3 months for Rape

[Sovereign Nation]

(06-08-2016, 12:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even he thinks Brock's sentence was disgusting.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-convicted-brian-banks-disgusted-brock-turner-ruling-article-1.2663595

Yes he does and so does pretty much everyone, myself included.

[Au165]

(06-08-2016, 12:29 PM)Beaker Wrote: Bad analogy. There is a known inherent risk to driving that everyone faces every day. Driving to get to work or get groceries is pretty much a necessity. But using inflammatory speech, or getting fall down drunk is not.

Not really. There is a known risk of a female being raped anytime they go out. Going out is a necessity, not just to parties but in general. Getting drunk isn't, but neither is driving late at night, maybe coming from an up all night bible study? The fact of the matter though is it is statistically more likely you will get hit by a drunk driver at that time, just like people are claiming it is  more likely you will get raped if your drunk. Neither instance you had to be in that situation, but you choose to be

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2016, 12:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can say I don't know of anyone who lacks the ability to accept that rape can happen to someone that doesn't deserve it.

This is what happens when we get caught up in talking in bumper stickers.

Do you think there has ever been a case of someone accused/convicted of rape that didn't deserve it?

Social and psychologically biases occur and exist even if you think you and everyone you know is totally immune to them, guys!

(06-08-2016, 01:02 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Rape should NEVER happen.... period.
There is NO excusing it.

That being said, I understand what Beaker explained well and was attacked for.

Look at your post, women....women...women......
Look at the bathroom posts.....women.....women....women.
Drunk men can be raped by other men.
It's not as prominent, but happens.

People claim to be progressive or whatever, but still have the chivalrous white knight that saves the maiden programmed into their psyche.

It's ok...... it takes time to evolve and look past the sex of a person.

I agree with you, but I'm saying what people are concerned about.  What I actually think regarding these scenarios doesn't enter into my post.  

(06-08-2016, 12:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So there are situations where someone does deserve to be raped?

Pray tell.

I'm not saying people DESERVE to get raped, ever, but our society seems to think women and/or people in prison can and have put themselves in situations where they should have expected it to happen.  I'm not condoning it, and I'm not saying that is a logical argument.  The point of my post is that people begin doing mental gymnastics to explain WHY a person was raped because people don't like to admit that bad things happen against your will. 

[Beaker]

(06-08-2016, 12:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not really. There is a known risk of a female being raped anytime they go out. Going out is a necessity, not just to parties but in general. Getting drunk isn't, but neither is driving late at night, maybe coming from an up all night bible study? The fact of the matter though is it is statistically more likely you will get hit by a drunk driver at that time, just like people are claiming it is  more likely you will get raped if your drunk. Neither instance you had to be in that situation, but you choose to be

You can take it all the way to there is an inherent risk to crossing the street...you didn't need to cross the street, you chose to. That is an absurd analogy. You know too well what I am talking about.

As to your scenario about male rape. The frat guy should not have expected to be sexually assaulted. But he should have the sense to know that something bad could happen to him if he got himself incapacitated.

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 12:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Social and psychologically biases occur and exist even if you think you and everyone you know is totally immune to them, guys!


 

Why do folks make things up?

[Au165]

(06-08-2016, 12:41 PM)Beaker Wrote: You can take it all the way to there is an inherent risk to crossing the street...you didn't need to cross the street, you chose to. That is an absurd analogy. You know too well what I am talking about.

As to your scenario about male rape. The frat guy should not have expected to be sexually assaulted. But he should have the sense to know that something bad could happen to him if he got himself incapacitated.

EXACTLY! My point is everything we do can increase the risk of something bad happening to us (It is a fact that driving late at night increases your risk of being hit by a drunk driver), so why is it we point to an increased risk of rape by drinking as being the thing we want to slap the personal responsibility on the victim? In both cases you chose to do an activity that increased your chance of injury that didn't need to be done i.e. drinking and choosing to drive late at night. The analogy fits if you look at things from a basic level, however when you tag drinking into rape it somehow becomes different when it really isn't if we look at things objectively.

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 12:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not really. There is a known risk of a female being raped anytime they go out. Going out is a necessity, not just to parties but in general. Getting drunk isn't, but neither is driving late at night, maybe coming from an up all night bible study? The fact of the matter though is it is statistically more likely you will get hit by a drunk driver at that time, just like people are claiming it is  more likely you will get raped if your drunk. Neither instance you had to be in that situation, but you choose to be

What about someone who works a third shift? Comparing going to a party and getting drunk to commuting in your care is kind of silly.

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2016, 12:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do folks make things up?

What is made up?  The concept of cognitive dissonance and people's refusal to accept unpleasant realities?

Wait, are you trying to deny the existence of subconscious and unconscious bias as a means of being ironic?

[Au165]

(06-08-2016, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What about someone who works a third shift? Comparing going to a party and getting drunk to commuting in your care is kind of silly.

They make that choice to do so, and it increases their risk of injury but it doesn't mean they did anything wrong. It still applies. Even still what about if it wasn't out of "necessity" for things like work? What if it was just coming from a friends house on New years eve at 2AM. Now explain it away.

People are getting caught up on the situations and not the basis of the whole thing. If you want to say people who increase their risk to having bad things done to them should take some blame, then that is fine. It must however be applied to all situations where people increase these chances, but the reality is it is not. I can go either way on it, but be consistent.

[Beaker]

(06-08-2016, 12:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: EXACTLY! My point is everything we do can increase the risk of something bad happening to us (It is a fact that driving late at night increases your risk of being hit by a drunk driver), so why is it we point to an increased risk of rape by drinking as being the thing we want to slap the personal responsibility on the victim?

So you think that the person who spouts racial slurs in a predominantly black neighborhood, or the person who drinks them self into a stupor and gets assaulted should be free from any responsibility for their actions?

A person steps over the rail at the Grand canyon to get a better picture. There are warning signs all over the rail explaining the danger. The person falls and is severly injured or killed. They should not have had the sense not to put themselves in a dangerous situation? I use that analogy because crossing the rail is going beyond a safe boundary. Similarlly, drinking to much is going beyond a safe boundary. Both are known dangerous situations to the offender. Where does common sense come into play?

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 12:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: They make that choice to do so, and it increases their risk of injury but it doesn't mean they did anything wrong. It still applies.

They chose to go to work to support their family or perhaps take a loved one to the hospital. There are a vast number of reason folks must commute during dangerous times. I'd imagine a good many accidents happen during rush hour. Comparing that to choosing to go to a party and getting smashed is silly.

[Au165]

(06-08-2016, 12:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They chose to go to work to support their family or perhaps take a loved one to the hospital. There are a vast number of reason folks must commute during dangerous times. I'd imagine a good many accidents happen during rush hour. Comparing that to choosing to go to a party and getting smashed is silly.

See my point about the philosophical debate here. Either increasing likelihood of causing bad things to happen results in personal blame or it doesn't but it has to be consistent. Life is about choices in everything we do, if a good intention such as taking a loved one results in you getting hit then you are still responsible for it. You made a choice and while it may be easier to deal with the consequences because of the choice you still caused it to happen.

Let me come full circle, I am not obtuse. I understand what everyone is saying. The issue is that if you aren't willing to apply the logic across the board then you have to determine what the metric is for judging personal responsibility is knowing that everything is in affect the result of something we do. The issue here is there is a bias towards applying more personal responsibility to victims of sexual assaults that include alcohol than to other crimes. It has been proven in mock jury studies that juries are less likely to convict presented the exact same evidence but in one trial they are told the victim is drunk and in another they aren't.

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 12:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Actually it goes much deeper in to the numbers pointing out that there may not be the relation between drinking and being more likely to be raped, but rather it may be happenstance that there is alcohol as the rape was inevitable.

I don't come off as contradictory, however you do. I laid out an example of your daughter being in a car accident where she put herself in a situation that increased the likelihood it could occur. You chose to say that there are different levels of risk, but that there were too many variables for you to claim where one becomes personal responsibility and one doesn't. You see I think both the girl who was raped and the person hit by the car have no real personal responsibility. You however, want to try and use a mythical scale to make your determination.

We can talk about male rape too if you like. A frat guy gets wasted and, let's say a female assaults him. He also did nothing wrong and should not have been subject to sexual assault. The problem is most of the rapes occur from males towards females, that is why it tends to be the topic.

You thirst for ethical consistency should be quenched at home first before looking outward. As I said you don't hold personal responsibility of victims of other crimes to the same standards as those involved in rape.

I refuse to return fire, on the personal jab.
I never criticized anyone directly, especially you.
I would recommend you revisit my posts (sans emotions).
I believe my point of never excusing rape was clear and my concern was of inconsistent thought processes.
I entertained your tangent, so please entertain my request for you to re-read for clarity.

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 12:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What is made up?  The concept of cognitive dissonance and people's refusal to accept unpleasant realities?

Wait, are you trying to deny the existence of subconscious and unconscious bias as a means of being ironic?

I am fully aware of the term cognitive dissonance; that is why I don't know of anyone that believe folks get raped that do not deserve it. Your response was nothing more that explaining cognitive dissonance and then asserting I don't believe that can happen. That's the made up part.

I noticed you never answered the question posed and explain to kain situations, in which, someone deserves to be rapes. He was inquiring, but asked me for some reason.

[Au165]

(06-08-2016, 01:05 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I refuse to return fire, on the personal jab.
I never criticized anyone directly, especially you.
I would recommend you revisit my posts (sans emotions).
I believe my point of never excusing rape was clear and my concern was of inconsistent thought processes.
I entertained your tangent, so please entertain my request for you to re-read for clarity.

I guess we will agree to disagree. There were no personal jabs, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you calling others out for contradicting statements and lack of ethical consistency, yet exhibited those very same traits. I am not emotional, rather annoyed by your inability to see how you are trying to apply a subjective scale in your mind to assign personal responsibility without realizing that it doesn't get applied equally across the board. Neither will change their mind on this so I'll leave it at that.

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2016, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am fully aware of the term cognitive dissonance; that is why I don't know of anyone that believe folks get raped that do not deserve it. Your response was nothing more that explaining cognitive dissonance and then asserting I don't believe that can happen. That's the made up part.

I noticed you never answered the question posed and explain to kain situations, in which, someone deserves to be rapes. He was inquiring, but asked me for some reason.

I'm sure you can find people who think people "deserve to be raped" by looking in the comments section of any related article.  You believing in cognitive dissonance or no one you know thinking rape is "deserved" is irrelevant.  My comment was just a general observation on why people feel so compelled to find fault with victims in any sense.  We can't stand the idea that life isn't fair.  We can blame the victim, we can insist a deity or karma (if you aren't into deities) is going to set everything right in the end.  

In a way I'm almost going easy on people who victim blame in any sense because I realize the desire to dupe yourself into believing things are fair and just is simply an unconscious survival mechanism.

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 01:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: I guess we will agree to disagree. There were no personal jabs, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you calling others out for contradicting statements and lack of ethical consistency, yet exhibited those very same traits. I am not emotional, rather annoyed by your inability to see how you are trying to apply a subjective scale in your mind to assign personal responsibility without realizing that it doesn't get applied equally across the board. Neither will change their mind on this so I'll leave it at that.

I'm ok with that.
It is always possible I am not coming across as I feel I am.
Just understand that the metric was in entertaining your scanario, which had nothing to do with my original point.
However, you are right that the metric is not defined and I lack the information to do so.

Edit.... yes I know I was using a metric that I am admitting that I cannot fully define. I should have refrained from your hypothetical and stayed my course.
Oh well....

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 01:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm sure you can find people who think people "deserve to be raped" by looking in the comments section of any related article.  You believing in cognitive dissonance or no one you know thinking rape is "deserved" is irrelevant.  My comment was just a general observation on why people feel so compelled to find fault with victims in any sense.  We can't stand the idea that life isn't fair.  We can blame the victim, we can insist a deity or karma (if you aren't into deities) is going to set everything right in the end.  

In a way I'm almost going easy on people who victim blame in any sense because I realize the desire to dupe yourself into believing things are fair and just is simply an unconscious survival mechanism.

Now you are changing the wording. You orginally said there are folks that cannot accept that there are those who don't deserve to be raped are raped. You have now changed that to there are folks that think folks deserve to be raped.

I have zero doubt that there are folks out there that would support the "she asked for it" mentallity; given they are most likely extrememly rare.

You still didn't answer the question i posed. Is your cognitive disonance making it difficult?

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2016, 12:55 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: If I were to yell slurs in Chicago, I am not doing anything illegal (providing I'm not directing it at an individual, anyway).
If a large/upstanding/brown citizen were to whip my ass, THAT would be illegal.
There are people in this thread that stated that I would be getting what I deserved.(personal responsibility and all)
However, that all goes out the window when this topic comes up.
It just doesn't make sense to me (on a psychological scale, regarding posters opinion).
The only thing that explains it is White Knight Syndrome.

You are missing one big difference.

Yelling slurs, while perfectly legal, is an insulting personal attack on other people.

Getting drunk is not a personal attack or insult to another person.

You have to be pretty dense to not see any difference between those two actions, so to me the only thing that explains your thinking is sexist victim blaming.

[Griever]

(06-08-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are missing one big difference.

Yelling slurs, while perfectly legal, is a insulting personal attack on other people.

Getting drunk is not a personal attack or insult to another person.

You have to be pretty dense to not see any difference between those two actions, so to me the only thing that explains your thinking is sexist victim blaming.

and both responses to the individuals are the perps fault, seeing as they are both illegal actions (assault/rape)