User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 281

  1. #201
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    No. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. I told you that reforming that stuff and not fucking over rape victims is not mutually exclusive. You are unable to bring yourself to hear me, so you don't get any more of my time or effort.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  2. #202
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nijntje View Post
    It's okay boys, i got you covered.

    Read on to find out if she's making a false rape accusation.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/6886/3-...ape-accusation














    so there you have it. You can't be raped by someone you know, and if there's no signs of violent struggle you haven't been raped.

    hope that helps everyone get some clarification on the issue.



    What also might help is this handy guide on how to get past her last minute resistance to sex, when she's saying no, but her body says YES.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/26385/w...r-no-means-yes


    Enjoy.*











    *Disclaimer: this is posted in utter jest, the things described in these articles make my skin crawl.
    Ok, that's rape culture.

    The article in op extrapolated a lot though. Like, if I had a daughter, I'd advise her to take precautions because I'd care about her enough to want that risk as minimized as possible. And I'd be supposedly perpretating rape culture according to the article.

    It is indirectly encouraging reckless behavior, as well as reckless parenting.

  3. #203
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Anyone who says there need to be signs of a struggle for rape to have actually happened is unequivocally wrong (and also, these people make me want to give up on humanity, like, so hard).

    "Why didn't she fight back?" is a common question that even well-meaning people have when they're trying to puzzle out in their heads how this horrible thing might have been prevented, or, in the less excusable alternative, when they're trying to figure out what they believe. To prove these people haven't actually thought so hard about how rapes actually go down, let me rely on Captain Akward's explanation:

    When somebody you knew, somebody you trusted, does something so frighteningly outside the boundaries of normal and expected behavior, that person becomes a stranger who is capable of anything. And, more importantly, a stranger who has already proven that they are willing to do anything….

    This is why a rapist does not have to be physically violent, or state in clear terms that he intends physical violence, for forceful rape to occur….Before I thought very much about this, and before it happened to me, I thought rape victims had two very clear options:

    1. “Allow” themselves to be raped
    2. Fight their rapist off and possibly get away


    But the options are actually:

    1. “Allow” yourself to be raped
    2. Fight your rapist off and possibly get away
    3. Attempt to fight your rapist off and escalate a somewhat or relatively physically painless event that will probably be over in ten minutes into something that may take much longer and cause you to bleed a lot, or maybe even die


    … A victim doesn’t know their rapist is capable of rape until a rape begins; and once a victim knows that, they have no idea what else their rapist is capable of. A rapist does not have to threaten further violence. The rape is threat enough.
    http://captainawkward.com/2011/02/21/rape-awkward/

    I also think a ton of rapists are allowed to get away with pushing the boundaries of their victims and systematically singling them out as targets because of the desire to Not Make Drama and to believe, as we all want to believe, that all rapists are the back-alley psychos, that they somehow all have RAPIST written on their faces because, c'mon, who can't spot a rapist?

    But the fact is that lots of rapists are likeable, funny, sociable people, people who seem to have respectable values and smile at children and love their dogs/mothers/friends. And people really have a hard time taking women at their word, even women who are their friends also, because they "don't know what to believe." It happens over, and over, and over again. My dad didn't even believe my mom when she said one of their mutual male friends had tried to assault her one night while everyone was drunk, but he believed it eventually after my step-mom, years later, told him it had happened to her, too. Turns out the guy had been doing it for years to various women in the social group. That guy did eventually get kicked out of the group, but the fact that it took years, and presumably many women being consistently and repeatedly sushed, ignored, disbelieved, or even kicked out of the group because they decided to tell someone and it backfired, says something very painful about how infrequently women even want to tell someone, even their own friends, when something like this happens to them because they know there's always the chance they might not be believed.

    Why is disbelief the default reaction when a girl says she was raped? There's another great excerpt from another blog I don't have time to locate again that helps explain it.

    It Can’t All Be On The Survivors
    I’ve seen the following two things happen:

    (1) someone gets sexually assaulted, whether raped or violated in another way, and people say to the survivor, “you have to do something! If you don’t do something, who will protect the next victim?”

    (2) someone gets sexually assaulted, whether raped or violated in another way, and the survivor yells and shouts for people to deal with it, and the people who are friendly with both the survivor and the violator shrug their shoulders and try to stay “neutral.”

    What these two things have in common is that in each case, the people around the situation place all the responsibility on the person who most needs help and can least be expected to go it alone.

    …Confronting people is emotionally taxing, and it often irreparably ends the friendship. In fact, about something as serious as rape, it invariably irreparably alters the friendship. If you believe that your friend raped your other friend, and you say, “hey, you raped my friend,” then the old friendship is gone forever as soon as the words leave your mouth. What remains is either enmity, or a relationship of holding someone accountable, just as tough and taxing as staying friends with a substance abuser who is trying to get clean and sober. That’s not easy. That’s a lot of work, and most people are not up for it.

    The option most people choose, because it gets them out of that, is to choose to not make up their minds about what happened…

    …Just think about that. ”Hey, you’re still friends with Boris. But X said Boris raped her.” ”Well yeah, but I don’t know what to believe.” ”Well, but you know what Y said, and Y’s account was a lot like X’s.” ”Yeah, but I don’t know what to believe.” ”But Z said Boris violated consent, too, and that’s three people …” “Well, I’ve been friends with Boris a long time, so I kind of don’t know what to think …” (Trust me when I tell you, folks, I’m not making that up.)

    What can you do tomorrow? Don’t let your communities do that shit. Hold your friends to a higher standard.
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  4. #204
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    What could or could not happen does not matter. In a courtroom, neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof. "Protecting the innocent" is to protect the defendant from injustice, and a courtroom has to be a closed system with only the defendant and the evidence against them.
    You seek to turn the standard of proof into something dependent on utility, thereby stripping presumption of innocence of its protection as a fundamental right, all in in the name of the victim. Taking this to its logical conclusion: The more heinous the crime, the easier the burden of proof will be.
    You're lumping things together, that itself is being challenged. Just to be clear: presumption of innocence merely states that a defendant is presumed innocent until found guilty by whatever relevant standard of proof is applied, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutors. The standard of proof, itself, is not an universal one. Different legal systems have different standards of proof for criminal proceedings.

    Your assumption, therefore, is that "beyond a resonable doubt" as the standard of proof is, itself, ideal and without faults. As, it "protects the innocent" defendant, which is the only thing that matters (your priority). My argument is that the standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has issues with it, that biases the case in the favour of the defendant. That is not justice for all. That is gaps in the justice (system) defaulting in favour of the defendant.

    Tell me, 12 jurors try Case A, and 12 different jurors try Case A again. Will they all have the same definition of what constitutes, "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" doubt? I've heard that judges are instructed against defining it, when asked by jurors to clarify, because it might bias the juror's pre-existing comprehension about it. It's said to be self-evident but it is not. Even the jurors are not asked, if they think they have unreasonable doubt, why that is, to outline their reasoning. Leading to vague and ill-defined terms. It introduces variability.

    But I say Justice can only be dealt when guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt - not on the basis of the utility of a conviction.
    You expect me to perceive this as some moral dilemma, but I do not. If the evidence doesn't lead the jury to believe the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then justice will not be done. 100-to-1, 1-to-1, or 1-to-100, it must not matter. The only thing that does matter is guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    Why? You're just telling me how the current legal system is, and when asked to defend it, the reasoning above equates to, "it is what it is, because it should be as it is."

    Thinking of it like so: false positive (innocent is found guilty), false negative (guilty is found innocent), true positive (guilty found guilty) and true negative (innocent found innocent). Four possible outcomes in a trial.

    Why should the utilities of the four possible outcomes not be considered, when determining acceptable ratios of errors? Why shouldn't we have a moral perogative to determine a reasonable value for this ratio? Why must the "ratio not matter"? Voltaire had it at 2:1, Blackstone at 10:1. Given such analyses, why should a standard of proof not be determined through this evaluation? It's an order of magnitude. You're making something black and white, which itself, is inherently vague, and given its vagueness favours one side over the other. Because one side "deserves it more". By what magnitude? As a society, it does cost us, when not taking utility into account. Okay, false positives costs us more than false negatives, but how much so? "More" is a comparable term. If false negatives did not cost us at all, I can see the reasoning behind your black and white view. As it wouldn't be a question of "more", just cost/no cost.


    Qre:us: I mean, why not take it to its extreme, as a thought experiment? If we stop persecuting people for committing murder, then sure murderers will walk free, but at least the innocents falsely accused won't be mistakenly found guilty. Right?
    SmileyMan: Or, as an equally useful alternative, let's assume every person accused of committing a murder is guilty by default.
    Again, this doesn't follow my example. I'm not questioning whether the burden of proof should be on the prosecutors versus the defendants. I actually made no direct commentary on challenging "innocent until proven guilty". Just on the standard of proof currently being utilized.


    As long as guilt is established beyond any reasonable doubt, just like it has to be for any other crime.
    This is an is, ought fallacy. It is this way, so it has to be this way. That was my initial response to you: why can't the current standard of proof be challenged? You're defending it by saying, well, it is what it is, so it should be that way.

    Then, there's also rules of evidence and procedural issues, that influence the errors occuring in trials, skewing it to favour the defendant, once again (increasing the likelihood of false acquittals). These are not neutral to both parties: the defendant or the prosecutor. It favours one over the other. Why? Shouldn't the jurors be allowed to have all evidence to base their decision? But, it's not. A defendant's prior convictions, I believe, are *usually* inadmissable.

    There's issues with the legal system, which becomes hairy, especially with rape cases. Something as basic as the crime having taken place is called into question: murder, more likely to be self-evident (the dude is dead), robbery, self-evident, rape, if they didn't go to the Dr's quickly enough, or had physical proof of the rape, the fact that the rape happened, in the first place (as distinct from sex), becomes the issue: a whole layer added, even before getting to whether it was the defendant who did it. The "proof beyond a resonable doubt", then, makes it really, really unfair for such cases.

  5. #205
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The "proof beyond a resonable doubt", then, makes it really, really unfair for such cases.
    Which sucks, but a defendant deserves no fewer protections just because evidence for some crimes is difficult for the state to produce, nor does it justify diluting the burden of proof and thereby endangering centuries of progress in protecting people from the overwhelming power of the state to produce convenient, rather than accurate, convictions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is like broadly defined "democracy"; the worst system in the world.....except for all the others.

  6. #206
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    No. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. I told you that reforming that stuff and not fucking over rape victims is not mutually exclusive. You are unable to bring yourself to hear me, so you don't get any more of my time or effort.
    So then if this is so, how do you think that the legal system should be reformed specifically?

  7. #207
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    @Mempy

    Anyone who says there need to be signs of a struggle for rape to have actually happened is unequivocally wrong (and also, these people make me want to give up on humanity, like, so hard).

    "Why didn't she fight back?" is a common question that even well-meaning people have when they're trying to puzzle out in their heads how this horrible thing might have been prevented, or, in the less excusable alternative, when they're trying to figure out what they believe. To prove these people haven't actually thought so hard about how rapes actually go down, let me rely on Captain Akward's explanation:
    I understand your point, and it's very true: a lot of women do not fight the person raping them for fear of being killed. However, the problem is, what is to keep a woman from just lying and saying a man raped her just to get back at him for something, if we use this plea that a person doesn't need to have fought back to prove that they were raped?

    Why is disbelief the default reaction when a girl says she was raped? There's another great excerpt from another blog I don't have time to locate again that helps explain it.
    I don't think that we need to just automatically assume that a woman is lying when she says that she was raped. However, at the same time, it might even be okay to assume that the woman is telling the truth as well. What I am afraid of though, with this mindset, is that if we automatically assume that the woman is telling the truth that we might just start arresting men for rape without the proper probable cause, and that's a BIG PROBLEM. I keep saying it, and I will say it again, if a man is pending a charge (especially a rape charge) then he will pretty much be fired from his job, and it will be nearly impossible for him to get another job until that charge is cleared (which could take forever to clear BTW). This will make it just about impossible for him to pay his bills. Now if the man is guilty of rape, then he would get his just deserts, but if a man was innocent, this would be completely unfair to him.

  8. #208
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Which sucks, but a defendant deserves no fewer protections just because evidence for some crimes is difficult for the state to produce, nor does it justify diluting the burden of proof and thereby endangering centuries of progress in protecting people from the overwhelming power of the state to produce convenient, rather than accurate, convictions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is like broadly defined "democracy"; the worst system in the world.....except for all the others.
    Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

  9. #209
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    I'd be interested to know what your thoughts would be, TGO, on how to improve the statistics on low rape reporting, high incidence, and low conviction? You've talked a lot about how not to deal with it, but what would you suggest as an alternative? Or do you not think we have a problem beyond that of felons having difficulty finding work?

  10. #210
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    These three women lived with their rapist for 10 years. I guess that means they weren't really raped.

    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. Undercover Colors: Proactive self-protection or rape culture enablement?
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-15-2015, 07:21 PM
  2. Do You Believe Rape Culture Exists?
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 566
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 05:53 PM
  3. Article on Introverts for Extroverts
    By Natrushka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 05:32 AM
  4. Web 2.0 - the death of culture?
    By Langrenus in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 08:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO