The Most Hated Family In America BBC2 Sunday

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

No, I don't agree that is always the case. Are you saying that most Irish people used to tolerate rape within marriage?

Yes

InFront wrote:

Well it was in the law, they consistently voted for governments who kept it in the law, so did the public not tolerate it? No. And it wasn't an election promise.

Far too many double negatives there, but I think you are trying to say that people just weren't thinking about it. That isn't true because people had been bringing up the issue over and over and nothing happened. The governments didn't change the laws because the "flow" with the people who voted for these governments was to tolerate it.

You seem to think all the decision making power rests with the government, and the population just either goes along with the government or doesn't. That isn't how a democracy works at all.

The government reflects the people. If the government didn't outlaw rape within marriage it is because none of the people who voted for them were bothered about them doing this.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I do find it strange that an atheist expects a theist to be out there protesting his beliefs. It's a pretty unreasonable suggestion to make that anyone should carry on like that.

I don't think I'm saying that at all. I'm not campaigning for a removal of any residual religious references in the constitution (I'm trying to remember what's left - is the stuff about the Trinity still in the preamble?). But if it was put to a vote I very likely would vote for their removal. Its just a reasonably clear statement of what I think.

I think that's all that's expected in these kinds of discussions. It looks to me like someone could respond to a question along the lines of 'do you think Gays should be banned' in a number of ways. They might say 'yes, I'd like someone to propose a referendum in the morning and I'd vote for a ban' or they might say, 'if it was put to me, I'd probably vote for a ban, but I'm don't actually think there's a need for a referendum (an attitude many had to the various abortion referendums)' or they might say 'its not in accordance with my private morality, but I would oppose a legal ban'. All of those seem (to me) reasonably clear statements that express a view someone might have (and clearly a similar array of views might be speculated about on the other side of the argument).

But, in fairness, dragging in a load of tortuous reasoning about toleration of rape just seems irrelevant and evasive. At the end of the day, you either think its lawful or its not. You said

InFront wrote:

the Islamic community (or any other religious community not in favour of the promotion of homosexual lifestyle) actually has no institutions or facilities or mandate or nomination to police things that are not permissable. Therefore, toleration is required, and it is necessary to entrust the Government with punishments.

That doesn't clearly state whether you'd like to see institutions, facilities, mandates or nominations given to someone, whomever, to police things that are not permissable. The Government is entrusted with punishments. Have you a view on what you would like those punishments to be?

InFront

I think you are trying to say that people just weren't thinking about it. That isn't true because people had been bringing up the issue over and over and nothing happened. The governments didn't change the laws because the "flow" with the people who voted for these governments was to tolerate it.

Or, alternativley - they didn't have a clue what the law said on the issue. I would find that a bit more believable than your suggestion that they were all in on it, or tolerant of a husbands "right" to rape.

You seem to think all the decision making power rests with the government, and the population just either goes along with the government or doesn't. That isn't how a democracy works at all.

I'm well aware of how democracy works.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I don't think I'm saying that at all...But if it was put to a vote I very likely would vote for their removal. Its just a reasonably clear statement of what I think.

Ok, but that's irrelevant. I've already said that homosexual activity is wrong, apparently some people would prefer to see someone like me on a street corner with a placard. Well if I were to do that, I'd probably also have to do the same about alcohol, drug abuse, rape laws, etc etc etc.

But, in fairness, dragging in a load of tortuous reasoning about toleration of rape just seems irrelevant and evasive.

I know. But actually I wasn't the one who brought it up, I've replied to posts about it.

That doesn't clearly state whether you'd like to see institutions...to police things that are not permissable. The Government is entrusted with punishments. Have you a view on what you would like those punishments to be?

Yes to the Islamic institutions (purely hypothetically), no to the second part, it depends on the case.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Or, alternativley - they didn't have a clue what the law said on the issue.

Again I find that hard to believe because it was constantly being highlighted by those damn feminists. The issue was raised in 70s and 80s yet it was not outlawed until the late 80s.

InFront wrote:

I would find that a bit more believable than your suggestion that they were all in on it, or tolerant of a husbands "right" to rape.

Well it is not quite as simple as that. People weren't going around thinking "Umm, I think it is a good idea that a man can rape his wife" I would imagine a lot were thinking "Umm, is it even possible for a husband to rape his wife?" or "The wife has a duty to her husband. It isn't rape, it is a normal marriage"

I mean this was put on the books in the first place.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Ok, but that's irrelevant. I've already said that homosexual activity is wrong, apparently some people would prefer to see someone like me on a street corner with a placard. Well if I were to do that, I'd probably also have to do the same about alcohol, drug abuse, rape laws, etc etc etc.

I think the issue is why you cannot understand why some people who agree with you would be on the street corner with a placard.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Ok, but that's irrelevant. I've already said that homosexual activity is wrong, apparently some people would prefer to see someone like me on a street corner with a placard. Well if I were to do that, I'd probably also have to do the same about alcohol, drug abuse, rape laws, etc etc etc.

In fairness, I think it was just people distinguishing between ‘wrong’ and ‘should be illegal’. For example, I wouldn’t recommend prostitution as a career to anyone. But I can’t think why it should be illegal for someone to accept money in exchange for sex.

InFront wrote:

Yes to the Islamic institutions (purely hypothetically), no to the second part, it depends on the case.

That’s a reasonably clear answer. I take it that you mean hypothetical in the sense that there’s no practical sign of a majority favouring such a move any time soon, hence it simply won’t happen in our lifetimes without a massive shift in public attitudes. Would I take it that the array of punishments you’d like to see applying – depending on the case – would be those that we might find described by Islamic scholars – i.e. including active homosexuals being thrown from tall buildings if the circumstances seemed to suit such a punishment? (Sorry to harp on about tall buildings but I really lol the first time I read that.)

InFront

Yes hypothetical in the sense that expecting such a majority would be an unreasonable expectation for our time. As for the punishment for rape, yes I think that legislation should be much more severe than it is right now, extending perhaps as far as the death penalty. Obviously it depends on whether the level of guilt, whether he confesses or not, and whatever other associated circumstances there are. Needless to say being drunk wouldn't be one.

I think the issue is why you cannot understand why some people who agree with you would be on the street corner with a placard.

No, the issue was that it was supposedly a double standard to refuse to tolerate rapists and to tolerate homosexuals.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

No, the issue was that it was supposedly a double standard to refuse to tolerate rapists and to tolerate homosexuals.

Well its up to you if it is a double standard. You do tolerate homosexuals and I imagine you don't tolerate rapists. Some people who hold similar views to you about the sinful nature of homosexuality don't tolerate homosexuals.

InFront

Well its up to you if it is a double standard. You do tolerate homosexuals and I imagine you don't tolerate rapists.

Is this square 1?

Personally, I do tolerate rapists - in that I think they should be given far tougher penalties than the very light punishments they currently receive, but yet I personally have never (a) been old enough to vote in a general election (b) have never protested or even really discussed the issue, (c) wouldn't do anything if there were a convicted or freed rapist living across the road from me, except obviously be worried for the women i know.
By and large, the same goes for active homosexuals, although at least in those cases there is consent and the concern is of a less immediate nature because they're probably not out to hurt anyone.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Is this square 1?

Personally, I do tolerate rapists - in that I think they should be given far tougher penalties than the very light punishments they currently receive, but yet I personally have never (a) been old enough to vote in a general election (b) have never protested or even really discussed the issue, (c) wouldn't do anything if there were a convicted or freed rapist living across the road from me, except obviously be worried for the women i know.

Well that isn't tolerating rapists InFront. It is tolerating the current level of punishment for rape that you disagree with, but that isn't the same thing at all. To tolerate a rapists would be to allow him to rape people.

I would imagine that if the law against rape was repealed you (and pretty much everyone else in the country) would be up in arms. No one would tolerate that.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Yes hypothetical in the sense that expecting such a majority would be an unreasonable expectation for our time.

In fairness, I can't see how someone could complain in principle at the idea of Islamic law applying if that's what a referendum approved.

Just throwing you a curved ball. Does that mean that the difference between you and placard waving Christian fundamentalists is really just tactics? i.e., you don’t see placard waving as an effective way of achieving that result, but you wouldn’t greatly differ on the destination you want to get to - a state run on divine law.

Sangre

InFront wrote:

Is this square 1?

Personally, I do tolerate rapists - in that I think they should be given far tougher penalties than the very light punishments they currently receive, but yet I personally have never (a) been old enough to vote in a general election (b) have never protested or even really discussed the issue, (c) wouldn't do anything if there were a convicted or freed rapist living across the road from me, except obviously be worried for the women i know.

Well that's not tolerating rapists. That's tolerating the current regime we have for not tolerating rapists. Quite a difference imo.

Pedantry note; the inability to rape your wife was never a law but rather a common law based rule based on the fact that a marriage was a legally binding contract where sex with the wife was considered consideration.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

Well that's not tolerating rapists. That's tolerating the current regime we have for not tolerating rapists. Quite a difference imo.

Probably, yes. But I think it would be described better as tolerating the current regime for tolerating rapists; they certainly veer on the side of tolerance as opposed to intolerance.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Does that mean that the difference between you and placard waving Christian fundamentalists is really just tactics?

No, the first difference would be that I'm not a Christian.
I'm not saying that protesting has no value - it does - my point has a certain amount of selfishness about it in that unless something is going to effect me directly, or people that I care about, or their reputation or rights, then I really haven't got much business protesting.
Take homosexual activity. Do I think that it should be discouraged? Yes I do. What am I going to do about it? Nothing. It's not something I worry about enough to give a lot of thought to, because it doesn't really effect me or people that I directly care about, or their reputation or rights.
Considering that it actually wouldn't make my life any better by banning it, I'd be a strange person for protesting or setting up some sort of political rally against it, as mentioned earlier.

I also think that you have to be careful about the message you give off in those kinds of protests

Sangre

And back to my original question.

Would you have this attitude if rape was made legal?

InFront

Actually your original question was why do we tolerate homosexuals and not tolerate rapists. In fact rapists are tolerated.

If on the other hand, you're asking what would happen if there were no punishments at all for rape, of course I would protest. This would directly effect people that I care about, and their rights.

But there is a pretty huge difference between having a law against rape and not tolerating rapists. For example, there are laws against illegal drug abuse and theft and anti social behavior, yet the people who engage in these things are widely tolerated. (I don't protest against them either btw)

Sangre

I didn't intend to say it was the original question but it was what I was trying to find out by asking the question;

Okay, if I extend that logic should I then tolerate those who engage in active raping lifestyle choice? Isn't a sin a sin?

I rephrased it because its clear you seem intent on going off a pedantic tangent. As you've tried to do again.;

In fact rapists are tolerated.

Yes, quite. We all tolerate those who engage in 'active raping lifestyles'.

Anyway, we've established that you would react differently. My question is if they are both sins according to the Quran than why do you act differently? Why do you tolerate one sin and not another?

But there is a pretty huge difference between having a law against rape and not tolerating rapists. For example, there are laws against illegal drug abuse and theft and anti social behavior, yet the people who engage in these things are widely tolerated. (I don't protest against them either btw)

Irrelevant to my question. I'm asking you, as a believer, why do you see a difference betweens sins and we do you act differently about certain sins? Is it because you don't see some sins as valid as others or is there a hierarchy of sins? Where is this hierarchy set out?
Is it because rape affects your friends but sodomy doesn't affect your friends(Why not, do you not associate with the gays?)..

InFront

Sangre wrote:

My question is if they are both sins according to the Quran than why do you act differently? Why do you tolerate one sin and not another?

Firstly, it isn't my job to be anybody's spiritual counsel or "life coach".
I see things that are expressly sinful as being firstly expressly sinful for me, and for people in my social or family group. Having zero protection from a rapist, that would effect people I directly care about. So it makes sense that I would be opposed more strongly to that situation, than one where a serious sin, but a sin that isn't going to really effect me, is allowed by a Government.
There are also other issues: rape is a more immediate threat, for one. And while I can't think of any excuse for rape, a homosexual may simply be a person who has made a series of bad choices or found himself in that situation. You have to be careful about condemning such people, unlike rapists which perform an inexcusable act.

And yes, sins do vary in their gravity and malice.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

For example, there are laws against illegal drug abuse and theft and anti social behavior, yet the people who engage in these things are widely tolerated. (I don't protest against them either btw)

Yes, most people view raping people as a harmless crime that is ok to do on a Saturday night out :rolleyes:

This thread has, like so many before it, descended into nonsense. If making a criminal offence punishable by a prision sentence is "tolerating rape" what would repealing the rape laws and saying that anyone can rape people if they wish be?

metrovelvet

Im sorry but you guys are not getting what In Front is saying. People tolerate rape all the time, child rape, rape of women, homosexual rape, etc etc. Becuause they allow it to happen through their passivity. People put up with how the system handles it because they have lives to lead and trust the government to do it for them. The legal system tolerates it, the judges tolerate it, and the electoral body [meaning you] do also. Its the old habit: bad things happen because good people let them happen.

InFront

I just don't accept that there is intolerance of rapists, and that people can pat themselves on the back because there's *something* there in the law about it (that you didn't put there one way or the other). If there was intolerance of rapists, it wouldn't have reached the stage it has.
Obviously I'm not saying it is a normal feature of a socialiser's typical Saturday night, but it's not a particularly unusual thing to happen either. There was an average of 8 per week (including section 4) rapes of females reported to the police last year. That's about 430 alleged rapes of women for the whole year, and 1,925 sexual offences in total.

The softly softly approach does not work.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Im sorry but you guys are not getting what In Front is saying. People tolerate rape all the time, child rape, rape of women, homosexual rape, etc etc. Becuause they allow it to happen through their passivity. People put up with how the system handles it because they have lives to lead and trust the government to do it for them. The legal system tolerates it, the judges tolerate it, and the electoral body [meaning you] do also. Its the old habit: bad things happen because good people let them happen.

Do you guys actually know what "tolerate" means

verb
to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

What rape was allowed to happen by the State without prohibition or hindrance?

Comparing this to homosexuality, which is actually allowed without prohibition or hindrance (and is therefore tolerated in so far as what that word actually means) is absolute nonsense.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

Comparing this to homosexuality, which is actually allowed without prohibition or hindrance (and is therefore tolerated in so far as what that word actually means) is absolute nonsense.

I agree. All that seems to be happening here is an amount of fluffing around by using the word ‘tolerate’ to mean two very different things. One is simply what the legal code should be. Should it ‘tolerate’ homosexuality i.e. not penalise it in any way or should it be prohibited. What I’m gleaning from InFront’s comments (and do correct me if I’m picking it up wrong) is that he would favour prohibition of homosexuality, with a range of penalties from lenient to more severe depending on the case. However, he accepts this is unlikely to happen unless there is a considerable change in public attitudes. Now, potentially, that means that his position is not so much tolerance, as accepting there’s no immediate prospect (some of us would simply say no prospect) of anyone voting for the adoption of Islamic law in Ireland. I’d actually wonder if the right word in that context is ‘stoical’ rather than ‘tolerant’.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

Comparing this to homosexuality, which is actually allowed without prohibition or hindrance (and is therefore tolerated in so far as what that word actually means) is absolute nonsense.

It probably would be if anyone were actually comparing or drawing a relationship between the two things. And by the way, maybe you forgot to include the next line in the definition of 'tolerate' from the website you presumably took it from, which reads:

to endure without repugnance; put up with

About 430 women report a rape to the police every year. Only 50 to 60 tend to go to conviction. Are 370+ women lying? Are there only 50 rapes per year, really? According to the Rape Crisis Centre, a huge amount of rapes go unreported, and this is thought to be related to conviction rates. Rape is at an unacceptably high rate in this country; that to me suggests a society that is 'putting up' with it, or tolerating it.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

All that seems to be happening here is an amount of fluffing around by using the word ‘tolerate’ to mean two very different things.

I wouldn't describe it like that, someone just happened to bring up rape on the basis that Ireland was supposedly intolerant of rape. Granted, it isn't the issue, but it's a pretty big inaccuracy.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Rape is at an unacceptably high rate in this country; that to me suggests a society that is 'putting up' with it, or tolerating it.

Indeed, but you're really just illustrating what I'm saying - the same word is being used to mean different things. If we describe those different things with words that highlight the contrast between the meanings, we can see this more clearly.

Irish people put up with an ineffective justice system, which means that offences that are not tolerated by the legal code can frequently go unpunished. You seem stoical about the situation that homosexuality is tolerated by the legal code, as you see no practical way of changing it. Your preference would seem to be for a legal code that did not tolerate homosexuality. I think we all prefer a justice system that effectively enforced the legal code, even if we all put up with it. But we differ on what the legal code should tolerate.

InFront

Yeah I have no problem with that description of things, whether you want to describe the (nationwide) attitude to rape crimes and other sexual offences as 'tolerant' or 'stoic' means roughly the same thing as far as I'm concerned, maybe some other people would disagree. I just find it strange that anyone would say that illegality equals intolerance.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

I just find it strange that anyone would say that illegality equals intolerance.

You have it the wrong way around, intolerance equals illegality

While you might have a point that lots of people are tolerant of somethings such as drugs that are still illegal, the fact is that few are tolerant of rape, and as such it is illegal and considered a serious crime.

Some people tolerate drugs, despite the fact they are illegal. Very very few people tolerate rape.

The intolerance comes first, the illegality is simply a reflection of that. The way to be intolerant of something in society is to make it illegal. No one is calling for rape to be legalized.

InFront

If intolerance = illegality, then illegality = intolerance, it doesn't matter which one happens to come first.

If you're trying to say that you can't have illegality without intolerance in society, that is rubbish. By that standard, smoking cannabis, and selling alcohol to people who are visibly drunk, would be things that Irish society does not tolerate.
Are you seriously suggesting that is the case?