What is Rape Culture?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(14-09-2014 10:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're back to being a troll I see Drinking Beverage

Do you really even understand the definition of trolling?
This is not what I am trying to do. I have been pointing out a genuine problem in society and law. I would much rather, again a civil discussion about gender issues and society's reactions to rape rather than never being taken seriously thanks to your toxic ideology.

Well I guess empathy has always been a problem on the internet.
When you are arguing with religious people, you can sometimes see where they are coming from, especially if you have been religious.

The difference between me and you is that I will accept that you believe what you say. Stop dismissing my arguments purely because you disagree with them. You know who else considers all online criticism trolls? William Lane Craig.
If your position holds up to scrutiny then why do you keep having to use the "you're a troll" defence? Arguments hold to their own merits, and it doesn't matter whether the person you are arguing against believes what they say. Or are you going to become Sye Ten? "You know I'm right about the bible (feminism), you just hate god (women) so you deny it."
So are you trolling? Because your hyperactive troll-detection sends that kind of message. If you aren't, stop accusing me, because it doesn't just make you look like a complete asshole, but it is nothing more than a sophist's trick to attempt to make the opponent's argument look more absurd than it actually is. Stop being a child and actually respond to what I say, not your armchair evaluation of my position!

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
Evidently, according to another thread, it now has something to do with Dolphins!

I may need to do some more research though. Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
15-09-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 09:43 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 10:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're back to being a troll I see Drinking Beverage

Do you really even understand the definition of trolling?
This is not what I am trying to do. I have been pointing out a genuine problem in society and law. I would much rather, again a civil discussion about gender issues and society's reactions to rape rather than never being taken seriously thanks to your toxic ideology.

Well I guess empathy has always been a problem on the internet.
When you are arguing with religious people, you can sometimes see where they are coming from, especially if you have been religious.

The difference between me and you is that I will accept that you believe what you say. Stop dismissing my arguments purely because you disagree with them. You know who else considers all online criticism trolls? William Lane Craig.
If your position holds up to scrutiny then why do you keep having to use the "you're a troll" defence? Arguments hold to their own merits, and it doesn't matter whether the person you are arguing against believes what they say. Or are you going to become Sye Ten? "You know I'm right about the bible (feminism), you just hate god (women) so you deny it."
So are you trolling? Because your hyperactive troll-detection sends that kind of message. If you aren't, stop accusing me, because it doesn't just make you look like a complete asshole, but it is nothing more than a sophist's trick to attempt to make the opponent's argument look more absurd than it actually is. Stop being a child and actually respond to what I say, not your armchair evaluation of my position!

You mention WLC when you are in fact much closer to arguing like Ken Ham. You search for outliers and then ignore evidence that does not support you preconceived conclusions (see your argument above this over something specifically laid out) Everything that does not perfectly align with your view is a vast conspiracy. You are young naive and completely inexperienced in the real world, which explains why you have such a skewed view of reality. Maybe when you grow up a little bit you can remove your blinders and see what reality really is rather than continue to rail on about your imagined injustices.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
15-09-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 10:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 09:43 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Do you really even understand the definition of trolling?
This is not what I am trying to do. I have been pointing out a genuine problem in society and law. I would much rather, again a civil discussion about gender issues and society's reactions to rape rather than never being taken seriously thanks to your toxic ideology.

Well I guess empathy has always been a problem on the internet.
When you are arguing with religious people, you can sometimes see where they are coming from, especially if you have been religious.

The difference between me and you is that I will accept that you believe what you say. Stop dismissing my arguments purely because you disagree with them. You know who else considers all online criticism trolls? William Lane Craig.
If your position holds up to scrutiny then why do you keep having to use the "you're a troll" defence? Arguments hold to their own merits, and it doesn't matter whether the person you are arguing against believes what they say. Or are you going to become Sye Ten? "You know I'm right about the bible (feminism), you just hate god (women) so you deny it."
So are you trolling? Because your hyperactive troll-detection sends that kind of message. If you aren't, stop accusing me, because it doesn't just make you look like a complete asshole, but it is nothing more than a sophist's trick to attempt to make the opponent's argument look more absurd than it actually is. Stop being a child and actually respond to what I say, not your armchair evaluation of my position!

You mention WLC when you are in fact much closer to arguing like Ken Ham. You search for outliers and then ignore evidence that does not support you preconceived conclusions (see your argument above this over something specifically laid out) Everything that does not perfectly align with your view is a vast conspiracy. You are young naive and completely inexperienced in the real world, which explains why you have such a skewed view of reality. Maybe when you grow up a little bit you can remove your blinders and see what reality really is rather than continue to rail on about your imagined injustices.

But, Rev, are you saying I'm not on to something with this anomaly hunting and confirmation biasing my way to self-affirming sanctimony? Why, next thing you know, you'll be saying I won't be able to fallacy fallacy and "NO U R PROJCTNG LOL" my way to victory!

The horror!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 10:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You mention WLC when you are in fact much closer to arguing like Ken Ham.

You were behaving much like Craig. Anybody on the internet who disagrees with you is either a troll, uninformed, or both.

(15-09-2014 10:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You search for outliers and then ignore evidence that does not support you preconceived conclusions (see your argument above this over something specifically laid out)

You were the one who brought up Steubenville, weren't you? Because that's not an outlier...
I will accept that this case is an outlier, because most men probably never report sexual harassment, otherwise they're considered "a faggot" but the thing is that although CNN was all like "their lives are ruined" towards Steubenville, they were convicted. That is apparently rape culture. However, when the woman gets away with rape, and is offered money for it, that is an outlier. Can you see what you are doing here? How much bias does one need to view the fact that the latter case is worse?
As for the rest of your accusations, completely baseless assertions. Please give examples for "evidence" I ignored, like I just did.

(15-09-2014 10:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Everything that does not perfectly align with your view is a vast conspiracy.

Where exactly?

(15-09-2014 10:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are young naive and completely inexperienced in the real world, which explains why you have such a skewed view of reality.

Oh ad hominem much?
Yeah I am young. I am inexperienced. But this has nothing to do with the arguments I presented.
However, you are closed-minded, dogmatic, and so full of confirmation bias, no matter how much I try to explain, you just call me a troll when you have no more arguments left, while I respond to every point in your post.

(15-09-2014 10:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Maybe when you grow up a little bit you can remove your blinders and see what reality really is rather than continue to rail on about your imagined injustices.

That is what I would say to feminists.

(15-09-2014 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But, Rev, are you saying I'm not on to something with this anomaly hunting and confirmation biasing my way to self-affirming sanctimony?

Do I really come across to you the same way feminists do to me? Wow.

(15-09-2014 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why, next thing you know, you'll be saying I won't be able to fallacy fallacy and "NO U R PROJCTNG LOL" my way to victory!

My signature explains the fallacy fallacy part, but however, the reason I point out that you are projecting is because it is the only available explanation as to why you see me in the way you do.
Most of the time faulty reasoning is justified by accusing the opponent of that exact thing. You see this with creationists a lot. They accuse those who accept evolution of having confirmation bias etc and then this justifies their own use of it, even if they don't admit they are doing it themselves. This was the reason I said it. Maybe look in the mirror and look at your own positions?

(15-09-2014 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The horror!

Thought so.

One of the problems here is this ideological divide. I think this needs to be broken down. The only way this is going to happen though is if you stop accusing me of trolling and actually give me something of substance. I have no ideology to speak of. I am not attached to anything. This is all one-sided. For once, can you evaluate it without your feminist bias? Just assume nothing. Look at the case and take gender out if appropriate, or swap the genders. This is one thing I have tended to do when looking at gender issues. Swap them and see how I, or society, would react to that one. In the case I presented, I think it would have been a lot worse for the male either way. If you have any reason to disagree that is more substantive than "you're a troll" or "you're a stupid kid who has never had any life experience" I would be happy to hear it.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But, Rev, are you saying I'm not on to something with this anomaly hunting and confirmation biasing my way to self-affirming sanctimony?

Do I really come across to you the same way feminists do to me? Wow.

You come across as stubbornly oblivious.

(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why, next thing you know, you'll be saying I won't be able to fallacy fallacy and "NO U R PROJCTNG LOL" my way to victory!

My signature explains the fallacy fallacy part...

No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand - and your signature proves it.

"Fallacy fallacy" is a laconic way of pointing out that you have made accusations of fallacy which are spurious. They're nowhere evident outside your own mind.

Even then, by your "logic" it is impossible to ever correct anyone without descending into an infinite "NO U" circlejerk...

(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  ... but however, the reason I point out that you are projecting is because it is the only available explanation as to why you see me in the way you do.

That is a complete non sequitur.

It is troubling to me that you don't understand what an insane leap of, ahem, "logic" that is.

(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Most of the time faulty reasoning is justified by accusing the opponent of that exact thing. You see this with creationists a lot. They accuse those who accept evolution of having confirmation bias etc and then this justifies their own use of it, even if they don't admit they are doing it themselves. This was the reason I said it. Maybe look in the mirror and look at your own positions?

Maybe look in the mirror and look at your own positions?

Kid, you gotta work on your comedy act. Irony's an accent, not a backbone.

(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The horror!

Thought so.

Oh look, another non sequitur comment...

(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  One of the problems here is this ideological divide. I think this needs to be broken down. The only way this is going to happen though is if you stop accusing me of trolling and actually give me something of substance. I have no ideology to speak of. I am not attached to anything. This is all one-sided.

This indicates to me that you don't understand either your own opinions or the definition of "bias".

(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  For once, can you evaluate it without your feminist bias? Just assume nothing. Look at the case and take gender out if appropriate, or swap the genders. This is one thing I have tended to do when looking at gender issues. Swap them and see how I, or society, would react to that one. In the case I presented, I think it would have been a lot worse for the male either way.

Here's the problem:
What you think "would have been" is worth precisely jack shit.

If you cannot provide an appropriate equivalent case - or even legally substantiated arguments - for such a counterpoint, it is entirely baseless. No meaningful comparison can be made between a single data point and your particular imagination.

Incidentally, there are close-in-age exceptions to age of consent laws in most developed jurisdictions. Here in Canada, for example, the statutory age of consent is 16 - but there are provisions for consent as young as 12. In such cases (young teenagers) there is no ground for initiating sexual assault charges unless there is reasonable ground to assume a lack of consent. Similar laws prevail in much of the United States and Europe - thus whatever imagined precedent you think a single case in Kansas presents, it doesn't.

I also note that Revenant already explained this to you. Such statements as this:
(14-09-2014 04:54 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 04:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  As at no time during their relationship did he not consent to sex. She was 16 he was 13.

Because young boys can consent at any age , but girls can only consent at 18, and without a drop of alcohol in their system and sign consent forms and maintain that consent even after the sex has finished. Informed consent goes out the window, because he has a penis.
are ludicrous fantasy. I cannot even begin to imagine where you drew such erroneous conclusions.

The actual facts of the case in question are that in the eyes of the court the relationship was consensual. Therefore that the pregnancy resulted from acts of nominal statutory rape was irrelevant to the child support proceedings. That's how common law works.

Your argument seems to rest on misinterpreting a single data point in order to "prove" both a wider trend and its exceptions, which is what any claim of "double standard" requires.

It is not compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
15-09-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
One thing that might improve the tenor of these discussions would be to drop the word "rape" out of the discussion (and the law) when it is an act between two children.

I would even go so far as to suggest dropping the term "statutory rape" from the law and replacing it with something less freighted with violent meaning.

Sex between a sixteen year old girl and a thirteen year old boy is not rape.

I doubt there are very many thirteen year old boys who would disagree.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-09-2014, 01:12 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
Well thank you for at least offering an actual response this time. Now we can at the very least understand each other's arguments.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Do I really come across to you the same way feminists do to me? Wow.

You come across as stubbornly oblivious.

So yeah, I do come across the same way.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  My signature explains the fallacy fallacy part...

No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand - and your signature proves it.

"Fallacy fallacy" is a laconic way of pointing out that you have made accusations of fallacy which are spurious. They're nowhere evident outside your own mind.

False. The fallacy fallacy is when you accuse someone of a fallacy and then assume you are therefore correct. It actually only applies when a fallacy actually has been committed. So actually, when one calls fallacy fallacy, they are admitting to a fallacy. Otherwise it counts as a strawman.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Quote:Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

However, I never made such a statement. I have only ever dismissed specific arguments and justifications for said arguments based on fallacies. I have never said you are wrong because you have made bad arguments, rather that I have yet to accept your position based on lack of valid arguments.
If I spot a fallacy, and you can't see it, it may be because there was a lack of context, a lack of understanding of the opponent's arguments, or you actually committed one and don't want to admit it.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Even then, by your "logic" it is impossible to ever correct anyone without descending into an infinite "NO U" circlejerk...

How? All I mean is that "fallacy fallacy" is not a valid defence for your position. Either justify your position, or don't bother arguing.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  ... but however, the reason I point out that you are projecting is because it is the only available explanation as to why you see me in the way you do.

That is a complete non sequitur.

It is troubling to me that you don't understand what an insane leap of, ahem, "logic" that is.

I explained further down.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Most of the time faulty reasoning is justified by accusing the opponent of that exact thing. You see this with creationists a lot. They accuse those who accept evolution of having confirmation bias etc and then this justifies their own use of it, even if they don't admit they are doing it themselves. This was the reason I said it. Maybe look in the mirror and look at your own positions?

Maybe look in the mirror and look at your own positions?

Kid, you gotta work on your comedy act. Irony's an accent, not a backbone.

And again, absolutely nothing substantive. I explained why I called projection, and then you do the whole "no you circle jerk" thing you accused me of allowing earlier.
I do that all the fucking time. I always evaluate my positions, make sure I am consistently using terms, examine evidence, and always keep doubt. I am pragmatic for a reason. Maybe you should try?

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Thought so.

Oh look, another non sequitur comment...

Ever heard of a joke? My comment asks you to evaluate my positions, and then I quote you saying "the horror!"
Have you no sense of humour?

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  One of the problems here is this ideological divide. I think this needs to be broken down. The only way this is going to happen though is if you stop accusing me of trolling and actually give me something of substance. I have no ideology to speak of. I am not attached to anything. This is all one-sided.

This indicates to me that you don't understand either your own opinions or the definition of "bias".

What? This is a bit vague. Again, this whole "you just don't understand" is condescending. I understand my own opinions for god's sake. I reserve judgment in some areas, but if I have an opinion, I will make sure I fully understand it.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 10:56 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  For once, can you evaluate it without your feminist bias? Just assume nothing. Look at the case and take gender out if appropriate, or swap the genders. This is one thing I have tended to do when looking at gender issues. Swap them and see how I, or society, would react to that one. In the case I presented, I think it would have been a lot worse for the male either way.

Here's the problem:
What you think "would have been" is worth precisely jack shit.

If you cannot provide an appropriate equivalent case - or even legally substantiated arguments - for such a counterpoint, it is entirely baseless. No meaningful comparison can be made between a single data point and your particular imagination.

That is actually a good point. I agree that I should be presenting equal cases. But we have to accept that completely equal cases will only ever be in small sample sizes.
I was comparing it to Steubenville. The other problem is the extraneous variables I will accept, and so all I was pointing out was how rape (or statutory rape) to minors is looked down upon when a man does it, but practically rewarded when a woman does it.
I know that you don't always get accurate predictions when you extrapolate, but the main problem I was pointing out was male consent is still an issue, while female consent is hammered in every place concievable.
I may be young and inexperienced, but I will tell you, sex ed lessons consist mostly of the pics of STDs obviously, but female consent is always stressed. To the extent that they point out "under the influence of alcohol" is a very vague phrase. There is never anything about whether you will consent, and your ability to choose not to have sex, or if you don't want to it is as bad as the other way around (although legally in the UK, a woman is unable to rape) so I think that should be addressed. I have met loads of people who don't think a man can be raped by a woman, and I have to bloody stress it and think of a horrific situation to make it even possible for a guy not to want to. However, you say a woman may not want sex, and they accept it that second.
Are you telling me you have never met a person like this?

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Incidentally, there are close-in-age exceptions to age of consent laws in most developed jurisdictions. Here in Canada, for example, the statutory age of consent is 16 - but there are provisions for consent as young as 12. In such cases (young teenagers) there is no ground for initiating sexual assault charges unless there is reasonable ground to assume a lack of consent. Similar laws prevail in much of the United States and Europe - thus whatever imagined precedent you think a single case in Kansas presents, it doesn't.

I also note that Revenant already explained this to you. Such statements as this:
(14-09-2014 04:54 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Because young boys can consent at any age , but girls can only consent at 18, and without a drop of alcohol in their system and sign consent forms and maintain that consent even after the sex has finished. Informed consent goes out the window, because he has a penis.
are ludicrous fantasy. I cannot even begin to imagine where you drew such erroneous conclusions.

The actual facts of the case in question are that in the eyes of the court the relationship was consensual. Therefore that the pregnancy resulted from acts of nominal statutory rape was irrelevant to the child support proceedings. That's how common law works.

Your argument seems to rest on misinterpreting a single data point in order to "prove" both a wider trend and its exceptions, which is what any claim of "double standard" requires.

It is not compelling.

Okay, this seems to be an is-ought fallacy at this point. You are pointing out a consent law and then saying therefore it is justified. I think laws should be shaped by morality rather than the other way around.
I am only arguing that this case, although legal, was abhorrent, while you are then justifying it with laws. I don't think laws are compelling.
I really hope I am just not understanding this point, but that's what I took from it.
I will accept that I can't extrapolate with this data. But I was, again, pointing out that if you can extrapolate Steubenville, then this also can, and it extrapolates to a much more sinister position than the former.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 12:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  One thing that might improve the tenor of these discussions would be to drop the word "rape" out of the discussion (and the law) when it is an act between two children.

I would even go so far as to suggest dropping the term "statutory rape" from the law and replacing it with something less freighted with violent meaning.

Sex between a sixteen year old girl and a thirteen year old boy is not rape.

I doubt there are very many thirteen year old boys who would disagree.

There is no "rape" in Canadian law. There are only types of sexual assault.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Well thank you for at least offering an actual response this time. Now we can at the very least understand each other's arguments.

(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand - and your signature proves it.

"Fallacy fallacy" is a laconic way of pointing out that you have made accusations of fallacy which are spurious. They're nowhere evident outside your own mind.

False. The fallacy fallacy is when you accuse someone of a fallacy and then assume you are therefore correct. It actually only applies when a fallacy actually has been committed. So actually, when one calls fallacy fallacy, they are admitting to a fallacy. Otherwise it counts as a strawman.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Indeed, the trite definition of a diffident website says one thing. Given that the term is hardly one encountered in actual study of argumentation and rhetoric, and thus has no formal meaning, I fail to see how that might be taken as authoritative...

Even your latest attempt at justification demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. If we accept a single source as the only acceptable usage for what is nonetheless a very colloquial term, it still does not follow that anyone about one's own arguments (if they even make any) rests on the validity of another's arguments.

Someone saying to you "no, that argument/accusation is fallacious" means nothing other than that they feel your argument or accusation is fallacious.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  However, I never made such a statement. I have only ever dismissed specific arguments and justifications for said arguments based on fallacies.

You've repeatedly made spurious and inapplicable accusations of fallacy.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I have never said you are wrong because you have made bad arguments, rather that I have yet to accept your position based on lack of valid arguments.
If I spot a fallacy, and you can't see it, it may be because there was a lack of context, a lack of understanding of the opponent's arguments, or you actually committed one and don't want to admit it.

Or perhaps one further possibility: if you - and you alone - "spot" something, it might not be real.

Just a thought.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Even then, by your "logic" it is impossible to ever correct anyone without descending into an infinite "NO U" circlejerk...

How? All I mean is that "fallacy fallacy" is not a valid defence for your position. Either justify your position, or don't bother arguing.

You don't seem to understand the broader narrative here.

If you reject every comment and criticism by vapidly spouting off "NO U R FALLACY" then it becomes impossible to engage in dialogue.

Particularly if that is to be your response to even those comments pointing out that your original accusations are baseless.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Maybe look in the mirror and look at your own positions?

Kid, you gotta work on your comedy act. Irony's an accent, not a backbone.

And again, absolutely nothing substantive.

To dismiss something of no substance (hint: that means you) does not require a particularly substantive effort on the part of anyone else.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I explained why I called projection, and then you do the whole "no you circle jerk" thing you accused me of allowing earlier.

I don't think you understood my comment. Whatever.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I do that all the fucking time. I always evaluate my positions, make sure I am consistently using terms, examine evidence, and always keep doubt. I am pragmatic for a reason. Maybe you should try?

And all the vaccine and climate "skeptics" in the world would say the same about themselves, too; the 9/11 truthers say they are the only ones truly examining the evidence... one's self-assessment in such matters is far from useful.

Are you even trying?

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This indicates to me that you don't understand either your own opinions or the definition of "bias".

What? This is a bit vague. Again, this whole "you just don't understand" is condescending.

You may choose to interpret comments as condescending, but that does not make them so in intent.

Or did you not know that?
(hint: that last bit was condescending - and it was a joke)

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I understand my own opinions for god's sake. I reserve judgment in some areas, but if I have an opinion, I will make sure I fully understand it.

So you say.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Here's the problem:
What you think "would have been" is worth precisely jack shit.

If you cannot provide an appropriate equivalent case - or even legally substantiated arguments - for such a counterpoint, it is entirely baseless. No meaningful comparison can be made between a single data point and your particular imagination.

That is actually a good point.

Well; there you go, then.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I agree that I should be presenting equal cases. But we have to accept that completely equal cases will only ever be in small sample sizes.
I was comparing it to Steubenville.

Ah. A situation which admits of very few parallels beyond the superficial. Gotcha.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  The other problem is the extraneous variables I will accept, and so all I was pointing out was how rape (or statutory rape) to minors is looked down upon when a man does it, but practically rewarded when a woman does it.

You have not even come close to substantiating that wild claim.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I know that you don't always get accurate predictions when you extrapolate, but the main problem I was pointing out was male consent is still an issue, while female consent is hammered in every place concievable.
I may be young and inexperienced, but I will tell you, sex ed lessons consist mostly of the pics of STDs obviously...

How do you know?

Do you have any direct experience with sex ed beyond that which you received yourself? Is your own experience representative of your peers in other schools in your region? Other socio-economic conditions? Other nations?

Do you see the problem with such unsubstantiated generalisation? Because this is precisely why people call you things like inexperienced or ignorant. You cannot merely assert things based only on your personal experience.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  ... but female consent is always stressed. To the extent that they point out "under the influence of alcohol" is a very vague phrase. There is never anything about whether you will consent, and your ability to choose not to have sex, or if you don't want to it is as bad as the other way around (although legally in the UK, a woman is unable to rape) so I think that should be addressed.

"Always". "Never". Rather blanket statements, it would seem to me. There are nonetheless a great many types of sexual assault which may be applicable under either English, Scots, or Northern Irish law. What is your point?

As a point of comparison I reiterate that "rape" as a specific offense does not exist in the criminal code of Canada. There are only different types of sexual assault. Women are charged and convicted of them.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I have met loads of people who don't think a man can be raped by a woman, and I have to bloody stress it and think of a horrific situation to make it even possible for a guy not to want to. However, you say a woman may not want sex, and they accept it that second.

"I have met loads of people" is just a shade more compelling than "my holy book says". The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

If they are in the UK as you are, then they are actually correct - a woman cannot rape a man by the legal definition of "rape" in that jurisdiction. So what? I would be extraordinarily surprised if all of these purported people also didn't think a woman could sexually assault a man.
(I am already extraordinarily surprised that this is apparently a topic you have raised with "loads of people" you have met)

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Are you telling me you have never met a person like this?

Uh oh - are you sure that's not an argument from personal incredulity?

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Okay, this seems to be an is-ought fallacy at this point.

Not at all.

But do go on. I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  You are pointing out a consent law and then saying therefore it is justified.

Now I'm very curious. I never said anything was "justified"; I emphasised merely the legal particulars of the case you chose to raise (without, evidently, a very thorough understanding of it).

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I think laws should be shaped by morality rather than the other way around.

Whose morality?

I remind you that in this very post you are attempting to argue that consensual sex between teenagers is directly comparable to sexual assault, because it is nominally statutory rape under the law either way.

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I am only arguing that this case, although legal, was abhorrent, while you are then justifying it with laws. I don't think laws are compelling.

The ruling was that the father was liable for child support because he was a consensual participant in conception. The very same court acknowledged that the particulars satisfied the definition of statutory rape in the letter of the law, but since that was not relevant to the case it did not affect the ruling.
(that's how courts work)

The precedent you have claimed is that a parent would be liable for child support even given unconsensual participation. On what basis do you draw this ridiculous conclusion? Has that ever happened?

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I really hope I am just not understanding this point, but that's what I took from it.
I will accept that I can't extrapolate with this data. But I was, again, pointing out that if you can extrapolate Steubenville, then this also can, and it extrapolates to a much more sinister position than the former.

Please elaborate on Steubenville, and what you think can be "extrapolated" from it.

Please elaborate on this case, and what you think can be "extrapolated" from it.

And then remember that what you personally think has, in and of itself, literally zero bearing on the legal systems of US states.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: