Answering old threads thread

[Arthur Brain]

But is it rape?

Yes.

Duh.

 

[Derf]

What, you gonna point to other regimes like Saudi Arabia as well where women don't have anywhere near the same rights as we have in the West? When put on the spot where it comes to forcing oneself on another you answered with "depends" so you don't get to dictate anything where it comes to morality from any sort of "Godly" perspective. The only ethical response on that particular would be "No". You don't get to wriggle out of a hole of your own making by pointing to regimes that are undeniably atrocious and will hopefully be kicked into touch as some have but a long way to go unfortunately. Where you and I live women aren't second class citizens and have equal rights. Not to be raped in the marriage bed being one for example.

I'm saying it isn't rape. It might be something else, but not rape.

What do you propose to do to someone who rapes his wife?

 

[glorydaz]

I'm saying it isn't rape. It might be something else, but not rape.

What do you propose to do to someone who rapes his wife?

It's rape. I suggest she waits until his back is turned and hit him upside the head with a rolling pin.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

I'm saying it isn't rape. It might be something else, but not rape.

What do you propose to do to someone who rapes his wife?

Similar penalties. Just like when you murder your husband, it's still murder.

 

[Clete]

Where I anthropomorphized ducks? I mentioned them. That does not mean I've anthropomorphized them isn't that an odd thing to think on your part honestly that the simple mention of a creature means anthropomorphism is being employed?

You stated that ducks reproduce via rape. Ducks are fundamentally incapable of rape. Rape is a crime that is perpetrated by human being against other human beings. Therefore, yes, you did, in fact, anthropomorphize ducks. Which, incidentally, does not raise ducks to the level of human beings but rather diminishes human being to the level of animals.

Nah. No thanks. Not til the whole world quits with the nonsense that serious morality is something that good people can disagree about. Take rape for instance. No one's allowed to think that breaking any Latin woman's absolute right against being raped is ever permissible, no matter the conditions, ever.

It is precisely natural law that tells us all that!

Clete

 

[Rusha]

I'm saying it isn't rape. It might be something else, but not rape.

What do you propose to do to someone who rapes his wife?

What would you do to someone who murders his wife?

I suggest the same penalty for both …

 

[ok doser]

I'm saying it isn't rape. It might be something else, but not rape.

What do you propose to do to someone who rapes his wife?

Some forms of rape as currently defined in US law are obviously examples of assault. Some, just as obviously, aren't.

For those that ARE examples of assault, let's consider them in that context.

What should we do with a husband who assaults his wife? How much assault should be allowed before society should intervene?

 

[ok doser]

It's rape. I suggest she waits until his back is turned and hit him upside the head with a rolling pin.

In the context of the reply that I just sent to Derf, what you're proposing is responding to assault with assault. I'm not dismissive of that as a possible option, but pragmatically I'm sure you can understand why in many cases it would not be practical. For a victim who seeks redress and is either unable or unwilling to apply it themself, what do you think should be the role of society in intervening?

 

[Derf]

What would you do to someone who murders his wife?

I suggest the same penalty for both …

Are you ok with capital punishment for rape? All rape?

Like this:
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (KJV) 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

 

[Idolater]

The whole duck argument was nonsense in relation as explained prior.

What argument exactly? You didn't explain that prior.

Bringing nationality into morality is just you waving the stars and stripes about, it's pathetic.

Nope. You thinking this is somehow nationalistic is pathetic. I am just being moral. I can't help that I live in the same country where we humans first applied the lessons in our government that universal human rights teaches.

My stance on rape is clear as all get out frankly.

It is, I never said otherwise. We were talking about your stance on rights.

 

[Idolater]

You stated that ducks reproduce via rape.

Yes.

Ducks are fundamentally incapable of rape.

No. When you see animals doing something it doesn't make it anthropomorphic to say so. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, is that anthropomorphic? Can't ducks walk and talk without having to be compared to being human? And if a duck rapes like a duck, then why can't we just call it what it is?

A duck rapist. A raping duck. A duck that rapes.

We know exactly what it looks like when one creature attempts to copulate with another creature and the other creature not want it to happen.

Rape is a crime that is perpetrated by human being against other human beings. Therefore, yes, you did, in fact, anthropomorphize ducks.

Semantics. Equivocation. There's a legal definition of rape (which is already shown to be fraught right within this conversation, with allusions to other countries where their legal definition of rape is . . . incorrect at the least) and then there's the basically common meaning. There's a legal definition of murder too, and sometimes people just say "murder" when they really just mean "justified killing (such as in self defense)" but they don't know the legal distinction, so they say murder. But what parallel is there with rape? There is none. There is never any justification to force yourself on another person, not in self defense, not because you're under duress, not for anything. And as I said, when you put together a group of ducks where the males are significantly outnumbered by females, they stop raping. It's not like it's inevitable that ducks will rape. But left to their own devices, in the wild, ducks most certainly do rape, and they most certainly do reproduce through rape. Not exclusively maybe. But it happens a lot.

Which, incidentally, does not raise ducks to the level of human beings but rather diminishes human being to the level of animals.

OK but it's not enough to say that rape is animalistic or primitive or any other thing without forcefully saying that rape is categorically immoral, no matter what we see in the wild.

It is precisely natural law that tells us all that!

How? How does natural law theory tell us that we have rights? In fact natural law theory conflicts with rights, and where it does, it is proven to be completely incorrect as any sort of absolute moral guide. Natural law theory can serve as confirming evidence of what natural rights theory teaches, but when they conflict, it is human rights that always prevails over "the natural law".

 

[Idolater]

Some forms of rape as currently defined in US law are obviously examples of assault. Some, just as obviously, aren't.

For those that ARE examples of assault, let's consider them in that context.

What should we do with a husband who assaults his wife? How much assault should be allowed before society should intervene?

Yes, someone 'copping a feel' isn't the same kind of rights violator as a violent copulator, nor should they be penalized the same. Laws should distinguish, and moral laws do distinguish.

 

[Rusha]

Are you ok with capital punishment for rape? All rape?

Of course. I am also against all MURDER and physical abuse. Aren’t you? If not, what kind of rape do you see as acceptable?

 

[annabenedetti]

I never suggested that pregnancy was impossible but merely that they do not normally occur as a result of rape. The point being that rape has nothing to do with reproduction and if it did, it doesn't work very well at all. This may have several causes, not the least of which being that a woman isn't able to conceive except for about about a week or so every month so that alone would tend toward something close to 75% of rapes not causing pregnancy. There are other factors as well, of course, because the real number isn't 25% its only 5%, and the majority of those were rapes perpetrated by family members, by the way.
The point here is that I was not suggesting that rape cannot or does not ever result in a pregnancy. A point, by the way, which is obvious enough that anyone who thought I was saying otherwise was looking for a reason to disagree. One wonders what the motive would be there.

I can't speak for Skeeter, and he can't either until he gets back from his ban. But I'd venture to say that what may have prompted his reply was that there have been contentions in the past that a woman or girl can't get pregnant if she's raped and that kind of misinformation provides good motivation for correction. If you also agree then we're all in agreement that rape can and does result in pregnancy.

 

[ok doser]

... also made the point well in that long ago thread:

Awwwwww

I miss trad

 

[Derf]

Of course. I am also against all MURDER and physical abuse. Aren’t you? If not, what kind of rape do you see as acceptable?

Rapeseed - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[ok doser]

... what kind of rape do you see as acceptable?

The consensual rape that my wife and I used to engage in

 

[Clete]

Yes.

No. When you see animals doing something it doesn't make it anthropomorphic to say so.

Read my entire post before beginning to respond. It'll help keep you from look this idiotic.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, is that anthropomorphic?

If you attribute human activity to ducks then you are, by definition, anthropomorphizing ducts. Accusing ducks of rape is, therefore, an anthropomorphism.

Can't ducks walk and talk without having to be compared to being human?

No. Ducks do not talk and they only sort of walk.

Besides that, the saying goes "If it QUACKS like a duck..." not "talks like a duck". In which case it wouldn't be an anthropromorphism in the first place because you're ascribing duck like characteristics to something and not human characteristics.

And if a duck rapes like a duck, then why can't we just call it what it is?

That's a big IF!

Ducks DO NOT rape other ducks! To even suggest otherwise displays a level of stupidity that I can hardly put into words. It's proof positive that what you need to do is to shut your mouth in any discussion on the subject of rape because you don't know enough about it to be worthy of offering any opinion that's worth the energy in would require for anyone to listen to.

Animals (ducks or otherwise) are not capable of committing rape - period.

A duck rapist. A raping duck. A duck that rapes.

No such duck exists. It is not possible for an animal to commit a crime much less a capital crime such as rape.

We know exactly what it looks like when one creature attempts to copulate with another creature and the other creature not want it to happen.

That is only part of what is happening during a rape and it is perhaps the least damaging part to boot.

Think of what you are implying, by the way. God created ducks and He is responsible for their mating habits.

Semantics. Equivocation.

Liar. You knew that was false when you typed it.

When you attribute human characteristics to non-human things there is a word for that. That word is "anthropomorphism". Just because you're too stupid to understand that nearly mindless birds are incapable of committing such a crime doesn't change the definition of commonly used English words.

There's a legal definition of rape (which is already shown to be fraught right within this conversation, with allusions to other countries where their legal definition of rape is . . . incorrect at the least) and then there's the basically common meaning. There's a legal definition of murder too, and sometimes people just say "murder" when they really just mean "justified killing (such as in self defense)" but they don't know the legal distinction, so they say murder.

That's bull. They might use the term "kill" in place of "murder" but almost never the other way around.

But what parallel is there with rape? There is none. There is never any justification to force yourself on another person, not in self defense, not because you're under duress, not for anything.

This is not in dispute.

And as I said, when you put together a group of ducks where the males are significantly outnumbered by females, they stop raping. It's not like it's inevitable that ducks will rape. But left to their own devices, in the wild, ducks most certainly do rape, and they most certainly do reproduce through rape. Not exclusively maybe. But it happens a lot.

No duck has ever raped another duck. It is a contradiction in terms. It cannot happen.

OK but it's not enough to say that rape is animalistic or primitive or any other thing without forcefully saying that rape is categorically immoral, no matter what we see in the wild.

That's just the point. Animals are not capable of being immoral.

How? How does natural law theory tell us that we have rights?

Once you acknowledge the right to life, a whole variety of rights come as corollaries. To deny the right to private property, for example, is a denial of one's right to live because one cannot produce a product or service except by spending his time and tallent (i.e. his life) to produce it. To take a man's production without his consent and without proper compensation is either theft or slavery or both.

Of course, the subject is very much more complex than just that but, beyond that, I'm not the least bit interested in giving you a lesson in natural law. Suffice it to say that the fact that you can ask that question means that you are sufficiently ignorant on the subject as to be entirely disqualified to discuss it with anyone. Try reading a book!

In fact natural law theory conflicts with rights, and where it does, it is proven to be completely incorrect as any sort of absolute moral guide.

This is the stupidest statement made on TOL this week, if not longer. It is born out of your literally idiotic notion that we can learn natural law from the way animals treat one another. That is laughably idiotic. It's is literally the opposite of what natural law is.

Natural law theory can serve as confirming evidence of what natural rights theory teaches, but when they conflict, it is human rights that always prevails over "the natural law".

You're so ignorant of the topic that you can't even tell when you contradict yourself. There are no human rights outside of natural law! Outside of natural law human rights become arbitrary. Outside of natural law, human rights are whatever the mob that happens to be in control say they are and no one would have any basis upon which to object. If you think human rights are both objective and absolute then you believe in natural law because there isn't any other rational way to get there.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

In the context of the reply that I just sent to Derf, what you're proposing is responding to assault with assault. I'm not dismissive of that as a possible option, but pragmatically I'm sure you can understand why in many cases it would not be practical. For a victim who seeks redress and is either unable or unwilling to apply it themself, what do you think should be the role of society in intervening?

Sorry, it was meant to be humorous. I find the topic, itself, it be old and worn out.

 

[Clete]

I can't speak for Skeeter, and he can't either until he gets back from his ban. But I'd venture to say that what may have prompted his reply was that there have been contentions in the past that a woman or girl can't get pregnant if she's raped and that kind of misinformation provides good motivation for correction. If you also agree then we're all in agreement that rape can and does result in pregnancy.

I completely agree. There was a study in 1996, if I remember the year correctly, that showed pregnancy occurs due to rape only about 5% of the time which is only just barely considered statistically significant. Meaning that the percent of error in practically any scientific study is larger than 5%.
Also, the fact that the majority of the pregnancies that do occur happen when a young teenage girl (very fertile) is raped by a member of her family or someone she knows. The reason that's important is because if the perpetrator lives in the same house or has frequent contact with the victim, then the victim's own biology can cause an increase in sex drive in the males around her. That isn't an excuse, of course, (annoying that I even have to say that) but it is at least potentially a contributing factor that would tend toward causing the timing of the rape to be more in line with when the victim is able to conceive vs. when stranger on stranger rapes happen.

Clete

P.S. It was 1996...

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women

18 Profound Statistics of Rape Victims Getting Pregnant