Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rape vs Other Injuries

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Sleepy wrote: »
    While rape is a horrible thing, there are worse things that one can endure and the "fate worse than death" scenario presented by many diminishes their cause greatly.

    The only one who claimed this scenario was The Corinthian, so it is he who is diminishing rape.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Think of it more as an article of faith than a rational position.
    Sleepy wrote: »
    Ah, faith, no wonder I'm confused by it ;)

    I cannot express to you how much this kind of passive aggressive "debating" only serves to make those who employ it look like children.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    We have here also the tensions that exists between private reality of a counselling couch and public consensual reality of a courtroom.

    Um, what tensions? This is just irrelevant nonsense with a philosophical twist.
    zeffabelli wrote: »

    Memory is fluid and fickle and easy to construct and re interpret.

    It's not seeing is believing, but believing is seeing.

    The therapeutic process where does it belong in a legal system.

    You gave Dr Phil and his perception is reality..... Well .... Isn't that only part of the story?

    Some therapy can be extremely harmful.... Some can be very healing...,,I think it's like Montessori teaching.... Depends on whose doing it.

    Problem is when it infiltrates legislation and courtrooms.

    ????????????????

    Who is this "you" you refer to and what does Dr. Phil have to do with it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Aimead wrote: »
    Trying to quantify which proportion of such claims are true is probably impossible, but in some of those lawsuits there was credible evidence presented that seemed to show that some recovered memories were of events that couldn’t have happened.

    So did they win the lawsuits or not?
    Aimead wrote: »
    Therapy is often built on offering a caring supporting and non-judgemental environment, but this seems to run the risk of separating a person from reality. Things that a patient gets incorrect are never challenged, and maybe in some cases the act of trying to give support helps to reinforce false recollections.

    Proof? Or just more conjecture?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    You're completely confused. Rape is considered worse than physical assault in both law and society so the burden of proof is on you. How do you have any certainty of these speculative claims of yours that rape is not worse than other types of physical assault? Other than gossip, conjecture, and speculation, that is.

    How do you know this with any objective certainty?

    You really think a date rape charge would get a stronger sentence than chopping off a limb?

    Dream on.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    Um, what tensions? This is just irrelevant nonsense with a philosophical twist.


    ????????????????

    Who is this "you" you refer to and what does Dr. Phil have to do with it?

    Look up the memory wars.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    NI24 wrote: »
    The only one who claimed this scenario was The Corinthian, so it is he who is diminishing rape.
    No, I didn't. Suggesting I would choose the lesser of two evils does not diminish the lesser evil, unless one's thought processes are limited to binary options.
    NI24 wrote: »
    I cannot express to you how much this kind of passive aggressive "debating" only serves to make those who employ it look like children.
    That's ironic given your post there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    How do you know this with any objective certainty?

    You really think a date rape charge would get a stronger sentence than chopping off a limb?

    Dream on.

    Changing the goalposts of that argument yet again, I see. I'm guessing the point flew over your head so I'll repeat myself--the burden of proof is on you to prove that a rape victim suffers less than a soldier in war time. Once again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the trauma of watching a family get sliced with a machete is worse than rape. And once again, you employ nothing more than hyperbolic straw man arguments to "prove" your case. So once again, your posts are nothing more than blather.
    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Look up the memory wars.

    This translates into "I have nothing but conjecture on my side".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    The only one who claimed this scenario was The Corinthian, so it is he who is diminishing rape.

    Because I can recognise hyperbole, I read it as underscoring the hysteria around rape, not as a value judgement on rape itself.

    You're reading is way out of the ballpark.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    Changing the goalposts of that argument yet again, I see. I'm guessing the point flew over your head so I'll repeat myself--the burden of proof is on you to prove that a rape victim suffers less than a soldier in war time. Once again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the trauma of watching a family get sliced with a machete is worse than rape. And once again, you employ nothing more than hyperbolic straw man arguments to "prove" your case. So once again, your posts are nothing more than blather.



    This translates into "I have nothing but conjecture on my side".

    Oh Jesus, here you are, another sucker for the victim hierarchies, either/or thinking.

    It's too boring at this stage to engage with.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    No, I didn't. Suggesting I would choose the lesser of two evils does not diminish the lesser evil, unless one's thought processes are limited to binary options.

    Actually the one's whose thought processes are limited to binary options are those that think that conjecture about political agendas are proof in a debate.
    That's ironic given your post there.

    Nothing ironic about it at all. Do you understand irony? You were criticizing his posts without directly confronting him about the intent and I was actually confronting you both head on. Understand the difference?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    Changing the goalposts of that argument yet again, I see. I'm guessing the point flew over your head so I'll repeat myself--the burden of proof is on you to prove that a rape victim suffers less than a soldier in war time. Once again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the trauma of watching a family get sliced with a machete is worse than rape. And once again, you employ nothing more than hyperbolic straw man arguments to "prove" your case. So once again, your posts are nothing more than blather.



    This translates into "I have nothing but conjecture on my side".

    No. You said in law and society rape is worse than physical assault.

    It's up to you to prove it. Which clearly you can't, so you're on the attack. Typical.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Oh Jesus, here you are, another sucker for the victim hierarchies, either/or thinking.

    Be honest, you don't understand that word do you?
    zeffabelli wrote: »
    It's too boring at this stage to engage with.

    Well seeing as how you've lost the argument that's a nice little out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    Be honest, you don't understand that word do you?



    Well seeing as how you've lost the argument that's a nice little out.

    What argument? You call what you are doing arguing?

    It's not an argument, you are just attacking without comprehending anything you have read.

    Plus you have been resorting to ad hominem which really a sign of the desperate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    No. You said in law and society rape is worse than physical assault.

    It's up to you to prove it. Which clearly you can't, so you're on the attack. Typical.

    Actually, it was several others who proved that in society rape is considered worse than physical assault. Dozens of posts, in fact. Perhaps you should take the time to read them? And the irony of telling someone to dream on while accusing others of being on the attack is hysterical.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    What argument? You call what you are doing arguing?

    It's not an argument, you are just attacking without comprehending anything you have read.

    Yes, because unlike you I'm not employing speculation about "consensual reality" and blathering on about Dr.Phil.
    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Plus you have been resorting to ad hominem which really a sign of the desperate.

    Oh the irony.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Mod Note:
    This thread is now slipping below the usual humanities charter guidelines in terms of content (ad hominen & badgering) etc. Please think very carefully about future posts or the next stage will be infractions+.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    NI24 wrote: »
    Actually the one's whose thought processes are limited to binary options are those that think that conjecture about political agendas are proof in a debate.
    Attack the post not the poster. Please respond to my rebuttal, otherwise I'll presume you cannot.
    Nothing ironic about it at all. Do you understand irony? You were criticizing his posts without directly confronting him about the intent and I was actually confronting you both head on. Understand the difference?
    Attack the post not the poster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 184 ✭✭Aimead


    NI24 wrote: »
    You just placed rape below physical assault and, by default, trivialized it.
    This caused me to do quadruple take. Are you serious? If I or another posters said that killing 10 people is worse than killing 5 would we be trivialising the killing of 5 people????

    The only conclusion I can reach that makes sense is that the word ‘trivialised’ doesn’t mean what you think it does. Sadly I suspect that conclusion isn’t true, but then this line of thinking contains a very silly implication. It means that, almost as an article of faith, that any word or deed or comment that doesn’t serve to re-affirm the tenant that “rape is the worst thing ever” is by default trivialising it. If I am raped my experience is, by default, considered worse than some other poor bastard who got his limbs chopped off. Such a position is entirely without logic, and I find it a little bit frightening to be honest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Aimead wrote: »
    It means that, almost as an article of faith, that any word or deed or comment that doesn’t serve to re-affirm the tenant that “rape is the worst thing ever” is by default trivialising it.
    Quoting oneself is probably a social faux pas, but this past post is maybe relevant to what you've just written:
    A SJW is simply an ideologue, a fanatic. Think of them as secular religious nuts.

    For example, a deeply religious person will hold onto some broad axioms, such as Jesus rose from the dead, Mohammad had the Truth revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, and so on. You can happily and rationally argue with them as long as you accept these axioms - so long as you don't questions these basic articles of faith, they will engage.

    However, the moment you question them, suggest that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or perhaps didn't even exist, or Mohammad made it all up, then you'll hit a brick wall, because some sort of fail-safe kicks in blocking any possible examination of these basic tenets.

    SJW's, or any ideologue, are exactly the same. They will engage in discussion so long as you accept that, for example, Capitalism is evil or [insert minority / gender] are oppressed, but the moment you question this axiom, you'll get stonewalled in exactly the same way. What will follow is the usual process of evasion, digression, use of dubious 'evidence' and so on, but essentially you'll have hit a brick wall in the debate. They cannot question these axioms, because if they did their entire Worldview could collapse.

    Religious or secular. Left-wing or right-wing. They all share the same basic trait; they will never question their basic beliefs and will treat anyone who does not naturally embrace these beliefs with confusion, contempt or even belligerence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 184 ✭✭Aimead


    Quoting oneself is probably a social faux pas, but this past post is maybe relevant to what you've just written:
    I know that. You know that. But I was trying to avoid using the term in the present case because we both know what happens next.


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Attack the post not the poster. Please respond to my rebuttal, otherwise I'll presume you cannot.

    You have no rebuttal, in fact you have no argument. Your argument consists of wild speculation about political agendas. Would you like to offer credible evidence (and by evidence I mean something other than conjecture) as to the motives you spoke of in your first post? Feel free to answer the question. I await with bated breath.
    Attack the post not the poster.

    You mean like this?
    unless one's thought processes are limited to binary options.

    Seriously, if one is going to lecture others on how to behave appropriately then one should really have a better memory.

    But your post about SJWs is an interesting one. Now, speaking for myself, an SJW is, oh I don't know, a narrow minded neoconservative buffoon who will thank a post on french nationalism in a thread about white privilege because said buffoon is so devoid of intelligence/rationality that he can't debate on an issue. Or perhaps, one who trolls a sexual assault support thread for women in order to trivialize sexual assault against women, employed with nothing more than phony anecdotes and facetious straw men, after trying to play victim, and before crawling away with his tail between his legs.

    Then again, maybe an SJW is one who trolls women's forums, soapboxing on the issue of the gender pay gap, complete with irrelevant nonsense about Asian Americans(another straw man perhaps?), all the while talking in 2nd person to his imaginary friends (this is the hallmark of a neoconservative buffoon, he only lives inside his own head), when not even days prior, this same SJW was smugly lecturing to a group of men--and I use the term loosely-- about trolling.

    And last but not least, perhaps an SJW is one who clutches at every imaginable straw to try to equate feminism with puritanism. Wouldn't you agree?


  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Aimead wrote: »
    The only conclusion I can reach that makes sense is that the word ‘trivialised’ doesn’t mean what you think it does. Sadly I suspect that conclusion isn’t true, but then this line of thinking contains a very silly implication. It means that, almost as an article of faith, that any word or deed or comment that doesn’t serve to re-affirm the tenant that rape is the worst thing ever” is by default trivialising it. If I am raped my experience is, by default, considered worse than some other poor bastard who got his limbs chopped off. Such a position is entirely without logic, and I find it a little bit frightening to be honest.

    A position without logic is one that can't prove it's case without resorting to multiple straw man arguments such as "rape is the worst thing ever", false analogies such as comparing an all-encompassing occurrence like date rape to getting a leg sawed off, and conjecture about political motives.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Mod Note:
    For NI24, please do not post on this thread again.
    For everyone else, please continue on with thread's topic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    I don't think the mentality is exclusive to SJWs.

    It's saturated a lot of the mainstream especially undergraduate campuses.

    Too many times, these views are credited to the extremists by those who like to affiliate themselves with their own internal ideas of a particular ideology, particular in gender promotion groups like feminism or men's rights.

    Ah yeah that's just the extremists. Eh no it's not. And when you cite Catherine McKinnon who was a leading maverick in feminist ideologies, how can you possibly dismiss one of the main arteries of a political movement as "ah yeah that's just the extremists."

    Maybe you need a loud extreme voice in a country like the U.S. with so many competing voices, so many competing histories, so many competing ideologies, so it's not so loud in that context, but amplifies when they hit these shores.

    Ireland does not have frat houses, a multi million dollar porn industry, nor do the women here have to negotiate through a particular type of American machismo. That's not to say that particular type is universal, but it certainly plays a part in the perception of rape culture in campuses. I would avoid a campus with frat houses myself, but the reactionary and idealistic imo expectations on 18 -22 year old men, in what is essentially summer camp + drugs and alcohol, plus an entitled wealthy class is student, well....

    If you look at sentencing in Ireland, then no I don't think rape is seen as worse than other injuries.

    But I do think the trauma of other assaults is under recognised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 184 ✭✭Aimead


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I don't think the mentality is exclusive to SJWs.
    Even before you get to discussing ‘the mentality’ there are plenty of normal human qualities that can go a long way to explaining the current widespread perception.

    One of the most common is simple clickbait tactics. You want to sell papers and get ad clicks? This topic is a goldmine. It has sex. It has victims. It has bogeymen. It has controversy. It is bog easy to understand. It is a total goldmine for clickbait.

    Another is ‘white knighting’, and I don’t mean that in a negative. If you hear of something terrible happening then why wouldn’t you tweet or post some support? It is natural human goodness. With so many people having regular online interaction it is a simple numbers game. Any good-natured person, who may be unaware of the facts and hasn’t spent time researching, will tend toward offering support since a tweet or a Facebook requires near-zero effort. Even if the majority of people who tweet or post a Facebook never look at a particular event again it doesn’t matter – they have often helped a given event reach a critical mass and the narrative becomes self-perpetuating.

    Then you have the issue that no one campaigns on correcting misconceptions. Sure it might come up in informal discussion or on a thread like this, but I seriously doubt that anyone actively campaigns for this. The net result is you have a series of dedicated activists spreading misconceptions with no real counter-message.

    Certainly there are the ‘extremists’ who fabricate the statistics and ramp up the hyperbole, but simple social dynamics combined with clickbait rewards is more than enough explain why even the most egregious hyperbole can spread like wildfire – and often never get corrected.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    I suggest you have a read of this....we are now in an age where Law Schools can't teach rape law because of "triggers."

    Emotional reasoning has become accepted as evidence. An agen where cognitive distortions are de rigeur.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

    "Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her."

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law

    Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.


  • Registered Users Posts: 184 ✭✭Aimead


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I suggest you have a read of this....we are now in an age where Law Schools can't teach rape law because of "triggers."
    I’d suggest that at least some of the blame should be laid at colleges that don’t tell those eejits to feck off. If Ken Ham and group of his adherents wandered into the Geology department and started spewing shoite they’d be told to feck off – why not here?

    And that’s the really sad part of all of this. You can have a group of loons concoct all the crazy they like, but it only gets taken seriously when a college or similar gives it the time of day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Aimead wrote: »
    I’d suggest that at least some of the blame should be laid at colleges that don’t tell those eejits to feck off. If Ken Ham and group of his adherents wandered into the Geology department and started spewing shoite they’d be told to feck off – why not here?

    And that’s the really sad part of all of this. You can have a group of loons concoct all the crazy they like, but it only gets taken seriously when a college or similar gives it the time of day.

    YEah I think its wider too....there always a hysteria fad, communists, AIDS, pedofiles, rape. Different target, same pathology.

    Good documentary called Capturing the Friedmans. HBO made.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Speaking solely from my own experience of how such subjects are taught in law classes, it is usually done with a measure of sensitivity. However due to the nature of legal cases surrounding such crimes where all relevant evidential issues have to be evaluated, one could understand how such triggering issues might be raised. But if one has to have an understanding of such crimes, not being able to fully contextualise would be a disserve to the victims and students.


Advertisement