Germaine Greer urged to apologise for "all soldiers rape" comment

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

I guess I'm just naive then, in that I don't think everyone can be moulded into a killer.

But why? Honestly what makes you so different from Liberians?

I'd agree that it's not universally agreed upon but I'd think that death has less possibly of mental trauma when compared to a rape.

You can recover from rape you can't recover from death.

I agree that it's higher to civilians but to for her to say all soldiers will rape is just crap IMHO. If someone is trained to be violent to another person, does that mean they're going to be sexually assaulting people too?

It means they won't have the same aversion to it and given the right circumstance could do it.

Seriously how could you think that raping someone is immoral but then blow their brains out? Soldiers really don't have a problem with killing innocent people if it's part of their mission so if the Brits started using rape as weapon(I'm not saying they would) then I just don't see how the soldiers wouldn't be able to do it.

Cities in WW2 were bombed by both side for no other reason then to break down moral. If rape achieves the same thing then why would they have an issue with it? They are okay with maiming thousands and killing the friends and families of those maimed but you think they wouldn't rape them?

Why, would there be a block against raping them if that's what they were ordered to do? If the circumstances were changed so that they were ordered to rape people of course they'd do it. They do everything else.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't know a whole lot about Liberian culture, but I'm willing to bet there is not much law enforcement there(?). I'm sure without adequate law enforcement all crimes would be much more prominent everywhere.

SO you agree it's the society we grow up in that makes us not rape people? And that if people were in a different society they would be more likely to rape people?
I don't understand why this then doesn't apply to you?

I'm not a rapist. Believe it or not some people do have morals and behave themselves in a civilized matter out of a sense of morality rather than fear of punishment (I would suggest looking into the evolution of morality for further reading. there is some very interesting research out there).

I never said it was out of a fear of punishment. Your morals can be changed. If you grew up in a different society you would have different morals. People who aren't racist today would have been if they lived in a different time and place.

(I would suggest looking into the evolution of morality for further reading. there is some very interesting research out there).

I already have and you can even build machines to change someones morals. They aren't fixed.
http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

But why? Honestly what makes you so different from Liberians?

never said I was different. I said I don't believe everyone kills/rapes. Does every Liberian male rape? if not why, why not since it's so prevalent over there?

You can recover from rape you can't recover from death.

But you're not aware/conscious of anything when you die.

It means they won't have the same aversion to it and given the right circumstance could do it.

Seriously how could you think that raping someone is immoral but then blow their brains out? Soldiers really don't have a problem with killing innocent people if it's part of their mission so if the Brits started using rape as weapon(I'm not saying they would) then I just don't see how the soldiers wouldn't be able to do it.

But thats saying that every soldier is a mindless drone that will rape on command. I'd think quite a few soldiers would go AWOL if they heard that rape was being considered as a tactic.

Cities in WW2 were bombed by both side for no other reason then to break down moral. If rape achieves the same thing then why would they have an issue with it? They are okay with maiming thousands and killing the friends and families of those maimed but you think they wouldn't rape them?

Soldiers know that bombing/shooting is expected of them when they sign up, I seriously doubt any of them think that rape is part of the military life.

Why, would there be a block against raping them if that's what they were ordered to do? If the circumstances were changed so that they were ordered to rape people of course they'd do it. They do everything else.

Because they can still think for themselves. For example, if a C.O ordered the soldiers to rape a group of people, the soldiers could relieve him of his command as they would view him unfit for his command.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

never said I was different. I said I don't believe everyone kills/rapes. Does every Liberian male rape? if not why, why not since it's so prevalent over there?

They aren't all under the same circumstances. Just like how anywhere crime levels vary depending inside each country.

But you're not aware/conscious of anything when you die.

If you are seriously suggesting rape victims would be better of dead why don't we kill rape victims? If the rape victim felt they would be better dead surely they would all kill themselves?

But thats saying that every soldier is a mindless drone that will rape on command. I'd think quite a few soldiers would go AWOL if they heard that rape was being considered as a tactic.

Well then they obviously weren't trained well enough. How many people who were ordered to blow up Hiroshima wen't AWOL? You really think they can be ordered to kill 100,000 people but not able to rape 1 person? The disconnect of being in a plane still doesn't change that.

Soldiers know that bombing/shooting is expected of them when they sign up, I seriously doubt any of them think that rape is part of the military life.

Of course not. I haven't said otherwise. I just find it strange how you think they can be so easily convinced to kill so many people but then averse to raping them.

Because they can still think for themselves. For example, if a C.O ordered the soldiers to rape a group of people, the soldiers could relieve him of his command as they would view him unfit for his command.

I wonder how many soldiers in Libya did this when they were ordered to rape people?

Logical Fallacy

SugarHigh wrote: »

"Women serving in the US military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed while serving in Iraq."

To be honest i can see why she should be made apologise...she's a vile, hate filled woman and any apology she ever gives for the garbage she spouts is completely empty of sincerity.

This whole "apologise and you'll be okay" thing is really starting to piss me off. You can pretty much say anything now once you are willing to apologise and claim a "poor choice of words" after the fact.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Everyone will rape/kill in the right circumstances.

Out of interest, what are the right circumstances for you to rape someone?

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

They aren't all under the same circumstances. Just like how anywhere crime levels vary depending inside each country.

and within a community where rape is highly prevalent, all males will rape?

If you are seriously suggesting rape victims would be better of dead why don't we kill rape victims? If the rape victim felt they would be better dead surely they would all kill themselves?

Never for one minute suggested that. They'd be better off if they weren't raped of course.

Well then they obviously weren't trained well enough. How many people who were ordered to blow up Hiroshima wen't AWOL? You really think they can be ordered to kill 100,000 people but not able to rape 1 person? The disconnect of being in a plane still doesn't change that.

Again, soldiers were trained to kill, they weren't trained to rape.

Of course not. I haven't said otherwise. I just find it strange how you think they can be so easily convinced to kill so many people but then averse to raping them.

and I find it strange that you can't understand that people could see a moral distinction between the act of raping someone or murdering them.

I wonder how many soldiers in Libya did this when they were ordered to rape people?

neither of us know that. I can no more say that X number of soldiers refused to rape, than you can say 100% of the soldiers engaged in rape.

SugarHigh

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

To be honest i can see why she should be made apologise...she's a vile, hate filled woman and any apology she ever gives for the garbage she spouts is completely empty of sincerity.

This whole "apologise and you'll be okay" thing is really starting to piss me off. You can pretty much say anything now once you are willing to apologise and claim a "poor choice of words" after the fact.

I agree. Tracy Morgan(Crap Comedian) recently said he'd stab his son if he was gay but hasn't even been fired because he issued an apology.

Out of interest, what are the right circumstances for you to rape someone?

I never said I knew the circumstances it takes. I also don't know how to train a killer but it clearly can be done. If they're able to train killers they could train rapists if they wanted to. I'm not saying they are trying to train rapists I'm just saying it's possible to break down that mental block the same way you can with murder.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

and within a community where rape is highly prevalent, all males will rape?

They are capable of it.

Never for one minute suggested that. They'd be better off if they weren't raped of course.

Obviously but you are suggesting that those killed are better off than those who were raped and not killed. So that means that you think those who weren't killed would have been better off if they were killed. That's a direct implication of what you said and it's why I find the idea that rape is worse than murder silly.

Again, soldiers were trained to kill, they weren't trained to rape.

I never said they were trained to rape. I'm saying it's possible to create the right circumstances where they would rape. They train to kill so they can obviously create the right circumstances to allow someone to be a killer. All I'm saying is that I don't see why they couldn't also do it for rape, I never said they are actually doing it for rape.

and I find it strange that you can't understand that people could see a moral distinction between the act of raping someone or murdering them.

I never said there wasn't a moral distinction. I'm just saying that both set of morals can be broken down. How can it be so easy to create a killer yet somehow impossible to create rapists? If the drive was there they could do it.

neither of us know that. I can no more say that X number of soldiers refused to rape, than you can say 100% of the soldiers engaged in rape.

Fair enough, I wasn't actually expecting an answer. I don't find it likely that Libyan soldiers suddenly got an attack of conscious over rape when they've just been killing people.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

They are capable of it.

But Greer contends that they will rape, which is what I have issue with.

Obviously but you are suggesting that those killed are better off than those who were raped and not killed. So that means that you think those who weren't killed would have been better off if they were killed. That's a direct implication of what you said and it's why I find the idea that rape is worse than murder silly.

You're wrong on that, I thought no such thing, I was talking about the consequence of the victim with regards to each action. I said that they would be better off if they weren't raped.

I never said they were trained to rape. I'm saying it's possible to create the right circumstances where they would rape. They train to kill so they can obviously create the right circumstances to allow someone to be a killer. All I'm saying is that I don't see why they couldn't also do it for rape, I never said they are actually doing it for rape.

But that isn't what Greer said. She said that British soldiers with their current training with the right circumstances will rape.

I never said there wasn't a moral distinction. I'm just saying that both set of morals can be broken down. How can it be so easy to create a killer yet somehow impossible to create rapists? If the drive was there they could do it.

I never said it was impossible, what I said that in training a soldier to kill, the army haven't by proxy also created a rapist.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

But Greer contends that they will rape, which is what I have issue with.

Saying they will rape under the right circumstances is not the same as saying they will rape someone. It is just saying they are capable, as long as the right circumstances come about. The does not mean all soldiers will rape somebody but it does mean all of them are capable.

You're wrong on that, I thought no such thing, I was talking about the consequence of the victim with regards to each action. I said that they would be better off if they weren't raped.

You're backtracking. Obviously they would be better off if neither happened that just goes without saying. You started a tangent on whether rape is worse than murder. I said that no it isn't because that implies that rape victims are better off dead. Anyone saying rape is worse is literally implying that they would be better dead.

But that isn't what Greer said. She said that British soldiers with their current training with the right circumstances will rape.

Which is the exact same as saying they are capable.
She isn't saying they are definitely going to rape someone because the circumstances may never come about. She doesn't outline what the circumstances are.

I never said it was impossible, what I said that in training a soldier to kill, the army haven't by proxy also created a rapist.

I'm also not saying they have crated a rapist. They will rape in the right circumstances applies to everyone not just soldiers. I do believe soldiers are more likely to end up in these circumstances and some of that is thanks to their training. Their training requires them not to care about the people they are trying to kill this will also make it easier to rape them. Soldiers who rape probably never would have raped someone if they never joined the army otherwise the army wouldn't have a higher incidence of rape than the general public.

They have to care less about other people otherwise they wouldn't be able to kill them.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Saying they will rape under the right circumstances is not the same as saying they will rape someone. It is just saying they are capable, as long as the right circumstances come about. The does not mean all soldiers will rape somebody but it does mean all of them are capable.

No one knows what those right circumstances are, so that means that an army of potential rapists has been unleashed on a nation.

You're backtracking. Obviously they would be better off if neither happened that just goes without saying. You started a tangent on whether rape is worse than murder. I said that no it isn't because that implies that rape victims are better off dead. Anyone saying rape is worse is literally implying that they would be better dead.

I'm not backtracking, I've been saying the same thing repeatedly, but you're taking something I said to mean something else.

I've have not said death is better than rape.

Which is the exact same as saying they are capable.
She isn't saying they are definitely going to rape someone because the circumstances may never come about. She doesn't outline what the circumstances are.

then why make the statement? what was she hoping to accomplish with it?

I'm also not saying they have crated a rapist. They will rape in the right circumstances applies to everyone not just soldiers. I do believe soldiers are more likely to end up in these circumstances and some of that is thanks to their training. Their training requires them not to care about the people they are trying to kill this will also make it easier to rape them. Soldiers who rape probably never would have raped someone if they never joined the army otherwise the army wouldn't have a higher incidence of rape than the general public.

They have to care less about other people otherwise they wouldn't be able to kill them.

My point is that she is saying ALL soldiers will rape under the right circumstances, and I'm saying that not all soldiers will rape regardless of circumstances. Just llike some people have died for refusing to kill another person.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

No one knows what those right circumstances are, so that means that an army of potential rapists has been unleashed on a nation.

Like I said everyone is a potential rapist/killer in the right circumstances.

then why make the statement? what was she hoping to accomplish with it?

She's obviously anti-war.

My point is that she is saying ALL soldiers will rape under the right circumstances, and I'm saying that not all soldiers will rape regardless of circumstances.

All people are capable of terrible things under the right circumstances. I don't see how you can claim some people are immune. People can be brainwashed to do anything and the same affects of brainwashing could also happen naturally.

[/QUOTE] Just llike some people have died for refusing to kill another person.[/QUOTE]That actually doesn't tell us that it isn't possible to make those people kill. They were just unaffected by what worked on everyone else.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Like I said everyone is a potential rapist/killer in the right circumstances.

So do we all just live in a state of constant fear because everyone could potentially rape/kill us?

All people are capable of terrible things under the right circumstances. I don't see how you can claim some people are immune. People can be brainwashed to do anything and the same affects of brainwashing could also happen naturally.

I don't understand enough about brain washing to assert that it is or isn't 100% effective on everyone.

That actually doesn't tell us that it isn't possible to make those people kill. They were just unaffected by what worked on everyone else.

so why can't there be people that under no circumstance would they rape/kill someone?

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

So do we all just live in a state of constant fear because everyone could potentially rape/kill us?

No, why you fear something that has basically zero chance of happening to you? If we enter a time a crisis then start fearing people. If we had a shortage of food and martial law don't expect people to be so nice to you. Were nice because our circumstances allow us to be. If you tried to live in Liberia with anti-violence stance you'd be dead.

I don't understand enough about brain washing to assert that it is or isn't 100% effective on everyone.

so why can't there be people that under no circumstance would they rape/kill someone?

You're suggesting that someone can be born anti rape/murder. I just don't see how that's possible. Can you be born anti-theft?

We are conditioned to be against these things so that also means we can be conditioned to do them.

HellFireClub

The response given by the British Military is interesting though... According to them, a highly trained military force can do no wrong really and could never be associated with allegations of rape. Wasn't it only in 1972 that the same highly trained professional army went on a rampage and shot 14 unarmed and innocent people dead in Derry?

I remember being in Ayia Napa in Cyprus one year only a few years ago, and seeing with my own eyes, two UK Army Military Police patrolling the local streets every night to supervise their off duty personnel who were socialising in the local pubs and clubs, after local uproar emerged when a string of physical and sexual assaults occurred and were all associated with a regiment of UK military who had just come off frontline operations in Iraq at the time and were based in a UK military base in Cyprus... Locals feared that army personnel who could have only last week been engaged in killing any number of people, were this week on the lash in their communities...

I remember being shocked that the problem had reached such a lavel as to warrant UK officers in uniform walking the streets of Ayia Napa to keep an eye on their own troops...

Delirium

You're suggesting that someone can be born anti rape/murder. I just don't see how that's possible. Can you be born anti-theft?

not suggesting that, I just asked is it possible that people exist that wouldn't kill/rape under any circumstance?

We are conditioned to be against these things so that also means we can be conditioned to do them.

and I'm suggesting that there will be people that are exceptions to that.

CDfm

Gernaine Greer suffers from a huge Daddy hang up and wrote a book "Daddy we hardly knew you" about her fathers illegitimacy and success in life.

He served in the Army in WWII and kept his early life private from his daughter.

From Publishers Weekly

Greer's father, an Australian intelligence officer, left for WW II when she was only four. His cavalier pose concealed a family secret revealed in the closing section of this poignant memoir by the author of The Female Eunuch . Reg Greer came back from the war an anxiety-ridden, emotionally distant wreck. His daughter's later need to reconnect with him and her genealogical roots involved coming to terms with her craving for the love he never gave her. Though the narrative suffers from purple-hued padding, self-dramatization and a glaring dearth of factual evidence about her father's adult life, it's worth sticking with for the surprising finale, when Greer discovers his true identity and, in so doing, faces her own feelings of loss, love, regret and anger. The deeply affecting climax is a remarkable feat of family reconstruction. Along the way Greer files discerning observations of Australia's people and ecology, of war, and of Tasmania, India and Malta, where she traveled in search of "Daddy."
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Driven to know if the father who returned from World War II a cold and vacant man had loved her once, feminist Greer ( The Female Eunuch, LJ 4/15/71) follows a trail of false leads and outright lies to know the truth about the man who called himself Reg Greer. To the dismay of her sharp-tongued, eccentric mother, but to the pleasure of herself and her siblings, she finds someone who, concealing his origins in poverty and illegitimacy, rises to middle-class security on the strength of his own wit and resourcefulness. Some of the writing is marred by Greer's fascination with the minutiae of herself, but the search and its results are intriguing. For medium and large public libraries. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 11/15/89.
- Christine M. Hill, Free Lib. of Philadelphia
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/Daddy-We-Hardly-Knew-You/dp/0394583132

A good Time review here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969315-1,00.html

So Greer does not relate to men well and I read the book and was struck by that and how she could not see the contrast between her comfortable middle class upbringing and his.

Dudess

SugarHigh wrote: »

Greer is just another one of these professional trolls the media loves because they always create a controversy.

I think, unlike a troll, she actually believes the crazy sh1t she says. For man-hating trolling, Julie Burchill is yer woman.

djk1000 wrote: »

I think soldiers in wartime are much more likely to rape than others. It's a group made up largely of fit strong men with lots of testosterone, in a position of power, in a place where they can't really have a normal sexual relationship with a woman.

You can't say that every soldier will do it, or is capable of it. But I'd agree that the chances are much much higher than usual.

Yep, war brings out the ugly side of humanity - whether the person is male or female (remember that Lynndie England one in Iraq...)

There are a lot of people in this world that follow the laws because of their fear of consequence, not because of a well developed sense of morals. Take away the fear of consequence and anything can happen.

Indeed. Of course most wouldn't due to having empathy, but there is a cluster of folks that don't possess this. Hardcore military training and witnessing horror after horror... well if these don't help fully erase empathy, nothing will.

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

I think, unlike a troll, she actually believes the crazy sh1t she says. For man-hating trolling, Julie Burchill is yer woman.

Hiya Dudess

Does she believe it or does she say it to collect shed loads of money and sell books ?

metrovelvet

Galvasean wrote: »

Preposterous!
But out of curiosity, what how would you go about turning someone like, oh let's say me, into a rapist?

Strip away your values. Take away any sense of consequence. Inflate your sense of entitlement. Brainwash you into thinking women are there to serve your needs. Create a culture what backs you up in this. Stress you out. Make you feel out of control. Disenfranchise you. Desensitise you to others pain to make you capable of hurting them without forethough or remorse. Then get someone in a position of authority to tell you to do it, and presto.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Strip away your values. Take away any sense of consequence. Inflate your sense of entitlement. Brainwash you into thinking women are there to serve your needs. Create a culture what backs you up in this. Stress you out. Make you feel out of control. Disenfranchise you. Desensitise you to others pain to make you capable of hurting them without forethough or remorse. Then get someone in a position of authority to tell you to do it, and presto.

I think people don't like the idea that rapists are just humans too, they really aren't different from anyone else. People love the idea that some evil force is inside them driving their actions, when the truth is anyone can be convinced to do the same.

CDfm

REmember the American GI Lyndie England and her statements

In a sworn statement to investigators, Pfc. Lynndie England explained the mystery of why soldiers at Abu Ghraib took pictures of detainees masturbating and piled naked with plastic sandbags over their heads by saying, "We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken."
England's statement, made May 5, narrates the photos now at the center of the prison abuse scandal in specific detail and a matter-of-fact tone, describing the abuse as routine and sometimes amusing, but almost never, to her mind, out of bounds.
She explains how she put a strap around a detainee's neck and forced him and others to run and crawl down a hallway for "approximately four to six hours"; how one soldier would regularly throw a Nerf football at detainees with bags over their heads "to scare them"; how one soldier would kick detainees and cause open wounds, then "would personally stitch detainees if the wound weren't too bad," according to a copy of her statement given to the New York Times.
Asked if she ever physically abused a detainee, England said, "Yes, I stepped on some of them, push them or pull them, but nothing extreme."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/16/MNG156MHD61.DTL#ixzz1OzoXABqM

irishh_bob

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Some fantastically ignorant comments, and too right she should apologise.

greer is far too arrogant an individual to appologise for anything

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think people don't like the idea that rapists are just humans too, they really aren't different from anyone else. People love the idea that some evil force is inside them driving their actions, when the truth is anyone can be convinced to do the same.

Interesting experiment on good people doing bad things. Everyone likes to think they are immune.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/video?id=2769000

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

Strip away your values. Take away any sense of consequence. Inflate your sense of entitlement. Brainwash you into thinking women are there to serve your needs. Create a culture what backs you up in this. Stress you out. Make you feel out of control. Disenfranchise you. Desensitise you to others pain to make you capable of hurting them without forethough or remorse. Then get someone in a position of authority to tell you to do it, and presto.

This is a good post. It is similar to how brutal regimes have many normal people involved. Take the SS for example, horrible acts but they were not evil monsters born in another dimension. Many were simply acting out of fear of what would happen their families were they refuse to comply with orders. Ditto the soldiers in Libya ordered to rape. I doubt there would be wonderful consequences for any soldier who refused to carry out the order.

metrovelvet

parker kent wrote: »

This is a good post. It is similar to how brutal regimes have many normal people involved. Take the SS for example, horrible acts but they were not evil monsters born in another dimension. Many were simply acting out of fear of what would happen their families were they refuse to comply with orders. Ditto the soldiers in Libya ordered to rape. I doubt there would be wonderful consequences for any soldier who refused to carry out the order.

ITs quite scary really how susceptible we are to it. The SS got people to kill other people without even using force to do it. In fact, they didnt even need to act out of fear, people do what they are told, they obey authority, its how we are wired.

There was a case recently of a man pretending to be a child psychologist who convinced a couple of moms to molest their kids while he watched on a webcam.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41835123/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

As for Germaine Greers comments, I dont know if she meant that all soldiers have the potenitial to be rapists or will be rapists under certain circumstances. At first when I read it, I was taken aback by what she said, but the more I think about it, the training soldiers go through, the conditions of war, which most of us can only imagine, it does not seem that far fetched an idea, but she didnt need to dishnour the military like that.

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for Germaine Greers comments, I dont know if she meant that all soldiers have the potenitial to be rapists or will be rapists under certain circumstances. At first when I read it, I was taken aback by what she said, but the more I think about it, the training soldiers go through, the conditions of war, which most of us can only imagine, it does not seem that far fetched an idea, but she didnt need to dishnour the military like that.

I had a similar reaction to her comments. I think people are taking her out of context. As annoying as she is, I don't think her comments are being interpreted correctly.

metrovelvet wrote: »

ITs quite scary really how susceptible we are to it. The SS got people to kill other people without even using force to do it. In fact, they didnt even need to act out of fear, people do what they are told, they obey authority, its how we are wired.

There was a case recently of a man pretending to be a child psychologist who convinced a couple of moms to molest their kids while he watched on a webcam.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41835123/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Stories like that are shocking. It is like the classic case of the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures in Yale. People are so easily led sometimes.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Interesting experiment on good people doing bad things. Everyone likes to think they are immune.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/video?id=2769000

What's really interesting is how the guy immediately justifies what he's doing by blaming the person he's giving the shocks to.

I don't think rapists consider themselves to be bad people because they probably blame the victim as well. It's really easy to justify any action you take when you have a self interest in believing something.

Even bullies will blame the person they bullying for what they're doing or they will simply not consider it bullying no matter how clear it is.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think rapists consider themselves to be bad people because they probably blame the victim as well. It's really easy to justify any action you take when you have a self interest in believing something.

Even bullies will blame the person they bullying for what they're doing or they will simply not consider it bullying no matter how clear it is.

First, the'd have to acknowledge what happenned actually constitutes rape.

Second the acknowledgement that rape is an absolute moral of wrong, and the lines of right and wrong can get pretty blurry during wartime or combat.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

SO you agree it's the society we grow up in that makes us not rape people? And that if people were in a different society they would be more likely to rape people?
I don't understand why this then doesn't apply to you?

Slight misinterpretation of what I was saying. I will try to make my point more clearly.
You say that rape is prevalent in Liberia and I believe this is due to a lack of law enforcement.
I have little doubt that if we were to strip away our own societies laws there would be much more crime. Stealing, murder, rape, you name it.
What I certainly did not say is that without laws/fear of punishment everyone would be a rapist. The fact that not every person in Liberia who had the opportunity to commit rape but chose not to is a testament to the fact that people have different levels of morality. Much like how people have different hair colour, eye colour, bone structure, morality varies from person to person. It's in our genes. Some people have what we would call incredibly high levels of morality and will not do immoral things even when given ample opportunity to do so without consequence. Similarly there are others who are the very opposite of this and will do horrible things regardless. Of course, there is a whole lot in between too.
Basically what I'm trying to get at here is that each person has their own level of natural morality. Society, peer group, upbringing etc. certainly does change someone's morals to an extent as by and large a lot of people do seem predisposed to being led (as links posted on this thread have shown). That said, I do not think it is possible to completely change someone's entire moral set up in all cases.