirmative consent laws (which is probably the most ridiculous problem with the system).
I don't know how that helps. Affirmative consent still allows non-verbal consent. And that's generally where it becomes difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened without consent. Not that verbal consent is any better when it happens in private.
On August 25 2012 09:52 DoubleReed wrote:
We can change the culture and procedure so that the rapist is actually on trial rather than the rape victim.
Again with the language. We don't put rapists on trial; we put defendants on trial. The defendant is not a rapist until the trial is over and the person has been found guilty. Your problem is that you're too focused on "the rapist", a priori ignoring the presumption of innocence that is the fundamental foundation of the US legal system.
You're not going to get justice by assuming that the defendant is guilty.
The defendant is already on trial. There is no way to put the defendant on trial more than they already are without taking away some of their rights. The defense will attack the credibility of witnesses, and in this case, that means the victim. That's what a vigorous defense must do. So long as the facts presented are relevant (rape shield laws exist to prevent irrelevant facts from entering into evidence), this is a perfectly reasonable legal standard.
So what legal procedure do you want to change?
On August 25 2012 09:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And we can change the procedure to encourage rape victims to come forward more.
Again, what do you want to change?
|
NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer.
The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen.
|
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On August 25 2012 10:08 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:46 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 09:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:17 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens.
Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true. A half-truth is worse than a lie. It's rhetoric disguised as truth to make it go down easier. The system of laws exists to protect the defendant, to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that innocent people aren't punished. Don't let yourself be focused so much on what is happening with the rapists that you allow miscariages of justice and witchhunts to be conducted. On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true. It's not hard to believe. The problem is that there's just not much that can be done about it. Why? Because proving rape in many cases is hard. In many cases, it is simply impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occured. The only ways to convict in such cases are to either lower the burden of proof in a rape case, or to deny a rape defendant the right to face his accuser. Both of these in the US are unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned, doing either would be antithetical to the pursuit of justice. Rape is a bad thing. But while we're trying to punish the guilty, let's not allow our standards of justice to be compromised. Ugh. Here's the part of my post from the previous page: The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist. The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. This is a legal problem and this is a cultural problem. And whenever it's brought up there's tons of men immediately dismissing it as not a problem. That's also a problem. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/We prove rape all the time and rapists still go free. Okay? And this idea that there is "nothing we can do about it" is very much part of the problem. Repeatedly posting the same link over and over is not going to make me follow it. Indeed, seeing it now for what has to be the 20th time makes me never want to even go to the site. The standard for "proof" in legal matters is conviction. If a defendant was set free, was acquited, then by definition, rape was not proven. There is a difference between "I know he's guilty" and "I can prove he's guilty in a court of law." If the prosection can't make their case for a jury, then it wasn't proven to the degree that the law requires. Well, go away then. If you're not going to look at a link that precisely shows how we can alter and fix rape laws in legal and correct ways (and why such changes need to be made) then why are you even here talking? We can institute affirmative consent laws (which is probably the most ridiculous problem with the system). I don't know how that helps. Affirmative consent still allows non-verbal consent. And that's generally where it becomes difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened without consent. Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:52 DoubleReed wrote:
We can change the culture and procedure so that the rapist is actually on trial rather than the rape victim. Again with the language. We don't put rapists on trial; we put defendants on trial. The defendant is not a rapist until the trial is over and the person has been found guilty. Your problem is that you're too focused on "the rapist", a priori ignoring the presumption of innocence that is the fundamental foundation of the US legal system. You're not going to get justice by assuming that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is already on trial. There is no way to put the defendant on trial more than they already are without taking away some of their rights. The defense will attack the credibility of witnesses, and in this case, that means the victim. That's what a vigorous defense must do. So long as the facts presented are relevant (rape shield laws exist to prevent irrelevant facts from entering into evidence), this is a perfectly reasonable legal standard. So what legal procedure do you want to change? Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And we can change the procedure to encourage rape victims to come forward more. Again, what do you want to change?
I read the article that was linked by that poster earlier. Was pretty interesting but it was really sticking within the remits of legalistic reform. However if I'm interpreting DoubleReed rightly he seems to stress the importance of the underlying cultural problems, of which legal reforms may mitigate but not solve?
|
On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen.
I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by,
Bitch Magazine
- Bust magazine
- Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com
- Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly
Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place.
|
On August 25 2012 10:27 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen. I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by, Bitch Magazine - Bust magazine - Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com - Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place.
Well if anyone provides a better article, I'd be fine with that too. So far, this is most comprehensive one that's been posted in the entire thread. So w/e.
And the author's probably a lawyer by now? I dunno. Still, there's no way I can properly summarize. NicolBolas would just punch holes in my summarization by things that are addressed in the article so I would have to summarize more. It just wouldn't make any sense.
I mean that's what just happened. I summarized a few things we could change, and he asked me for more specifics. Like it's just such a stupidly indirect way of talking about something.
|
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On August 25 2012 10:27 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen. I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by, Bitch Magazine - Bust magazine - Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com - Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place.
Perhaps your assessment is correct, but at least read the article before weighing in with your thoughts on it perhaps?
|
On August 24 2012 17:56 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
I do appreciate that you at least read through the random sources I gave. I'm disappointed that you didn't really take any of it to heart though and just dismissed most of them outright by having a bar of "evidence" so high that I couldn't conceivably reach it, even if I spent a huge amount of man-hours sifting through things like police reports, depositions etc.
It's not a high bar of evidence. If modern first-world police forces really did frequently engage in victim blaming, as you assert, then surely there would be some sort of numbers or an abundant collection of incidences to corroborate your claim. In reality, you had to pull an article from India to "prove" that it is prevalent; this serves only to reinforce my point that it happens only in developing nations.
Remember, we're not arguing about whether or not it happens. I agree that it does. The real issue is that you seem to think it happens all the time, but you have no proof to show that this is true, while I've carefully explained why your "proof" actually shows the opposite of what you say they do.
On August 24 2012 17:56 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Your amusing remark about supposed third-world countries vs. modern police force is starkly contrasted with the existence of the Slut Walk, which you dismiss as some kind of super-extremist agenda. Even if that was case, the event was started by the exact same attitude in the local police that the Indian police suffered.
Again, the existence of Slutwalk does not imply the prevalence of victim blaming anymore than the existence of Stormfront implies that whites are widely discriminated against. Slutwalk was started by a single incident of victim blaming, which only reinforces my point: even the tiniest bit of victim blaming incites a very strong response, so what in the world makes you think it happens all the time?
On August 24 2012 17:56 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +Nice of you to erase male victims of false accusations. Until you've actually gone through the hellhole that is a false rape accusation, try to refrain from victim blaming. I honestly don't understand what you're responding to in my post. Of course I'd never wish anyone to be a victim of anything, whether it's rape or false accusation of rape. What I was saying here was that celebrities and people in prominent places can have their lives and reputations ruined by things like this, whereas normal citizens, not so much. If some local person is accused of something and acquitted, it's unlikely to follow them around the rest of their life. Whereas with e.g. Michael Jackson, people still talk utter garbage about him even after he's dead.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Use Google to find some stories about victims of false accusations. It's very common, and normal citizens absolutely have their lives ruined by accusations even when acquitted, let alone when they are wrongfully convicted. Assuming that being falsely accused of rape is no big deal is the singularly most ignorant and victim-erasing thing that anyone in this thread has said.
|
On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen. Show nested quote +
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
Show nested quote +PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing.
I don't think anyone disagrees that male entitlement is a real thing, nor do we disagree that victim blaming happens. The issue is that feminists and their white knight supporters think that these and similar things happen all the time, but the statistical data, simple logical reasoning, and any familiarity at all with modern culture explains why this is not the case.
We have murderers out there too, yet no one takes the idea that we have some sort of "murder culture" seriously, and for good reason.
|
On August 25 2012 10:30 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 10:27 McFeser wrote:On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen. I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by, Bitch Magazine - Bust magazine - Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com - Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place. Perhaps your assessment is correct, but at least read the article before weighing in with your thoughts on it perhaps?
I responded when DoubleReed first posted the link here. Of course, he never answered me and instead kept posting the link despite the fact that I've already pointed out why it's terrible.
Simply put, it's a radical feminist article which advocates functionally removing the presumption of innocence in rape trials. If you assume that consent was not given as your starting point, as the radfems argue for, then you are assuming that the defendant is guilty until they prove their innocence (i.e. that consent was given).
|
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On August 25 2012 13:19 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 10:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 25 2012 10:27 McFeser wrote:On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen. I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by, Bitch Magazine - Bust magazine - Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com - Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place. Perhaps your assessment is correct, but at least read the article before weighing in with your thoughts on it perhaps? I responded when DoubleReed first posted the link here. Of course, he never had any response to it and instead kept posting the link despite the fact that I've already pointed out why it's terrible. Simply put, it's a radical feminist article which advocates functionally removing the presumption of innocent in rape trials. If you assume that consent was not given as your starting point, then you are assuming that the defendant is guilty until they prove their innocence (i.e. that consent was given).
Ah well that's a fair response, apologies for missing it.
Personally I don't like to state my feelings on this issue/debate because I am frequently called a 'rape apologist' or even worse the 'kind of person who would rape somebody' by ignorant overly feminist fucktards who have no idea of what they're talking about and spout made-up statistics. At least here the discussion seems to be somewhat civil and relatively productive
|
So I think that there are a several important questions discussed this thread right now, which are being muddled up into one silly argument.
Firstly, "rape" is a term with an obvious definition: coerced sex without consent. If several stories were printed, I think that most people would agree whether it was or was not rape, so that answers the first question.
The second question is the legal definition of "rape," which is much trickier, as no one sentence draws a perfect line in the sand. You must balance false positives (erroneous convictions) with false negatives (erroneous acquittals); US law tries for "innocent until proven guilty" i.e. no false positives.
Third is the culture regarding rape, as in moralizing reality, as in blaming the victim (for dressing that way, etc.). This is a legitimate concern, as it stigmatizes women who step forward about rape, and decreases the likelihood of conviction, which ultimately decreases the reporting rate of rape.
Pervasive in this discussion is the incumbent fear in all men of a false accusation, which is very scary. However, these fears are not exactly legitimate (it's rare, and you really shouldnt be sticking it to crazybitches), but are particularly powerful in "virgin neckbeards" (I regret the term, but it is quite apt) which is a strong strain in the teamliquid community (i apologize for the negative generalization, but TL is a young male's competitive gaming forum). I believe people who aren't as experienced with sexual relations are quicker to postulate situations where they would be accused of rape wrongfully, whereas in reality these situations are mostly ridiculous.
(EDIT: i saw some articles posted but I still dont think that the number of false positives shows meretriciousness of slackening rape definitions. if anything those are just problems in the legal system itself, not of rape laws in particular)
With all these thoughts and emotions circling around the same discussion, then things get a little confusing and argumentative. I think you should separate these points before attacking eachother's arguments.
|
On August 25 2012 13:24 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:19 sunprince wrote:On August 25 2012 10:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 25 2012 10:27 McFeser wrote:On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen. I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by, Bitch Magazine - Bust magazine - Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com - Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place. Perhaps your assessment is correct, but at least read the article before weighing in with your thoughts on it perhaps? I responded when DoubleReed first posted the link here. Of course, he never had any response to it and instead kept posting the link despite the fact that I've already pointed out why it's terrible. Simply put, it's a radical feminist article which advocates functionally removing the presumption of innocent in rape trials. If you assume that consent was not given as your starting point, then you are assuming that the defendant is guilty until they prove their innocence (i.e. that consent was given). Ah well that's a fair response, apologies for missing it. Personally I don't like to state my feelings on this issue/debate because I am frequently called a 'rape apologist' or even worse the 'kind of person who would rape somebody' by ignorant overly feminist fucktards who have no idea of what they're talking about and spout made-up statistics. At least here the discussion seems to be somewhat civil and relatively productive
It's a common feminist shaming tactic, specifically a combination of code orange, code grey, code black, and code white. Unfortunately, if you keep quiet then they've accomplished their goal.
However, I understand where you're coming from, given that their attempts to silence opposition will only escalate, whether by censoring you, harassing you, banning/excommunicating you, disrupt your meetings, doxxing you, making death threats against you and your family, killing your dog, starting a letter writing campaign to deny you promotion/tenure, threaten to bomb your daughters' wedding, etc...
|
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On August 25 2012 13:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 25 2012 13:19 sunprince wrote:On August 25 2012 10:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 25 2012 10:27 McFeser wrote:On August 25 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:NicolBolas, I understand that you are a planeswalker of immense power, but what exactly do you want me to do? Rather than give you a link, would you prefer if I copy/pasted that entire article in this thread? Because you're asking very specific questions which I'm not very good at summarizing because I am not a lawyer. The defendant is not on trial. Not in a rape trial. You are ignoring what actually happens in rape cases. You're going by what you think should happen. I would read the article but I doubt it's credibility. It written by someone who is not even a lawyer yet (meaning they have no experience dealing with actual rape cases), sponsored by an activist who in turn is endorsed by, Bitch Magazine - Bust magazine - Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder and publisher of Racialicious.com - Jean Kilbourne, author of Can’t Buy My Love, So Sexy So Soon, and the creator of the film series Killing Us Softly Which makes it hard to take this website seriously. And it seems ironic that you would hesitant about summarizing the article because your not a lawyer, when not a single lawyer worked on the article in the first place. Perhaps your assessment is correct, but at least read the article before weighing in with your thoughts on it perhaps? I responded when DoubleReed first posted the link here. Of course, he never had any response to it and instead kept posting the link despite the fact that I've already pointed out why it's terrible. Simply put, it's a radical feminist article which advocates functionally removing the presumption of innocent in rape trials. If you assume that consent was not given as your starting point, then you are assuming that the defendant is guilty until they prove their innocence (i.e. that consent was given). Ah well that's a fair response, apologies for missing it. Personally I don't like to state my feelings on this issue/debate because I am frequently called a 'rape apologist' or even worse the 'kind of person who would rape somebody' by ignorant overly feminist fucktards who have no idea of what they're talking about and spout made-up statistics. At least here the discussion seems to be somewhat civil and relatively productive It's a common feminist shaming tactic, specifically a combination of code orange, code grey, code black, and code white. Unfortunately, if you keep quiet then they've accomplished their goal. However, I understand where you're coming from, given that their attempts to silence opposition will only escalate, whether by censoring you, harassing you, banning/excommunicating you, disrupt your meetings, doxxing you, making death threats against you and your family, killing your dog, starting a letter writing campaign to deny you promotion/tenure, threaten to bomb your daughters' wedding, etc...
I find it most annoying because I largely sympathise with a lot of feminist viewpoints, but people like that are morons who make their male 'oppressors' less open to the idea of change, and make moderate sensible people get tarred with the same brush
|
You have no idea how many briefings I have had in the air force about what constitutes "rape".
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 25 2012 13:16 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. I don't think anyone disagrees that male entitlement is a real thing, nor do we disagree that victim blaming happens. The issue is that feminists and their white knight supporters think that these and similar things happen all the time, but the statistical data, simple logical reasoning, and any familiarity at all with modern culture explains why this is not the case. We have murderers out there too, yet no one takes the idea that we have some sort of "murder culture" seriously, and for good reason.
The "nobody says there is a murder culture" argument misses the point. It's not that rape happens, like murder. It's that a lot of members of society will still happily turn around and say "boys will be boys", an apologistic assumption that rape is simply a natural result of gender relations and that women are overreacting, in response to it. It doesn't sum up rape culture but it's a good example of the mentality behind it in my opinion. I can think of no comparable expression regarding murder, murder apologism and downplaying the impact of murder have never been pervasive in the same way.
|
On August 25 2012 13:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:16 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. I don't think anyone disagrees that male entitlement is a real thing, nor do we disagree that victim blaming happens. The issue is that feminists and their white knight supporters think that these and similar things happen all the time, but the statistical data, simple logical reasoning, and any familiarity at all with modern culture explains why this is not the case. We have murderers out there too, yet no one takes the idea that we have some sort of "murder culture" seriously, and for good reason. The "nobody says there is a murder culture" argument misses the point. It's not that rape happens, like murder. It's that a lot of members of society will still happily turn around and say "boys will be boys", an apologistic assumption that rape is simply a natural result of gender relations and that women are overreacting, in response to it.
This is an assumption, one that is not verified by any evidence. Show me evidence that a majority of society are rape apologists, and then you have a legitimate argument. In order for a culture to exist, this would have to be prevalent, but anyone familiar with first-world culture would tell you that most people consider rape the most heinous of crimes.
On August 25 2012 13:58 KwarK wrote:
It doesn't sum up rape culture but it's a good example of the mentality behind it in my opinion. I can think of no comparable expression regarding murder, murder apologism and downplaying the impact of murder have never been pervasive in the same way.
If you buy into loaded feminists statistics regarding rape, then of course legitimate statistics from criminological sources will appear to be downplaying murder. As for apologism, you can see a similar amount of murder "victim blaming" every time a murder happens and people give tips for how to avoid being murdered.
|
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On August 25 2012 13:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:16 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. I don't think anyone disagrees that male entitlement is a real thing, nor do we disagree that victim blaming happens. The issue is that feminists and their white knight supporters think that these and similar things happen all the time, but the statistical data, simple logical reasoning, and any familiarity at all with modern culture explains why this is not the case. We have murderers out there too, yet no one takes the idea that we have some sort of "murder culture" seriously, and for good reason. The "nobody says there is a murder culture" argument misses the point. It's not that rape happens, like murder. It's that a lot of members of society will still happily turn around and say "boys will be boys", an apologistic assumption that rape is simply a natural result of gender relations and that women are overreacting, in response to it. It doesn't sum up rape culture but it's a good example of the mentality behind it in my opinion. I can think of no comparable expression regarding murder, murder apologism and downplaying the impact of murder have never been pervasive in the same way.
I genuinely don't think that mentality is particularly pervasive though, at least coming from my own personal experiences. For example, the mentality that 'she was dressed revealingly, she was asking for it' appears to be on the way out. Not saying that there aren't still residual issues but I feel the pervasiveness of that mentality is exaggerated. Strangely the only 'victim blaming' that I ever see is actually coming from my female friends, not necessarily just in the case of rape, but in the case of partners assaulting them, all that kind of thing.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 25 2012 14:05 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:58 KwarK wrote:On August 25 2012 13:16 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 23:33 KwarK wrote:Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement. I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her). He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing. I don't think anyone disagrees that male entitlement is a real thing, nor do we disagree that victim blaming happens. The issue is that feminists and their white knight supporters think that these and similar things happen all the time, but the statistical data, simple logical reasoning, and any familiarity at all with modern culture explains why this is not the case. We have murderers out there too, yet no one takes the idea that we have some sort of "murder culture" seriously, and for good reason. The "nobody says there is a murder culture" argument misses the point. It's not that rape happens, like murder. It's that a lot of members of society will still happily turn around and say "boys will be boys", an apologistic assumption that rape is simply a natural result of gender relations and that women are overreacting, in response to it. It doesn't sum up rape culture but it's a good example of the mentality behind it in my opinion. I can think of no comparable expression regarding murder, murder apologism and downplaying the impact of murder have never been pervasive in the same way. I genuinely don't think that mentality is particularly pervasive though, at least coming from my own personal experiences. For example, the mentality that 'she was dressed revealingly, she was asking for it' appears to be on the way out. Not saying that there aren't still residual issues but I feel the pervasiveness of that mentality is exaggerated. Strangely the only 'victim blaming' that I ever see is actually coming from my female friends, not necessarily just in the case of rape, but in the case of partners assaulting them, all that kind of thing.
I agree it's on the way out, largely due to the work of feminists pushing for changing views on rape. However victim blaming is still pretty common, there's a dozen examples of people who think it's perfectly acceptable in this topic alone (as well as the guys who are just plain rapists).
The success of the attempts to address rape culture to not add up to a case for denying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
