"If you were guilted into having sex, and you said yes because "you felt you had to", you were not raped." (np.reddit.com)
110 ups - 65 downs = 45 votes
173 comments submitted at 18:31:55 on Apr 4, 2014 by WelcomeToNightVale
"If you were guilted into having sex, and you said yes because "you felt you had to", you were not raped." (np.reddit.com)
110 ups - 65 downs = 45 votes
173 comments submitted at 18:31:55 on Apr 4, 2014 by WelcomeToNightVale
> but all that means is that a court of law would dismiss their claims of rape due to lack of evidence. What does that point prove, other that a rapist could get away with it?
This can really only lead to two scenarios. One where the Rapists can occasional get off due to lack of evidence. Or one where innocent people can be convicted based on the accusers word. The former conforms to Americans conviction of "Innocent until proven guilty." So it has been the chosen as the least problematic of the two poor situations.
>Manipulating people who dont want to have sex with you into having sex with you is rape.
This is just a black and white view of a grey area. The word 'manipulation' is such a useless buzz word that it turns any context it's used in into a case of abuse. E.G. "You're manipulating your child into getting good grades by rewarding him with an allowance." manipulating and being manipulated is an art of social interactions found in virtual every relationship. Sometimes people need to be convinced or nudged a certain direction, and sometimes people need another to behave a certain way (E.G. Doing well in school).
Obviously some accounts of manipulation ARE immoral. Like the boss of a company forcing an employee to sleep with them or else the employee will lose their jobs. And it's obvious that you're trying to find an all encompassing, perfect phrasing that highlights all these particular cases. But you failed at that and in the process you criminalized every act of seduction, flirtation, and every instance where the wife was kinda tired but made love to her husband anyways because he wanted it and she didn't really care at the moment.
>. One where the Rapists can occasional get off due to lack of evidence. Or one where innocent people can be convicted based on the accusers word. The former conforms to Americans conviction of "Innocent until proven guilty." So it has been the chosen as the least problematic of the two poor situations.
Yes. Again, what does that prove, other than that a rapist could get away with it, or that an innocent man can be arrested?
I asked 'What if you make that person believe they have no choice but to have sex with you?'
The question here is; 'is is rape?', and not 'is it something that we could enforce the law on?'
The answer 'prove it' to that question is a non-sequitur, or at the very least oddly defensive;
"would this be rape?"
"YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING COPPER"
> This is just a black and white view of a grey area.
True. The thing is, I never said that sentence in such a black and white way.
The idea I had in mind are situations like the one you said, where a boss threatens to fire an employee, or maybe a cop who threatens a person with prison unless they fuck.
> you criminalized every act of seduction, flirtation, and every instance where the wife was kinda tired but made love to her husband anyways because he wanted it and she didn't really care at the moment.
No. I said, 'What if you make that person believe they have no choice but to have sex with you?'
I doubt you consider making a person think they have absolutely no choice but to sleep with you 'flirting'. The point of flirting is to make people want to sleep with you.
I think the problem here is that people are not bothering to read the usernames before answering to them.
> The point of flirting is to make people want to sleep with you.
And that can of course be viewed of an act of manipulation.
> The question here is; 'is it(?) rape?',
Is what rape? Any case of "Manipulating people who don't want to have sex with you into having sex with you"? ..Some of them?
Or this?
>What if you make that person believe they have no choice but to have sex with you?
Again I'm genna go with sometimes. People are stupid. So a single persons beliefs and feelings really hold no weight in determining if the accused is a legitimate threat to society. A person could think an accidental brush in passing on the bus is act of sexual aggression against them.
You're the one who put emphasis on 'belief'.
> The answer 'prove it' to that question is a non-sequitur, or at the very least oddly defensive
Now you can call that a lot of things. Half witted, opportunistic, non-answer. but calling it oddly defensive is really dancing the line between a legitimate criticism and lazily calling the author pro rape.
> And that can of course be viewed of an act of manipulation.
Only if you go for the mostest literal sense of the word.
Personally, when I tell a joke and make someone laugh, I don't think to myself "I just successfully manipulated this guy into laughing".
Do you?
> So a single persons beliefs and feelings really hold no weight in determining if the accused is a legitimate threat to society.
Which is why i'm gauging what everyone's (or at least everyone reading my initial post) feelins are on the subject.
>Any case of "Manipulating people who don't want to have sex with you into having sex with you"?
Again, I never said those words, and I wish you would stop attributing them to me.
>You're the one who put emphasis on 'belief'.
Yes. but I think you are misunderstanding what the word refers to; "believe they have no choice" or "believe they are being manipulated" are different things.
A person who believes they are being manipulated could be demanded to 'prove it'. A person who believes they have no choice may not even realise they are being manipulated (imagine a person who was raised all their lives being told that it is natural to submit, for example. They would believe they have no choice, but not believe that they were being manipulated.)
> Half witted, opportunistic, non-answer. but calling it oddly defensive is really dancing the line between a legitimate criticism and lazily calling the author pro rape.
Maybe, but the way I see it, just because it is lazy doesn't mean it is incorrect.
Is he pro-rape? Probably not. At least not rape in the classical sense of forcefully shoving exhibit A into exhibit B while they scream and try to run.
But if he were totally neutral on the issue, he would have taken the time to stop and explain his point, or at least read mine, instead of demanding me to 'prove' a fictional character in a fictional situation felt they had no choice but to have sex.
Though I do think he is probably the sort of guy who would, for example, take offense when someone says that taking advantage of a drunk woman is morally incorrect.
> (imagine a person who was raised all their lives being told that it is natural to submit, for example. They would believe they have no choice, but not believe that they were being manipulated.)
A major difference in this case that makes it so clearly a case of abuse is that it can be proven beyond the victims word. Interviewing the parents, looking for evidence of abuse behavior. Have the accuser tell as much about their abuse as they can and try to piece together a case study.
When it comes to cases where the alleged victims word is the only evidence to support their claim the best thing to say is "I don't know." Without more evidence it just can't be proven as a case of abuse beyond a reasonable doubt.
>But if he were totally neutral on the issue, he would have taken the time to stop and explain his point,
I don't know why you think that. That's really not behavior unique to a person with a more neutral standpoint. And a person can be objective and still be totally dismissive to your opinion. You're giving your opinion too much credit.
>Though I do think he is probably the sort of guy who would, for example, take offense when someone says that taking advantage of a drunk woman is morally incorrect.
Which is a completely irrelevant thing to say in an argument like this. He could be Hitler for all I care, that's not going to prove his opinion wrong.
>Maybe, but the way I see it, just because it is lazy doesn't mean it is incorrect.
It does make it incorrect.
>argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument
> Have the accuser tell as much about their abuse as they can and try to piece together a case study.
So then all it means is that in this case the rapist would not get away with it.
If it can be proven or not is besides the point, I am asking if it would be considered rape.
>You're giving your opinion too much credit.
Perhaps.
> It does make it incorrect. argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument
Bah, fallacies.
If I see a Klan member spout nonsense about natural white supremacy over inferior races, I am not going to waste my time explaining to him all the arguments I know he's heard in the past. I am going to point out he is a fucking racist and a klan member, and anyone worth their salt will understand what that means.
I am not rejecting this guy's point because I think he is an ass, I am rejecting his points because they are stupid and poorly thought. The bit where I call him an ass is unrelated to it, and thus not a fallacy. It's still insulting, yes, but it doesn't make it an ad hominem.
And even if it did, then there is always the fallacy fallacy, which basically defaults to "just because its ~~lazy~~ a fallacy, doesn't mean it's incorrect"
Plus this isn't a math thing with clear-cut solutions, it is a discussion about morality and stuff. Pointing out the other guy has a personal reason to defend a point (and a shady personal reason at that), is not an ad hominem, it is good logic.
I mean, you said he could be Hitler, and it wouldn't prove his opinion wrong, correct? In this case, yes. But what if he was literally (literally literally, not [le]terally literally) Hitler, and was arguing that nazi Germany wasn't so bad for jews. Would you think pointing out that he being Hitler would not hold some weight on how much should we consider his opinions?
To put it another way, would you consider a child rapist's (an actual one, not the other guy) opinion when he told you that no, the little boys did enjoy it / were tempting him? I wouldn't, because he is a fucking child rapist, and anyone can see how that affects his opinion on the issue.
> literally) Hitler, and was arguing that nazi Germany wasn't so bad for jews. Would you think pointing out that he being Hitler would not hold some weight on how much should we consider his opinions?
Well what if a well respected historian made a statement saying nazi germany wasn't that bad for jews? At best the fact that he's a historian might get people to look back at the history of nazi germany. And then quickly realize that he is full of shit. Same thing with hitler. Facts prove a person right or wrong, nothing else.
> would you consider a child rapist's (an actual one, not the other guy) opinion when he told you that no, the little boys did enjoy it / were tempting him?
A claim like that is completely useless. There are thousands of circumstances where a person can think a person is having fun when they're not. "Yea so and so had a good time at the amusement park." Then you go and ask so and so and they said that they didn't have fun at all. And amazingly the person in the scenario was wrong without being a child rapist.
>Plus this isn't a math thing with clear-cut solutions, it is a discussion about morality and stuff. Pointing out the other guy has a personal reason to defend a point (and a shady personal reason at that), is not an ad hominem, it is good logic.
It is a ad hominem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appealtomotive
Fallacies are a well excepted thing in philosophy and debate. They've been called out for a reason. And that's because they do not work. They do not support your conclusion.
>If it can be proven or not is besides the point, I am asking if it would be considered rape.
Is what considered rape? Which hypothetical situation are we even referring to at this point?
> Well what if a well respected historian made a statement saying nazi germany wasn't that bad for jews? At best the fact that he's a historian might get people to look back at the history of nazi germany. And then quickly realize that he is full of shit.
I wouldn't consider the kind of historian that makes such glaring mistakes a 'respectable historian', and I would very well like to check his background to see where this nazi apologism is coming from.
And before you go that route, I'll dismiss any claims of 'no true scotsman' as you being too lazy to come up with a counter-argument of your on.
> There are thousands of circumstances where a person can think a person is having fun when they're not
Is rape one of them? Because that is the example I used.
>It is a ad hominem!
And I explained already, calling fallacies are cheap non-arguments, so it doesn't matter.
> Fallacies are a well excepted thing in philosophy and debate.
No, they aren't.
If they are, tell me any well-respected debater that uses them.
And after you do, discart the example because that would be appeal to authority and so I shouldn't care either way.
>They've been called out for a reason.
Yes. Mostly revolving mathemathical logic and black-and-white situations, plus thought exercises. Anyone who tries to apply them to real-world situations or debates about moraliy is missing their point entirely.
>Which hypothetical situation are we even referring to at this point?
I explained the 'it' three times already.
>And before you go that route, I'll dismiss any claims of 'no true scotsman' as you being too lazy to come up with a counter-argument of your on.
What I said is not an example of the no true scotsman fallacy. The no true scotsman fallacy would involve a person making an absolute claim, another person refuting it with a counter example. Then the original person changing the first claim to exclude the counter example.
When what happened was that you claimed a persons opinion can be discredited by highlighting moral faults in that person. And I gave the counter example, highlight hypothetical situations where a person without moral faults can give a crappy opinion.
The point of that example meaning to be that the claim was incorrect regardless of who was making it. So the person making the claim has no weight in regards to the validity of the opinion.
>No, they aren't. If they are, tell me any well-respected debater that uses them. And after you do, discart the example because that would be appeal to authority and so I shouldn't care either way.
First of all. Appeal to authority really only applies if the authority being cited doesn't have credentials in the field being argued. It's obviously not a fallacy to cite experts on abuse when you're arguing about abuse.
And fallacies are established enough to be taught in school. Both my philosophy teacher and my debate teacher mentioned fallacies fairly often. And beyond that you can do a quick google search of individual fallacies and find several articles and papers from people of varying qualifications.
So it's fair to say that the majority of experts in debate and philosophy accept fallacies as illegitimate forms of argument
>Which hypothetical situation are we even referring to at this point?
>I explained the 'it' three times already.
Well I'm pretty sure I've addressed all of your hypothetical situations. So if you could present a new one or highlight an old one then I will address it.
> What I said is not an example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
I meant you could call my argument one.
>When what happened was that you claimed a persons opinion can be discredited by highlighting moral faults in that person.
And it can.
>And I gave the counter example, highlight hypothetical situations where a person without moral faults can give a crappy opinion.
No. You made up an entirely new example where the morals were irrelevant, rather than sticking with the example provided to you and explaining why it was wrong. I believe, if I were to use fallacies like you, that what you did is called setting up a strawman.
Do not change the argument from "is it wrong to dismiss the opinion of a child rapist when he tries to defend his actions" to "is it wrong to dismiss the opinions of a child rapist when he says an amusement park is funny". In one of these situations, him being a child rapist is entirely relevant, on the other, it is not.
> Both my philosophy teacher and my debate teacher mentioned fallacies fairly often.
Yes. Thought exercises and black and white situations where you want to prove a point. I doubt either of your teachers would argue against dismissing a Klan member's opinion on race because he is Klan member.
As for my hypothethical scenario, I don't reccall you ever addressing my original question directly, though I admit I may have missed the answer.
More Comments - Click Here