PDA

View Full Version : Dawkins' views on rape



Rasofy
08-07-2014, 01:57 AM
Richard Dawkins Just Claimed Some Rape Is “Worse” Than Others (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/richard-dawkins-just-claimed-some-rape-is-worse-than-others)

Thoughts? Don't wanna influence answers, so I won't opine for now.


Richard Dawkins has said "date rape is bad" and "stranger rape at knifepoint is worse" and contrasted "mild" paedophilia with "violent" paedophilia on Twitter.

The writer, known for his atheism and books including The God Delusion, emphasised he was not approving anything but giving examples of a "syllogism" - logical argument where the comparisons do not imply any endorsement of either.

After starting the discussion using X and Y, he went on to other examples.

He wrote: "Mild paedophilia is bad. Violent paedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild paedophilia, go away and learn how to think."

Dawkins then went on to "date rape" versus "stranger rape".

"Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think," one tweet said.

His 17,900 followers were quick to respond, with some approving the logical argument but others being less impressed.

One person told the evolutionary biologist to "go away and learn compassion" while another sarcastically suggested he could "make a list ranking types of rape from worst to least worst".

Dawkins parodied harsh responses by later tweeting: "'Stealing £1 is bad. Stealing an old lady's life savings is worse.' How DARE you rank them? Stealing is stealing. You're vile, appalling."

He finished Monday’s discussion by saying he learned that people on Twitter "think in absolutist terms".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-says-date-rape-is-bad-stranger-rape-is-worse-on-twitter-9634572.html

P-O
08-07-2014, 02:09 AM
I think most people would agree with the sentiment.

pensive_pilgrim
08-07-2014, 02:15 AM
I dunno. I get the point he's making about the comparisons, but I'm not sure I agree with the second one. Stranger rape at knife point... I haven't experienced it, but I'm sure it's terrifying. But date rape really sucks too, and in that scenario you're being victimized by someone you might trust and like and want to have a relationship with, maybe somebody who shares the same social circle. After it's over that seems like it could be harder to deal with.

I also think the context in which you're making the comparison is pretty significant. If someone was raped by an acquaintance and you start talking about how much worse stranger rape is, you definitely are minimizing what happened to that person

Rasofy
08-07-2014, 02:21 AM
I also think the context in which you're making the comparison is pretty significant. If someone was raped by an acquaintance and you start talking about how much worse stranger rape is, you definitely are minimizing what happened to that person
Fair.

Starjots
08-07-2014, 02:40 AM
Not sure if he was talking about rape or logic.

Fitz
08-07-2014, 02:48 AM
I see no issue with any of it.

Some things are worse than other things. surprise.

OrionzRevenge
08-07-2014, 03:27 AM
He finished Monday’s discussion by saying he learned that people on Twitter this Planet "think in absolutist terms".

I imagine that this was the point all along.

Hephaestus
08-07-2014, 03:28 AM
I dunno. I get the point he's making about the comparisons, but I'm not sure I agree with the second one. Stranger rape at knife point... I haven't experienced it, but I'm sure it's terrifying. But date rape really sucks too, and in that scenario you're being victimized by someone you might trust and like and want to have a relationship with, maybe somebody who shares the same social circle. After it's over that seems like it could be harder to deal with.

I also think the context in which you're making the comparison is pretty significant. If someone was raped by an acquaintance and you start talking about how much worse stranger rape is, you definitely are minimizing what happened to that person

I was thinking much the same. I've no idea which is worse--or even if one is quantifiably worse because the circumstances and aftermath are so different. I've no frame of reference for comparison.

Senseye
08-07-2014, 04:12 AM
I see no issue with any of it.

Some things are worse than other things. surprise.I agree. It's just that things like rape and paedophilia are hot button emotional issues so people overreact.

If he had said getting mugged is bad, getting mugged and beaten is worse, and getting mugged and murdered is even worse, everybody would shrug and say "of course". Nobody would think he was condoning mugging.

Utisz
08-07-2014, 04:32 AM
I was thinking much the same. I've no idea which is worse--or even if one is quantifiably worse because the circumstances and aftermath are so different. I've no frame of reference for comparison.

Yup. Apples and oranges basically.


I agree. It's just that things like rape and paedophilia are hot button emotional issues so people overreact.

If he had said getting mugged is bad, getting mugged and beaten is worse, and getting mugged and murdered is even worse, everybody would shrug and say "of course". Nobody would think he was condoning mugging.

And if he were to say that having a friend steal money from your purse/wallet while you slept is logically better than having some kid take your purse/wallet at knifepoint, would you agree?

At this point you may well be eager to tell me how shitty my analogy is and I agree with you the two situations are not at all comparable and I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about and neither does Dawkins and that's my point. Him claiming he can apply a logical total ordering of the worseness of two broad categories of rape cases is "logical" is pretty much bullshit ... or at least me and him differ on the nuances of the semantics of the term "worse".



Admittedly though I'm biased. Dawkins fucking annoys me and I'm not precisely sure why (though I have my hunches).

notdavidlynch
08-07-2014, 04:54 AM
I don't see the problem..

.. other than there being a prominent, white, cishet male talking about violence against women in a detached way through a major social media outlet. It's only a matter of time before someone accuses him of being racist because minority women are more likely to be raped.

That's the real problem that people have with it.

He probably fantasizes about date rape and pedophilia tho. Just a hunch.

OrionzRevenge
08-07-2014, 05:42 AM
...Admittedly though I'm biased. Dawkins fucking annoys me and I'm not precisely sure why (though I have my hunches).

It's them Damn Selfish Genes.
Know what I Meme?

pensive_pilgrim
08-07-2014, 06:00 AM
It's gotta be the smugness. No, there couldn't possibly be any validity to peoples' emotional reactions to his value judgments about what's generally an intense and traumatic experience. No, it's just that everybody other than him is an idiot.

P-O
08-07-2014, 06:05 AM
^ It's the quintessential NT response. "Don't like what I have to say? Well here's some logic, now STFU".

It's all very funny to me.

jyng1
08-07-2014, 06:39 AM
Perhaps a juxtaposition to his argument would be the Geneva convention says shooting someone with a soft nosed small arms bullet is bad, but it's OK to shoot them with a 20mm cannon...

I agree with Dawkins as I'm not going to run out and volunteer to be shot with either...

notdavidlynch
08-07-2014, 07:13 AM
If he said: "getting raped is bad, but getting raped twice is worse", do you think people would be more likely to actually have gotten the point?

Or, better yet, "one person getting raped is bad, but two people getting raped is worse". Assuming that in all cases the rapes are carried out the exact same way.

pensive_pilgrim
08-07-2014, 07:18 AM
It seems like the point he was trying to make is that weighing different types of rape against each other is not the same as condoning rape. His critics, however, don't seem to have been trying to say that he was condoning rape. Instead, their main point seems to be that weighing different types of rape against each other is fucking stupid.

This is good though: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpXAZGuCMAA21xA.jpg:large

notdavidlynch
08-07-2014, 07:30 AM
It seems like the point he was trying to make is that weighing different types of rape against each other is not the same as condoning rape.

His point is that comparing any two things doesn't imply an endorsement of one or the other - regardless of whether or not the comparison is fucking stupid, or even within the ballpark of intelligibility. Nothing that he's said even implies that he has an opinion about rape or pedophilia, which is what people don't seem to understand.

pensive_pilgrim
08-07-2014, 07:33 AM
Nothing that he's said even implies that he has an opinion about rape or pedophilia, which is what people don't seem to understand.


Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse.
Sure looks like an opinion about rape, and a stupid and flippantly expressed one at that.

notdavidlynch
08-07-2014, 07:37 AM
Sure looks like an opinion about rape, and a stupid and flippantly expressed one at that.

Maybe if you don't actually read or understand what came before it and the point he's trying to make - the content of the example is irrelevant. Drawing any conclusions about his personal opinions, especially considering the context of Twitter and it's character limit, is pretty stupid and flippant in-and-of-itself.

pensive_pilgrim
08-07-2014, 08:30 AM
Maybe if you don't actually read or understand what came before it and the point he's trying to make - the content of the example is irrelevant. Drawing any conclusions about his personal opinions, especially considering the context of Twitter and it's character limit, is pretty stupid and flippant in-and-of-itself.

I don't need to draw conclusions about his opinions, he published them, choosing twitter as his outlet. I understood the point he was trying to make and I made that clear several posts ago. My point is that he is missing the point of why people are upset about what he said. You're making the same mistake he did. The content of the example is definitely not irrelevant because it's what offended people. Nobody is disputing (or cares) that saying one thing is worse than another is not approval of either thing - that's really fucking basic. People care that the comparisons he chose to make are repugnant.

notdavidlynch
08-07-2014, 09:03 AM
My point is that he is missing the point of why people are upset about what he said. You're making the same mistake he did.

I'm definitely not misunderstanding people's reactions, I doubt he is either. The content of his examples are irrelevant because they were never the point of his discussion, and if no one cares about what he's actually trying to say or the point he's trying to make on his own Twitter account, instead focusing on their own (mis)interpretations and reactions to an ill chosen example whose controversial content is irrelevant to his argument, then what grounds are there for a discussion with him? What's the fucking point? He doesn't fucking care if people think his comparisons are repugnant or offensive, isn't that really fucking obvious?

kitsune
08-07-2014, 09:04 AM
What was Dawkin's motivation in making the comparison? Or did he have none, other than getting people to pay attention to him?

jyng1
08-07-2014, 09:31 AM
People are a bit upset about what they think he said because they can't get past the reference to rape. His comment about rape was inconsequential to his message.

People get hung up on lots of things which don't make a lot of sense.

OrionzRevenge
08-07-2014, 10:13 AM
Dawkins has for years been on crusade against the intrusion of emotional judgements and metaphysical mentalities into the rational sanctuary of Science. Specifically in focus for him is the attempts to dress up Biblical accounts of Genesis and elevate it to equality along side Evolutionary Science in the classroom. Whereas I'm not a huge fan of his take on the mechanism of evolution (Selfish Genes), I fully endorses his war effort. I think he rightly sees the grave danger of allowing these sorts of perversions to run unchecked.

<<Place holder for proof of Godwin's Law via Nazi Eugenics>>

I imagine his ultimate aim was to make a point in that regard.

notdavidlynch
08-07-2014, 10:22 AM
People get hung up on lots of things which don't make a lot of sense.

That's a part of the latent message, which means that referencing rape was kind of consequential and intentional (I think).

It holds back society when people are unwilling or unable to have rational discourses or inquiries into controversial topics. Thing is, a scientific process will always have errors and missteps, and people should be allowed and shouldn't be afraid to be wrong about something. In other words, you should be allowed to have a rational discussion about something like rape and to make judgements and draw comparisons about it (even if you're wrong) without having a gaggle of idiots attacking or shaming you or, worse, preventing you from doing it at all.

Pinker also discussed this. In his opinion, a society would be better equipped to prevent rape if it approached the topic in a more rational, realistic fashion - an approach grounded in science, statistics, etc. Such an approach isn't possible if you're not allowed to talk about it, or if you're not allowed to be wrong.

And, like it or not, perceptions of value or severity play a role, especially when the criminal justice system is involved. It's also involved in funding research.

pensive_pilgrim
08-07-2014, 10:32 AM
That's a part of the latent message, which means that referencing rape was kind of consequential and intentional (I think).

It holds back society when people are unwilling or unable to have rational discourses or inquiries into controversial topics. Thing is, a scientific process will always have errors and missteps, and people should be allowed and shouldn't be afraid to be wrong about something. In other words, you should be allowed to have a rational discussion about something like rape and to make judgements and draw comparisons about it (even if you're wrong) without having a gaggle of idiots attacking or shaming you or, worse, preventing you from doing it at all.

Pinker also discussed this. In his opinion, a society would be better equipped to prevent rape if it approached the topic in a more rational, realistic fashion - an approach grounded in science, statistics, etc. Such an approach isn't possible if you're not allowed to talk about it, or if you're not allowed to be wrong.

And, like it or not, perceptions of value or severity play a role, especially when the criminal justice system is involved. It's also involved in funding research.

Sorry man, it's a free marketplace of ideas. Dawkins had a chance to make whatever point he was trying to make effectively and he fucked it up, and the rest of us are free to call him a moron. That's a value judgment we all get to make.

Either the rape comment was inconsequential to his "message", in which case it was stupid to use such a controversial example, or this is a serious discussion about rape that we all get to participate in. From Mr. Dawkins' further tweets it would seem he's saying the former. Which seems to me like walking around with your cock out and complaining that people aren't listening to your explanation of Monte Carlo methods. Gosh, people are just so irrational, right?

But I agree when you said that there's no point engaging in a discussion with him about it, which is why I think the flowchart above is pretty appropriate.

Architect
08-07-2014, 11:01 AM
Folks, he's not talking about rape at all. He's talking about logic and discourse. The trap was laid by using a topic that people have strong emotions over - that's the point.

People make this mistake all the time - "No! All rape is bad". Actually, as he points out, some forms are worse than others, which doesn't condone the less bad forms in any way.

It's a T vs F kind of argument.

Hephaestus
08-07-2014, 11:13 AM
If he said: "getting raped is bad, but getting raped twice is worse", do you think people would be more likely to actually have gotten the point?

Or, better yet, "one person getting raped is bad, but two people getting raped is worse". Assuming that in all cases the rapes are carried out the exact same way.

I think more people would have been able to agree with his statement. By at least two. Which would be quantifiably better than the current result.

Madrigal
08-07-2014, 11:40 AM
I agree with pathogenetic. Nobody says he shouldn't make a simple formal logic exercise. Using rape as a vehicle for that as if he were literally discussing apples and oranges was a really fucking stupid idea. There is a level of human perversion and cruelty that does not lend itself to comparisons. This is like saying one genocide is worse than another on the basis of the methods used by each. There may be things you can put on a scale and quantify, and then there are things that become unmeasureable in their monstruosity. The ironic thing is that he doesn't make his point at all, precisely because of that. Go away and learn how to think, indeed.

oxyjen
08-07-2014, 12:11 PM
I see what he was trying to do, but I think he was unsuccessful. And he should be smart enough to know that a shitstorm reaction would be coming.

Pedophilia is a hot button issue, but nobody is talking about that. He did more clearly lay out [act of pedophilia] is bad, [act of pedophilia+ violence] is worse. If he had made a similar direct syllogism [rape] is bad, [rape + violence] is worse, would this have been such a big deal? Perhaps not. But to pit an entire set of circumstances---the ones involved in acquiantance/known rape and stranger rape---and to come out and conclusively say "the set of problems associated with B is clearly worse than the set associated with A" is a tougher, more subjective assertion to make and it easily looks like a person doesn't really appreciate the struggle of date/acquaintance rape.

(Let's go back to pedophilia for example. Let's remove the violent portion. If a kid is touched by a stranger, versus a family member or family friend he sees regularly. Can't you see there are multiple dynamics that would stem beyond the incident involving social fallout)?

Does Richard Dawkins deserve to be hanged? Of course not. Does his argument display his hubris a bit better than his logic? Probably.

kitsune
08-07-2014, 12:34 PM
Dawkins has for years been on crusade against the intrusion of emotional judgements and metaphysical mentalities into the rational sanctuary of Science.

Where is the science is ranking rape?


It holds back society when people are unwilling or unable to have rational discourses or inquiries into controversial topics.

Can black and white (rational) thinking be applied something gray (emotional)? In other words, can hard science be realistically applied to something soft like society?


Thing is, a scientific process will always have errors and missteps, and people should be allowed and shouldn't be afraid to be wrong about something. In other words, you should be allowed to have a rational discussion about something like rape and to make judgements and draw comparisons about it (even if you're wrong) without having a gaggle of idiots attacking or shaming you or, worse, preventing you from doing it at all.

Then why choose Twitter? Why not choose an audience of narcissists and sociopaths who are overly-rational and have little emotions with whom to conduct his debate?


... a society would be better equipped to prevent rape if it approached the topic in a more rational, realistic fashion - an approach grounded in science, statistics, etc.

Lobotomies for all!

Blorg
08-07-2014, 01:25 PM
I can’t speak for everyone-- unlike Dawkins apparently, heh-- but I think one reason why he struck a nerve is simply that he stereotyped his intended readers and implicitly called them stupid. (from my perspective, the hot-button topic was just the frosting on the cake, and his illogicality was the sprinkles on the frosting on the cake.) What makes this more annoying is that his condescending tone was intrinsically provocative, so when people got provoked by that tone, he could misattribute their angry response to his predetermined conclusion that plebians get driven into frothing insanity whenever the topic of rape is raised, thereby maintaining his bias without even debating the supposed topic of his rant.

There’s also no way for people not to confirm his bias. If they say, “well yeah, obviously,” and respond to his inflammatory accusations of their emotional stupidity with pointed indifference, he gets to say, “Told you so! Look what I did! I made people agree with me simply by emotionally manipulating them. What idiots they are.” And if they do object-- either to his tone or the topic or the illogicality or everything-- he gets to skip the rationalization and go straight to “Told you so! Look what I did! I proved that their viewpoints are clouded by rabid emotionality. What idiots they are.” :dont:

gps
08-07-2014, 02:45 PM
Fuck Rape Dawkin's views: Carlin's views are more entertaining and insightful


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os

Starjots
08-07-2014, 03:14 PM
I agree with pathogenetic. Nobody says he shouldn't make a simple formal logic exercise. Using rape as a vehicle for that as if he were literally discussing apples and oranges was a really fucking stupid idea. There is a level of human perversion and cruelty that does not lend itself to comparisons. This is like saying one genocide is worse than another on the basis of the methods used by each. There may be things you can put on a scale and quantify, and then there are things that become unmeasureable in their monstruosity. The ironic thing is that he doesn't make his point at all, precisely because of that. Go away and learn how to think, indeed.

I would be more careful but I see his method. If he used a simple logic exercise, 'saying B is worse than A is not endorsing A' a majority of people would read it, nod their head and say 'of course' and not get it at all because they are emotional/shallow thinkers.

It would be one side talking past the other so to speak. So he attaches topics which people normally react emotionally to so they will process it in some form.

I think it is a fallacy to say somethings cannot be quantified. One death in a car accident is bad, how about 30,000? People gravitate to the small story and eye glaze the large. If you are going to actually do something about accidents, disease and crime it makes sense to quantify. How else can people agree to resource allocation?

Personally it bugs me that there is no common calculus of suffering reduction or happiness enhancement. Appeals to emotion are only good for awareness and individual action.

jigglypuff
08-07-2014, 03:18 PM
What was Dawkin's motivation in making the comparison? Or did he have none, other than getting people to pay attention to him?
yeah, it sounds like some attention seeking and he just made himself look like an idiot and a bigot.

Rasofy
08-07-2014, 04:54 PM
Dawkins has for years been on crusade against the intrusion of emotional judgements and metaphysical mentalities into the rational sanctuary of Science.


Folks, he's not talking about rape at all. He's talking about logic and discourse. The trap was laid by using a topic that people have strong emotions over - that's the point.

People make this mistake all the time - "No! All rape is bad". Actually, as he points out, some forms are worse than others, which doesn't condone the less bad forms in any way.
A rather noble goal, imo. Poor execution, though.

Senseye
08-07-2014, 04:54 PM
I see what he was trying to do, but I think he was unsuccessful. And he should be smart enough to know that a shitstorm reaction would be coming.I'm undecided. If Dawkins was trying simply trying to illustrate people won't engage in a logical discussion when emotional issues are involved, I think he has been quite effective.

Most of the responses, even here in INTP land, are along the lines of Dawkins should shut the fuck up about these sensitive issues and leave any discussion on such topics to the politically correct groups who will insure everyone's delicate sensibilities are respected.

OTOH, I don't want to give Dawkins too much credit. He may be just stirring up shit for shameless self promotion. But if so, his ploy seems to have worked reasonably well, although to be honest, this was nowhere on my radar until this thread.

Bartender
08-07-2014, 05:57 PM
The majority of people cannot look at things logically when it has emotional connections. That is why things like violent rape are still an issue in society.

jigglypuff
08-07-2014, 06:23 PM
^ It's the quintessential NT response.
there's some T there, but that N has been abandoned.


violent rape
i really lose respect for people over these sorts of things.

dawkins isn't being courageous and i don't get people who defend this. what is he standing up to? who hurt him?

Thoth
08-07-2014, 06:27 PM
How often do you type "lol" on the internet? Are you actually "laughing out loud" every time, or do you just type it as a term of either positive approval or comical disapproval? How does the other party actually know whether or not you are truly physically laughing?

Now you know the validity of Twitter and social media as a whole in any form of critical discourse.

Additionally and of relevance to this topic: Define a "straw man" argument.

kitsune
08-07-2014, 06:33 PM
^ I actually do type :) when I smile IRL, LOL when I laugh IRL and ROFL when it's a deep belly kind of laughter.

OrionzRevenge
08-07-2014, 07:04 PM
Where is the science is ranking rape?
It's out there, but often emotional zealotry and uninformed bigotry inform our views on such things. Given that this is an issue with a victim and a perpetrator requiring a legal remedy when it occurs, and a more general understanding of the psychological & social phenomenons involved in order to prevent victimization, we live in a less Just society than we should.

Firstly, lets start with a phenomenon that the science of needs be more universally grasped so that rape doesn't go under reported and uninformed jurist don't inflict a second rape in ignorant bigotry:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape


Of those who report their rapes, around 4–5% (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150432/Sexual-Arousal-and-Orgasm-in-Subjects-Who-Experience-Forced-Stimulation) also describe experiencing orgasm. But the true numbers are likely much higher. In a 2004 review paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150432/Sexual-Arousal-and-Orgasm-in-Subjects-Who-Experience-Forced-Stimulation), a clinician reports, "I (have) met quite a lot of victims (males) who had the full sexual response during sexual abuse…I (have) met several female victims of incest and rape who had lubrication and orgasm."

Secondly, let's look at how over zealous advocacy groups, in an emotional quest for Justice, inform both public and legal opinion in a way that makes the victimizes defendants in a Date-Rape Scenario:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics


Data on the prevalence of rape vary greatly depending on what definition of rape is used. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.[237] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-NVAWS-238) A 2007 study by the National Institute of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Justice) found that 19.0% of college women and 6.1% of college men experienced rape or attempted rape since entering college.[238] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-239) However, some have criticized these statistics for using definitions of rape that they consider to be overly broad, specifically for counting sex under the influence of alcohol as rape.[239] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-240)[240] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-241) According to the psychologist Steven Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker),


Junk statistics from advocacy groups are slung around and become common knowledge, such as the incredible factoid that one in four university students has been raped. (The claim was based on a commodious definition of rape that the alleged victims themselves never accepted; it included, for example, any incident in which a woman consented to sex after having had too much to drink and regretted it afterward.)[241] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-242)
The National Crime Victimization Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey), which uses a narrower definitions, found that 0.5% of women and 0.06% of men, age 12 or older, were victims of rape or sexual assault in 1995. (The NCVS groups together rape and sexual assault.) By 2010, these numbers had decreased to 0.2% of women and 0.01% of men.[242] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-243)


I can certainly see where the emotional trauma of Date-Rape vs Stranger Rape at Knife-point, is impossible to quantify or even qualify. However, from society's POV we do indeed rank them differently and codify the results into law. Because from the Law's POV, we must ask: Which crime represents a greater potential threat to social order?

Date-Rape is very often a spontaneous assault where Perp and/or victim maybe mood/mind altered by chemical recreations and normal inhibitions against taking risk are numbed.

Stranger Rape at Knife-point is very often a premeditated assault with or without a certain victim in mind.

This dichotomy alone behooves the state to rank these crimes differently (as we do with 1st. & 2nd. Degree Murder) because of the potential threat variation of each class.

Stranger Rape at Knife-point is more likely to result in serious physical injury or death as opposed to Date Rape.

Reported Stranger Rape at Knife-point is more likely to not result in an arrest vs Reported Date Rape.

The Victim's Identification of a Date Rapist is more credible and unimpeachable in court.

Stranger Rape at Knife-point often sees the victim with an SO that also feels (rightly or wrongly) victimized by the assault. Such relationships often suffer greatly because of the trauma.

Stranger Rape at Knife-point might be the budding adventures of a Serial Rape/Murderer and the social impact of a Serial Rape/Murderer at-large is absolutely devastating to the social fabric.

OrionzRevenge
08-07-2014, 07:08 PM
I was looking for an image that encapsulated public emotional outrage during the Scopes Monkey Trail to draw a parallel, but this caught my eye.

http://dummidumbwit.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/scopes-monkey-trial_article.jpg

P-O
08-07-2014, 07:39 PM
there's some T there, but that N has been abandoned.

I don't know... Calling people idiots for having emotions is fairly stereotypical of the NT psychology.

Dawkins is funny because it seems like he never had to develop any of his inferior functions at all.
It's so easy for his opposition to dislike him because he presents everything in the least diplomatic way possible. It might be a strategy to get a bigger reaction, but a lot of the time it seems to me like genuine social ignorance. People call him on it and he looks genuinely confused by what they're saying.
He's usually right but he makes it so easy for people to misunderstand.

gps
08-07-2014, 08:05 PM
I dunno. I get the point he's making about the comparisons, but I'm not sure I agree with the second one.
Stranger rape at knife point... I haven't experienced it, but I'm sure it's terrifying.
But date rape really sucks too, and in that scenario you're being victimized by someone you might trust and like and want to have a relationship with, maybe somebody who shares the same social circle.


Though I admire the effort made here to distinguish various adjectival distinctions of the noun, you and others have begged the emotional connotative underpinnings to the point of neglecting to flesh out how the adjective can neutralize, negate, or invert the denotational constituent of the noun.
If you scope `rape' at the interPersonal you remain blind to the term's use in legal, social, international, and metaphorical uses.

Legally many a man has been `raped' by statute and the legal system although nothing but contextual sexual intercourse took place.
Internationally, the rape of cities has been enacted ... typically triggering wars or within the scope of a war.
Then there is `mind rape' which George Orwell addresses in 1984.
In an earlier post I used `rape' as a literary metaphor when I proclaimed "Rape Dawkins' views".

That even INTPs as NT/rationals have not transcended the connotational baggage of the way the issue was set up saddens me.
Who has dealt with the `rape of Dawkins' by `The Press' right here before gods and everyone in this Court of Public opinion?

I wasn't of the `age of consent' when I was dragged off to state-sponsored, day-scoped concentration camp.
If `consent' isn't enough to make sexual intercourse NOT rape IN ALL CASES, then how does `society' or `an institution' having it's way with a citizen too young to vote not leave it within the domain of statutory `consent'?

When legal statute can be used to transmogrify a mutually consensual act into as-if `rape' and mind_rape/brain_washing/inculcation into `education' why are we talking about `rape' rather than the contextual backdrops in which various forms of rape ARE -- if at all -- figural vis-a-vis Figure-Ground perception and cognition?

I'm with George Orwell on this one, folks.
The most prevalent form of rape is mind rape as performed by `The State' and it's institutions.

oxyjen
08-07-2014, 08:34 PM
Did you just equate public school with concentration camps and rape? Really? Really.

Polemarch
08-07-2014, 08:50 PM
The discussion really hinges on the concept of responsibility, which is entirely subjective and invented, and has no basis in physical reality. Things happen in physical reality, and we give those things names, then we make judgments about the consequences of those actions.

Even the definition of rape is subjective, in the sense that it relates to matters of consent, which also factors in capacity to consent.

My point is that the act of ordering different types of rape in terms of culpability, harmfulness, or morality is an exercise in pure philosophy, which has no basis in measurable, objective reality. All that really counts is the legal definitions, and even those are sufficiently porous to allow for gross miscarriages of justice - justice itself being constructed from the same subjective cloth as the definition of the crime.

I also think it's meaningless to try to compare one person's pain or struggle to another's. Every human being is so unavoidably separate from each other, such conversions are sophistry and nothing more.

gps
08-07-2014, 11:23 PM
Did you just equate public school with concentration camps and rape? Really? Really.

Shall we talk about `consent'?
Really, Really!!!

gps
08-08-2014, 12:10 AM
All that really counts is the legal definitions ...


This is one of the factors on the legal/social side of things, which includes executive fiats sometimes called `findings' which are tantamount to the Humpty Dumpty assertion that `words mean what I want them to mean.'
To wit, what went on in Getmo during the Chaney-Bush regime was NOT `torture' because Dick Cheney proclaimed it such.

Had Dawkins used `torture' instead of `rape' the issue of degrees of badness could have applied but the men in prison prone to physical rape wouldn't get their buttons pushed ... or MIGHT THEY?
When is physical rape not `torture' on an experiential level (EG the opposite side of the legal/social side of things)?

Are any of the women or feminists pinning this down as a `crime against WOMEN' up in arms that Guantanamo Bay is still open for busyness for Uncle Sam to rape have It's way with `interrogate'-yet-not-[i]torture[]/i persons NOT women (EG males which don't count for some peculiar reason)?

Yes, physical rape IS a matter of legal definition, and these defined-in-legal-language definitions have changed in recent years.
In New York the definitions now in include alcohol.
If a woman wakes up on the morning AFTER having been drunk she can claim rape due to her consent being given while under the influence.
One might suppose a man could also claim rape under the same circumstances.

Once a term exist, it's meaning can be metamorphosed on the fly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change).

In the case of men being tortured -- suffering pain without consent -- it seems a case of the pain-inflicter proclaiming that the deeds and processes in themselves do not constitute torture irrespective of what the person whose consent is NOT required experiences. (EG waterboarding, for example.)
Sound familiar?
How is torture not like physical rape in this matter?
A person is subjected to physical and/or emotional pain by deeds to which he or she does NOT consent.

Have we really sunk so low that a mere surface structural `word'/term is MORE significant that the deep structural MEANING/semantic underpinning it?

Yes, when I'm considering `rape' I don't do so without addressing consent EVERYWHERE consent and pain-and-suffering arising from OTHERS having their way with an individual without his or her consent.

Perhaps I think more like an INTP in this regard than someone who will NOT see the similarities in ALL contexts in which individuals are compelled to participate in an act, activity, event, or process withOUT their consent.

No I do not EQUATE compulsory mis-education with rape; I combine them into the set of all without-consent processes to which an individual can be subjected.
Neither is equal to the other; yet the person DONE TO is not required to consent.
"You don't have to like it, you just have to do it." is what I was told in the Navy when given an order to do something repugnant to me.

Yes, I admit this might be a stretch for the rape-minded who compartmentalize on that WORD regardless of other words which share the semantic requirement of `lack of consent'.

Did it cross anybody's mind that Dawkins' use of `rape' -- rather than `sexual assault' -- WAS effective at evoking attention in a way the use of other terms involving lack of consent would not have?
We've seen evidence in this thread, haven't we?
For some peeps it's such a reserved word that it's sanctity can't be removed from a context so narrow that related circumstances WILL NOT be compared and contrasted.

Dawkins proved his point; all the people here whose emotion-laden cognition can't transcend the cognition-displacing connotation invoked by the word `rape' can't consider sexual assault on par with other forms of assault -- including torture -- or compulsory compliance with impositions by more-powerful others, including the tax-funded functionaries serving as agents of state-sponsored compulsory miseducation.

Were the regions of the brain where pleasure and pain monitored for all individuals in schools, torture chambers, and various sexual scenarios I'm pretty sure the same levels of pain could be detected and measured.

One person's source of pleasure CAN BE the source of another person's pain.
When `the authorities'/rapists/torturers get to proclaim that an act/deed/process does not constitute this or that -- irrespective of what the individual ACTUALLY experiences -- the meaning of a term has a sociolinguistic grounding decoupled from any sort of ipsative, personal, individual psycholinguistic grounding.

MoneyJungle
08-08-2014, 02:17 AM
I wonder where prison rape falls on his rape-o-meter.

Utisz
08-08-2014, 02:43 AM
I wonder where prison rape falls on his rape-o-meter.

12.3–15.7 rd on the Dawkin's scale, logically speaking of course.

Utisz
08-08-2014, 04:57 AM
Hmm ... should I fix that apostrophe knowing that at this stage it'll leave an "edited by" message ... or should I just leave it. Which is worse? People thinking I don't know how to use apostrophes or people knowing I came back to look at a shitty post however long later because an apostrophe might be out of place or something. uncool.

kitsune
08-08-2014, 11:39 AM
^Leaving it is worse. I have to stare at it and be annoyed by it. C L E A N U P Y O U R M E S S! :mad:

Bartender
08-08-2014, 12:44 PM
there's some T there, but that N has been abandoned.


i really lose respect for people over these sorts of things.

dawkins isn't being courageous and i don't get people who defend this. what is he standing up to? who hurt him?

Maybe he was violently raped?

OrionzRevenge
08-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Hmm ... should I fix that apostrophe knowing that at this stage it'll leave an "edited by" message ... or should I just leave it. Which is worse? People thinking I don't know how to use apostrophes or people knowing I came back to look at a shitty post however long later because an apostrophe might be out of place or something. uncool.

Oh hell, don't fret over it. If you have something on-topic worth reading ...People will get use to your eccentricity.

Speaking of topic:


I believe that, as non-religious rationalists, we should be prepared to discuss such questions using logic and reason. We shouldn’t compel people to enter into painful hypothetical discussions, but nor should we conduct witch-hunts against people who are prepared to do so. I fear that some of us may be erecting taboo zones, where emotion is king and where reason is not admitted; where reason, in some cases, is actively intimidated and dare not show its face. And I regret this. We get enough of that from the religious faithful. Wouldn’t it be a pity if we became seduced by a different sort of sacred, the sacred of the emotional taboo zone?

. . . I hope I have said enough above to justify my belief that rationalists like us should be free to follow moral philosophic questions without emotion swooping in to cut off all discussion, however hypothetical. I’ve listed cannibalism, trapped miners, transplant donors, aborted poets, circumcision, Israel and Palestine, all examples of no-go zones, taboo areas where reason may fear to tread because emotion is king. Broken noses are not in that taboo zone. Rape is. So is pedophilia. They should not be, in my opinion. Nor should anything else.

I didn’t know quite how deeply those two sensitive issues had infiltrated the taboo zone. I know now, with a vengeance. I really do care passionately about reason and logic. I think dispassionate logic and reason should not be banned from entering into discussion of cannibalism or trapped miners. And I was distressed to see that rape and pedophilia were also becoming taboo zones; no-go areas, off limits to reason and logic.

. . . Nothing should be off limits to discussion. No, let me amend that. If you think some things should be off limits, let’s sit down together and discuss that proposition itself. Let’s not just insult each other and cut off all discussion because we rationalists have somehow wandered into a land where emotion is king. It is utterly deplorable that there are people, including in our atheist community, who suffer rape threats because of things they have said. And it is also deplorable that there are many people in the same atheist community who are literally afraid to think and speak freely, afraid to raise even hypothetical questions such as those I have mentioned in this article. They are afraid – and I promise you I am not exaggerating – of witch-hunts: hunts for latter day blasphemers by latter day Inquisitions and latter day incarnations of Orwell’s Thought Police. ~Richard Dawkins

gps
08-08-2014, 05:55 PM
Oh hell, don't fret over it. If you have something on-topic worth reading ...People will get use to your eccentricity.

Speaking of topic:



I believe that, as non-religious rationalists, we should be prepared to discuss such questions using logic and reason. We shouldn’t compel people to enter into painful hypothetical discussions, but nor should we conduct witch-hunts against people who are prepared to do so. I fear that some of us may be erecting taboo zones, where emotion is king and where reason is not admitted; where reason, in some cases, is actively intimidated and dare not show its face. And I regret this. We get enough of that from the religious faithful. Wouldn’t it be a pity if we became seduced by a different sort of sacred, the sacred of the emotional taboo zone?

. . . I hope I have said enough above to justify my belief that rationalists like us should be free to follow moral philosophic questions without emotion swooping in to cut off all discussion, however hypothetical. I’ve listed cannibalism, trapped miners, transplant donors, aborted poets, circumcision, Israel and Palestine, all examples of no-go zones, taboo areas where reason may fear to tread because emotion is king. Broken noses are not in that taboo zone. Rape is. So is pedophilia. They should not be, in my opinion. Nor should anything else.

I didn’t know quite how deeply those two sensitive issues had infiltrated the taboo zone. I know now, with a vengeance. I really do care passionately about reason and logic. I think dispassionate logic and reason should not be banned from entering into discussion of cannibalism or trapped miners. And I was distressed to see that rape and pedophilia were also becoming taboo zones; no-go areas, off limits to reason and logic.

. . . Nothing should be off limits to discussion. No, let me amend that. If you think some things should be off limits, let’s sit down together and discuss that proposition itself. Let’s not just insult each other and cut off all discussion because we rationalists have somehow wandered into a land where emotion is king. It is utterly deplorable that there are people, including in our atheist community, who suffer rape threats because of things they have said. And it is also deplorable that there are many people in the same atheist community who are literally afraid to think and speak freely, afraid to raise even hypothetical questions such as those I have mentioned in this article. They are afraid – and I promise you I am not exaggerating – of witch-hunts: hunts for latter day blasphemers by latter day Inquisitions and latter day incarnations of Orwell’s Thought Police. ~Richard Dawkins




And Dawkins' use of `rational' dovetails with Keirsey's use of NT/Rational ... especially when you consider that George Carlin WAS undoubtedly a `Rational' in both Dawkins' and Keiersey's uses of the term.
Carlin's use of humor and absurdity to aid in his rational quest made him MORE effective than Dawkins' rationalIZING, logical, and DRY delivery.
Carlin used humor as a hypodermic needle to get under the thick skin of some of the thick skulls of those recalcitrant to Dawkins' rhetoric.
Don't take my word for it, please use comparative methods to assess for yourself.
Once again, Carlin's arguably MORE EFFECTIVE addressing of the topic of rape:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os

Who was more effective, Carlin ... or Dawkins?

Bartender
08-08-2014, 06:04 PM
I wonder where prison rape falls on his rape-o-meter.

Is the first prison rape worse than the 100th? Does rape get progressively better or worse?

notdavidlynch
08-08-2014, 06:35 PM
Is the first prison rape worse than the 100th? Does rape get progressively better or worse?

I've watched some prison documentaries on the subject (don't ask why) and, based on what I saw in the interviews, I'd have to say that it gets "better". In one guys own words, he claimed that prison "turned him", that he had been raped by and subsequently raped so many guys, and slept with plenty more consensually (only after a decade or two of raping and being raped), that he could no longer imagine being with a woman when he got out.

This takes years and years just to get to the point of being "over it" though. Lots of inmates will lose their shit early on and kill themselves. And, unlike most women raped repeatedly over a prolonged period of time, men can permanently switch over to the side of being the instigators.

Being in control seems like a basic need. This was a point made in A Woman in Berlin - she couldn't escape the reality of the wartime occupation, but she could at least gain control of who raped her - becoming favored by certain men in order to avoid others.

gps
08-08-2014, 06:37 PM
Is the first prison rape worse than the 100th? Does rape get progressively better or worse?

Depends on who you ask, obviously.
To a feminist?
To someone with more egalitarian leanings?
To the proctologist tasked with reconstructive surgery?
To the psychotherapist using EMDR (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=EMDR)to treat the Post Traumatic stress involved?

There's no need to consult the rapee though, as rape IS a socio-political football to be kicked around in the abstract in this thread.

Bartender
08-08-2014, 06:38 PM
I've watched some prison documentaries on the subject (don't ask why) and, based on what I saw in the interviews, I'd have to say that it gets "better". In one guys own words, he claimed that prisoned "turned him", that he had been raped by and subsequently raped so many guys, and slept with plenty more consensually, that he could no longer imagine being with a woman when he got out.

This takes years and years just to get to the point of being "over it" though. Lots of inmates will lose their shit early on and kill themselves. And, unlike most women raped repeatedly over a prolonged period of time, men can permanently switch over to the side of being the instigators.

Wow. Thats really messed up, how does this relate to the you are born gay idea? I think this sort of disproves it and shows it is a learned behavior.

kitsune
08-08-2014, 06:41 PM
Being in control seems like a basic need.

True dat.

gps
08-08-2014, 06:47 PM
And, unlike most women raped repeatedly over a prolonged period of time, men can permanently switch over to the side of being the instigators.

As if raped women can't cross-over and instigate `assault' or consent-optional forms of abuse?
As if "you don't have to like it, you just HAVE TO do it" were constrained to the realm of sex?

The duty orientation of SJ/traditionalists IS one in which one doesn't have to LIKE doing one's `duty', one only has to DO one's duty.
To my mind soft-core porn has a counterpart in this `soft core rape' enacted by these SJ/Traditionalists and their Procrustean traditions and conventions.

There are plenty of people out (t)here displacing their victim's RAGE on others as whipping boys and girls.

gps
08-08-2014, 06:50 PM
I think this sort of disproves it and shows it is might in some cases BE a learned behavior.

FYP

Bartender
08-08-2014, 06:53 PM
FYP

Even that is more than some gay people would like to admit.

notdavidlynch
08-08-2014, 07:02 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10413364_830730440300341_5663629117013434704_n.jpg ?oh=cd750f200359f793456cbb5bd59a0540&oe=5478C183&__gda__=1416472379_68a5165f9930d2109148edb943113de d

Animals
08-08-2014, 07:23 PM
Rape vs rape-rape all over again?

Bartender
08-08-2014, 07:26 PM
Speaking of rape

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

The tl/dr version is men are still required to pay child support when they are raped by a woman. So ladys get to raping you will get some free dosh.

OrionzRevenge
08-08-2014, 07:30 PM
Let's just get this puppy way off the tracks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7pnGJHGn-M

Senseye
08-08-2014, 07:35 PM
Even that is more than some gay people would like to admit.Isn't it the heteros that need to be worried? The anecdote (which is sketchy evidence to begin with) seems to have illustrated a man with a sexual preference for woman, can be turned gay. We have not illustrated a man with a sexual preference for men can be turned straight.

Bartender
08-08-2014, 07:38 PM
Isn't it the heteros that need to be worried? The anecdote (which is sketchy evidence to begin with) seems to have illustrated a man with a sexual preference for woman, can be turned gay. We have not illustrated a man with a sexual preference for men can be turned straight.

Maybe the religious ones are worried. Idk doesn't cornern me, if other people want to be gay thats fine we have 2 many people as it is.

pensive_pilgrim
08-08-2014, 08:06 PM
This thread makes me ashamed to be an INTP. I think I'm just gonna switch to ISFP, that sounds like a pretty good option.

Bartender
08-08-2014, 08:26 PM
This thread makes me ashamed to be an INTP. I think I'm just gonna switch to ISFP, that sounds like a pretty good option.

The tests are not accurate anyways. Most of the tests people have taken are simply pseudoscience.

jyng1
08-08-2014, 09:23 PM
The tests are not accurate anyways. Most of the tests people have taken are simply pseudoscience.

First thing, the 'indicator' is not a 'test'. Second, the authors put a lot of effort into ensuring it was both valid and reliable.

I think what you're trying to say is that Jungian Type is pseudoscience.

Hephaestus
08-08-2014, 09:26 PM
Who was more effective, Carlin ... or Dawkins?
Dawkins. And he failed abysmally too. He just didn't fail as badly as Carlin, because Dawkin's apparent goal had merit.

gps
08-08-2014, 10:19 PM
Dawkins. And he failed abysmally too. He just didn't fail as badly as Carlin, because Dawkin's apparent goal had merit.

Okay, I can accept your overall assessment.

How to you suppose each would do with each of the 4 Keirsian temperaments?
I can't imagine an SP of any stripe listening to Dawkins for more than 10 seconds without a gun held to his or her head.

It's really tough to be a broad spectrum `great communicator'.

P-O
08-08-2014, 11:14 PM
I can't imagine an SP of an stripe listening to Dawkins for more than 10 seconds without a gun held to his or her head.


I think you're wrong about that for one important reason: Dawkins represents a counterculture movement. And it's kind of hip right now to be aware of things scientists say. Hipster SP's like the counterculture stuff.
The people who really can't stand him are the SJ's because all of his fame is built on shitting on christian tradition.

gps
08-08-2014, 11:31 PM
I think you're wrong about that for one important reason: Dawkins represents a counterculture movement. And it's kind of hip right now to be aware of things scientists say. Hipster SP's like the counterculture stuff.
The people who really can't stand him are the SJ's because all of his fame is built on shitting on christian tradition.

You're certainly right about the threat he poses to the brainless SJ dolts clinging -- right or wrong -- to their sacred traditions.
Though I suspect that SPs might follow him as a counter-cultural figure head, though not understanding what he's specifically talking about.
I doubt the NF/idealists get turned on in the least as his idealism is not grounded on airy-fairy stuff.
I can't, for example, imagine an ENFJ messianic type being able to use godlessness the way they can when they channel for Sweet Jesus.

I imagine that Dawkins' sweet spot is the NT/Rationals and that this sweet spot doesn't extend too widely outside it.
Sure, counter-cultural appeal might count for something -- in the sociopolitical arena -- whether those on the band wagon understand what he's talking about or not.

Personally I appreciate the styles of both Christopher Hitchens and Dan Dennet more than Dawkins.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike him; it's just that his presentations are more dry and sterile than either Hitchens or Dennet.
George Carlin was more effective at lampooning sociopolitical silliness than Dawkins, IMNSHO.

Zephyrus
08-09-2014, 03:10 AM
Rape occurs whenever there is unequal bargaining power. For example, a wife who has little freedom to exit due to economic dependency on her husband and social isolation, is raped whenever he fucks her. So actually, rape is rather common. In fact, I dare say that most women in the world experience rape on a consistent basis, but don't call it that because all but the most extreme forms of rape have been normalized.

P-O
08-09-2014, 04:41 AM
So what should we call the rapes that are actually bad?

notdavidlynch
08-09-2014, 07:31 AM
Rape occurs whenever there is unequal bargaining power.

So, all sex is rape. Great.

lethe
08-09-2014, 09:52 AM
I'm not up to sifting through this whole thread but has anyone brought up the depravity scale yet? It's old news and still going - seemed appropriate for the thread, though.

Zephyrus
08-09-2014, 03:25 PM
So, all sex is rape. Great.
If men rigged society so that women's social acceptance and livelihoods were contingent upon being fuckable and spreading their legs, would that not be rape? And guess what, that is true for most of the world and has been in most times and places throughout recorded history. Women are systematically raped.

JollyBard
08-09-2014, 03:44 PM
I like that feminists who take the Patriarchy theory to its logical conclusions (namely that all sex is rape, that sexual identity is a social illusion (and therefore transexuals don't exist), that men should be oppressed, etc) get a bad rap from the same people who endorse the Patriarchy theory.

More about the transexual thing: since some feminists say that life experience defines your gender, therefore in their view someone cannot suddenly want to change theirs because they've always lived as their cis-gender.

Something I've remarked about feminists (or maybe just tumblr people) is that they judge arguments by their conclusion and its intrinsic moral value (is that Fi?) instead of criticising the reasoning behind it. If the reasoning is sound, then the conclusion must be, too.

And now, to be on topic: Dawkins is right on everything. The end.

Zephyrus
08-09-2014, 07:02 PM
I like that feminists who take the Patriarchy theory to its logical conclusions (namely that all sex is rape, that sexual identity is a social illusion (and therefore transexuals don't exist), that men should be oppressed, etc) get a bad rap from the same people who endorse the Patriarchy theory.

More about the transexual thing: since some feminists say that life experience defines your gender, therefore in their view someone cannot suddenly want to change theirs because they've always lived as their cis-gender.

Something I've remarked about feminists (or maybe just tumblr people) is that they judge arguments by their conclusion and its intrinsic moral value (is that Fi?) instead of criticising the reasoning behind it. If the reasoning is sound, then the conclusion must be, too.

And now, to be on topic: Dawkins is right on everything. The end.

I think you have a number of misconceptions about what feminists, particularly radical feminists, think.

1. All sex is rape

No radical feminist believes that all sex is rape. Although, there are some lesbian separatists who believe that penis-in-vagina sex per se is rape, but they are a minority even among radical feminists.

2. Men should be oppressed

Radical feminists want to abolish all class hierarchies (especially the sex class i.e patriarchy), and the female oppression of males is a fundamental contradiction of that goal.

3. Sexual identity is a social illusion

You are confusing "sexual identity" with "gender identity". While there are some feminists (e.g. Judith Butler) who believe sex (i.e. male/female) is a social construct, their thinking is postmodern in character.

That said, radical feminism does assert that gender is a social construct. Now, this claim does not require a radical feminist to maintain that there are no behavioral differences between males and females. They could, for example, maintain that to the extent that femininity and masculinity accurately reflects male and female behavior, it grossly exaggerates it. And moreover, that humans have a wide variation in possible behaviors. For example, males have the capacity to experience empathy for others, but male socialization in to masculinity causes that faculty to reach a very immature stage of development.

Now back to gender as a social construct. We can understand the radical feminist understanding of gender as a script that differentiates males and females, and performing this script creates a hierarchical relationship between males and females. And, you don't have to look far to realize that gender is not natural: INTPcental/INTPcomplex are littered with examples of females who absolutely abhore performing certain feminine rituals. Consequently, one thing radical feminists seek to do is abolish gender, that way people can engage in human activity rather than gendered activity.

As for trannies, radical feminists do not have a personal problem with transgendered people per se. However, they feel violated by transwomen efforts to demand their inclusion in to female only spaces (e.g. women's bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and women's shelters), and for asshole behaviors like sabotage at female only events and criticizing lesbians for not having sex with transwomen. Transmen, however, they do not have much of a problem with, because they haven't come close to the assholerly of transwomen.

However, radical feminists do reject the concept of gender identity, because they regard it as a hierarchical social construct. To them, transwomen are males "performing" femininity, and transmen are females "performing" masculinity.

JollyBard
08-09-2014, 07:22 PM
You misunderstand. I wasn't talking about all feminists.

I said that to agree with the current marist feminist theory (Patriarchy, gender performativity, Judith Butler, etc), is to agree that sex between men and women is always rape, that transexuals don't exist, and that women should oppress men. Let's see how the axioms work out:

1. There is a systemic ((whatever that means)) oppression of women by men, ie: all women are oppressed by all women. Men have power over women. Marxist class struggle. Etc. This is the Patriarchy.
2. We must destroy a class struggle by staging a revolution against the oppressors.
3. No act is devoid of its political implications.

Now, if women are always oppressed by men, then their ability to give consent to them is dubious, since there is a systemic pressure for them to do so. Their consent cannot be given in free will. Therefore it is rape.

There are other things which can be logically deduced from these axioms which usually lead to the oppression of men. If any act is political in nature, and that men are the oppressors, and that we have to revolt against the oppressors, then any act which is made against any man is justified, as it is a revolt against the Patriarchy.

As for transgenders:

4. Gender identity is formed through a person's social experience, especially in childhood.

In lieu of 1, 3 and 4, (men oppress women, all acts are political, gender identity is constructed), then someone who has lived as one gender for most of his life has no reason to suddenly decide to change genders. Also, men who want to become women are politically upstaging and ridiculising the female cause.

The only way to disagree with an opinion is to attack its reasoning or its axioms. I don't agree with what I've just argued for. Guess why.

Zephyrus
08-09-2014, 09:39 PM
You misunderstand. I wasn't talking about all feminists.

I said that to agree with the current marist feminist theory (Patriarchy, gender performativity, Judith Butler, etc), is to agree that sex between men and women is always rape, that transexuals don't exist, and that women should oppress men.
I never said you were talking about all feminists. I knew you were talking about radical feminists, and I believe you misunderstood their beliefs. Also, Radical Feminism is not Marxist Feminism, although it is inspired by it; and Judith Butler is not a radical feminist, but I have noticed that many radical feminists adapted the concept of gender performativity to their own theories.

Here is a link to a blog post revealing Butler's views on transgender people.
http://www.transadvocate.com/gender-performance-the-transadvocate-interviews-judith-butler_n_13652.htm


Let's see how the axioms work out:
1. There is a systemic ((whatever that means)) oppression of women by men, ie: all women are oppressed by all women. Men have power over women. Marxist class struggle. Etc. This is the Patriarchy.
2. We must destroy a class struggle by staging a revolution against the oppressors.
3. No act is devoid of its political implications.

Actually, radical feminists have generally preferred to change male behavior through educational means: to show men that they are living in masculinity matrix, and bring them to Zylon, so to speak. Additionally, radical feminists are also in favor of political action designed to mitigate harm to women, increase women's bargaining power, and slowly erode class hierarchies.


Now, if women are always oppressed by men, then their ability to give consent to them is dubious, since there is a systemic pressure for them to do so. Their consent cannot be given in free will. Therefore it is rape.
But there is a difference between sex is rape under the present conditions and sex is rape per se. And indeed, many radical feminists have sex with men, and do not consider it rape. To them, they have consensual sex because they have partners who have come to Zylon (I am speaking figuratively) and the imbalance of power that characterizes most heterosexual relationships has been redressed.


As for transgenders:

Gender identity is formed through a person's social experience, especially in childhood.

In lieu of 1, 3 and 4, (men oppress women, all acts are political, gender identity is constructed), then someone who has lived as one gender for most of his life has no reason to suddenly decide to change genders. Also, men who want to become women are politically upstaging and ridiculising the female cause.

The only way to disagree with an opinion is to attack its reasoning or its axioms. I don't agree with what I've just argued for. Guess why.

Although radical feminists believe that the possibility of being transgender is ridiculous, and that it perpetuates female oppression, they do not believe that transwomen are necessarily consciously trying to subvert female liberation. As we live in the social matrix, so to speak, men do not think they are oppressing women and men who fail at masculinity might think they are women.

As for why radical feminists are often hostile to transwomen, it isn't because they are transwomen. It's because transwomen have a history of acting like assholes.

JollyBard
08-09-2014, 09:52 PM
You still don't understand. I'm not talking about feminists' specific beliefs. You haven't refuted any of my reasoning.

What I'm saying is that if we take Feminist theory's axioms to their logical conclusions, this is what we get. The problem is that people believe in things without thinking them through, ie: that (some) non-radical feminists believe in the Patriarchy but not in its horrible theorems.

Also, I still haven't found a convincing scientific argument for a modern patriarchy.

Zephyrus
08-09-2014, 11:03 PM
You still don't understand. I'm not talking about feminists' specific beliefs. You haven't refuted any of my reasoning.

What I'm saying is that if we take Feminist theory's axioms to their logical conclusions, this is what we get. The problem is that people believe in things without thinking them through, ie: that (some) non-radical feminists believe in the Patriarchy but not in its horrible theorems.

Also, I still haven't found a convincing scientific argument for a modern patriarchy.

For clarification, my previous post had two parts:
1. In the first part, I attempted to correct what I saw as a misunderstanding of a few ideological categories and the categories certain individuals fit in.
2. In the second part, I implied that I believe you misunderstand what radical feminism's axioms are because my experience with genuine radical feminists does not support the axioms you provided.

That said, I should have gone further by enumerating what those axioms are, although I honestly do not know enough to do so. However, I will do my best to construct them based on what I know of radical feminist theory and my experience with their behavior.

1. Society is organized in such a way that females are subordinated by men; this hierarchy is maintained by distributing rewards and punishments based on one's conformity to their assigned gender script, and creating a social fiction that justifies it (e.g. gender performance is seen as natural or a matter of personal choice)
2. If women are to be liberated from this hierarchy, then gender must be abolished
3. To abolish gender, then x...

I think your biggest error is assuming that radical feminists believe that abolishing gender is accomplished by a violent revolution. In my experience, they prefer to work within the democratic system to pass reforms intended to mitigate the harms to women, abolish sexist institutions, and erode male power by giving women greater representation in key institutions. Of course, that is not enough, as many institutions are hierarchical in and of themselves. For example, they regard capitalism as inherently hierarchical (the employer has far greater bargaining power than an employee) as Marxists do, but reform can mitigate the abuse of power and eventually transition the for-profit corporation in to a worker's cooperative.

gps
08-10-2014, 11:38 PM
Rape occurs whenever there is unequal bargaining power.


Oh, and I had thought of that as `labor'.

I appreciated a scene in a Dexter episode when Deb's vice-squad cover as a hooker is blown and the workin' girls know she's a cop, but they are getting cool with it.
One of the prostitutes asks Deb about her boss.
After the duck test has been administered the pro proclaims, "Then she's your pimp." (http://www.tv.com/m/shows/dexter/popping-cherry-848750/trivia/)

Sure, `consent' and `bargaining power' have to do with various forms of rape ... just as they do labor, compulsory miseducation, politics, interclass interactions between members of different social classes, and socioImpolitical tomfoolery in general.

The US military still forbids `fraternizing' between members of different categories in the Apartheid system in which Officers, Warrant officers, and Enlisted serve as categories a_la categorical discrimination in stead of the White-Colored-Black system of Apartheid South Africa.
Yet `consent' -- an implied `statutory' form of it, subsumed under `duty' and hierarchy named `chain of command' -- is not required any more than `bargaining power' for those more-equal to `have their way with' those less equal.
And so long as genitals are not involved it would be absurd to call it `rape'?

No; having less bargaining power does NOT constrain the interaction to the sexual domain, let alone degree of consent, or degree of damage, or extent of exploitation if/when consent is assessed to have been granted.

JollyBard
08-10-2014, 11:40 PM
^

:rofl:

msg_v2
08-10-2014, 11:50 PM
Wow, Richard Dawkins is kind of a tone-deaf jerk? Color me surprised. I never really liked the dude; he's the kind of person that looks at the problems in society, and assumes that the solution is the exact opposite, with no actual ideas on how to get from there to here than just kind of shouting a lot. Even if this approach succeeds, I am not sure that it frees anyone, and just creates a new set of norms. Freedom isn't a difficult concept, but people are excellent at fucking it up.

The question for me is not theism vs. atheism, or patriachry vs. matriachry, or "western civillization" vs. everyone else. What I wonder about is if it is even possible for a society to exist without norms? For a group of five people, maybe, but what about something the size of a nation-state? Can we truly abolish a norm without dogmatically enthroning its opposite? This is something I would like more people at the radical frontier of social liberalism to think more about it. (I don't have any answers, but I think thinking about it is important.)

JollyBard
08-11-2014, 12:27 AM
Wow, Richard Dawkins is kind of a tone-deaf jerk? Color me surprised. I never really liked the dude; he's the kind of person that looks at the problems in society, and assumes that the solution is the exact opposite, with no actual ideas on how to get from there to here than just kind of shouting a lot. Even if this approach succeeds, I am not sure that it frees anyone, and just creates a new set of norms. Freedom isn't a difficult concept, but people are excellent at fucking it up.

The question for me is not theism vs. atheism, or patriachry vs. matriachry, or "western civillization" vs. everyone else. What I wonder about is if it is even possible for a society to exist without norms? For a group of five people, maybe, but what about something the size of a nation-state? Can we truly abolish a norm without dogmatically enthroning its opposite? This is something I would like more people at the radical frontier of social liberalism to think more about it. (I don't have any answers, but I think thinking about it is important.)

The negation of something isn't its polar opposite. For example, the negation of "All cretans are liars" isn't "No cretans are liars" but rather, "there exist a cretan who is not a liar". Anyway, you have bizarre assumptions about him.

msg_v2
08-11-2014, 12:57 AM
The negation of something isn't its polar opposite. For example, the negation of "All cretans are liars" isn't "No cretans are liars" but rather, "there exist a cretan who is not a liar". Anyway, you have bizarre assumptions about him.

I don't really object to the content of what he is arguing, but rather his style of assuming anyone who isn't on board with him 100% is an idiot and being quite vocal about that fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

In this article, he descends into being almost a caricature. I'm not really too big of a HP fan... it's too tied into our world to really interest me that much (except for the House sorting thing, which is cool) , but anyone who thinks that kids read this and grow up thinking they can cast spells is kinda dense, even for me. The only kids that would do that are idiots.

I guess it's refreshing enough if you live in the middle of the Bible Belt or something, but it annoys me because he's a guy that just gets lauded for what confirming what people already believe. I haven't read any of his books, so maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't find any of his public statements to be that deep. Philosophers were talking about the death of God over a century ago. People talk about him and Hitchens like they are prophets of atheism, which is a wonderfully retarded concept.

I think people have just kind of started to do the same dumb things people did with religion with irreligion.

JollyBard
08-11-2014, 01:03 AM
I don't really object to the content of what he is arguing, but rather his style of assuming anyone who isn't on board with him 100% is an idiot and being quite vocal about that fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

In this article, he descends into being almost a caricature. I'm not really too big of a HP fan... it's too tied into our world to really interest me that much (except for the House sorting thing, which is cool) , but anyone who thinks that kids read this and grow up thinking they can cast spells is kinda dense, even for me. The only kids that would do that are idiots.

I guess it's refreshing enough if you live in the middle of the Bible Belt or something, but it annoys me because he's a guy that just gets lauded for what confirming what people already believe. I haven't read any of his books, so maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't find any of his public statements to be that deep. Philosophers were talking about the death of God over a century ago.

Oh, come on! He isn't even criticising Harry Potter, or fairy tales for that matter. He's only saying that there's a sad lack of scientific children's book and that he's writing one.

Zach Weiner of SMBC is making something similar and it looks very promising: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/weiner/augie-and-the-green-knight-a-childrens-adventure-b

msg_v2
08-11-2014, 01:08 AM
Oh, come on! He isn't even criticising Harry Potter, or fairy tales for that matter. He's only saying that there's a sad lack of scientific children's book and that he's writing one.

Zach Weiner of SMBC is making something similar and it looks very promising: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/weiner/augie-and-the-green-knight-a-childrens-adventure-b

Well, maybe on that, he is right.

Hephaestus
08-11-2014, 02:55 AM
Oh, come on! He isn't even criticising Harry Potter, or fairy tales for that matter. He's only saying that there's a sad lack of scientific children's book and that he's writing one.

Apparently he's unfamiliear with Heinlein or Asimov. Both of whom wrote science fiction for the juvenile market. I think quite a few of the Greek myths qualify too. They have one with a bloody android! That's defeated by pulling a drain plug so it's coolant drains out!

Aurast
08-11-2014, 03:21 AM
He picked a bad example that doesn't generalize very well. Was it worse when you got raped by a stranger or by your friend? Who is he to say? Lacking both experiences I would assume that the former is usually worse than the latter, but not necessarily so.

The stealing a dollar vs stealing someone's life savings example is better as it is simple to objectively quantify.

OrionzRevenge
08-11-2014, 03:46 AM
...The stealing a dollar vs stealing someone's life savings example is better as it is simple to objectively quantify.


The whole point was to find examples that were steeped in emotional overtones.

Hephaestus
08-11-2014, 03:49 AM
The whole point was to find examples that were steeped in emotional overtones.

And a non-trivial part of the problem was using samples that even without emotional overtones weren't cut and dry in their evaluation of harm or 'badness'. I wish I could say it was most of the problem, but I doubt that.

Still, for me, the logic issue goes away when you say "being sexually assaulted once is bad, being sexually assaulted repeatedly is worse".

JollyBard
08-11-2014, 03:54 AM
Apparently he's unfamiliear with Heinlein or Asimov. Both of whom wrote science fiction for the juvenile market. I think quite a few of the Greek myths qualify too. They have one with a bloody android! That's defeated by pulling a drain plug so it's coolant drains out!

Juvenile science fiction isn't the same as children's literature that promotes scientific thinking. Nevertheless, your argument stands.

pensive_pilgrim
08-11-2014, 03:56 AM
What about Encyclopedia Brown? I loved those books as a kid.

Aurast
08-11-2014, 04:03 AM
The whole point was to find examples that were steeped in emotional overtones.

It is misguided to try to deduce some objective rule out of an example "steeped in emotional overtones". Next he'll be telling us Schindler's List is sadder than Titanic and chocolate tastes better than vanilla.

OrionzRevenge
08-11-2014, 04:08 AM
It is misguided to try to deduce some objective rule out of an example "steeped in emotional overtones". Next he'll be telling us Schindler's List is sadder than Titanic and chocolate tastes better than vanilla.
Looking at the question from a clinical or legal POV, I think it makes more sense. But here is what he had to say after the fall-out:


I believe that, as non-religious rationalists, we should be prepared to discuss such questions using logic and reason. We shouldn’t compel people to enter into painful hypothetical discussions, but nor should we conduct witch-hunts against people who are prepared to do so. I fear that some of us may be erecting taboo zones, where emotion is king and where reason is not admitted; where reason, in some cases, is actively intimidated and dare not show its face. And I regret this. We get enough of that from the religious faithful. Wouldn’t it be a pity if we became seduced by a different sort of sacred, the sacred of the emotional taboo zone?

. . . I hope I have said enough above to justify my belief that rationalists like us should be free to follow moral philosophic questions without emotion swooping in to cut off all discussion, however hypothetical. I’ve listed cannibalism, trapped miners, transplant donors, aborted poets, circumcision, Israel and Palestine, all examples of no-go zones, taboo areas where reason may fear to tread because emotion is king. Broken noses are not in that taboo zone. Rape is. So is pedophilia. They should not be, in my opinion. Nor should anything else.

I didn’t know quite how deeply those two sensitive issues had infiltrated the taboo zone. I know now, with a vengeance. I really do care passionately about reason and logic. I think dispassionate logic and reason should not be banned from entering into discussion of cannibalism or trapped miners. And I was distressed to see that rape and pedophilia were also becoming taboo zones; no-go areas, off limits to reason and logic.

. . . Nothing should be off limits to discussion. No, let me amend that. If you think some things should be off limits, let’s sit down together and discuss that proposition itself. Let’s not just insult each other and cut off all discussion because we rationalists have somehow wandered into a land where emotion is king. It is utterly deplorable that there are people, including in our atheist community, who suffer rape threats because of things they have said. And it is also deplorable that there are many people in the same atheist community who are literally afraid to think and speak freely, afraid to raise even hypothetical questions such as those I have mentioned in this article. They are afraid – and I promise you I am not exaggerating – of witch-hunts: hunts for latter day blasphemers by latter day Inquisitions and latter day incarnations of Orwell’s Thought Police. ~Richard Dawkins

JollyBard
08-11-2014, 04:10 AM
It is misguided to try to deduce some objective rule out of an example "steeped in emotional overtones". Next he'll be telling us Schindler's List is sadder than Titanic and chocolate tastes better than vanilla.

That wasn't his point at all. He was saying that claiming X is worse than Y doesn't mean you're endorsing Y. He isn't saying that all rape cases can be ordered in terms of severity.

Hephaestus
08-11-2014, 04:12 AM
What about Encyclopedia Brown? I loved those books as a kid.

Oh hell yes. The Hawkeye books were fun too, but Encyclopedia Brown was better.

pensive_pilgrim
08-11-2014, 04:20 AM
Guys, just because I claim that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral doesn't mean I'm advocating for the cold-blooded murder of all homosexuals. If you disagree with any part of this sentence you're either being irrational or missing my point.

msg_v2
08-11-2014, 04:31 AM
Guys, just because I claim that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral doesn't mean I'm advocating for the cold-blooded murder of all homosexuals. If you disagree with any part of this sentence you're either being irrational or missing my point.

I get what you're doing.... but someone's going to misinterpret the point you are trying to make, and take that literally.

P-O
08-11-2014, 05:15 AM
Guys, just because I claim that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral doesn't mean I'm advocating for the cold-blooded murder of all homosexuals. If you disagree with any part of this sentence you're either being irrational or missing my point.
Just because I claim that Israel's actions are disgusting and immoral doesn't mean I'm advocating for the cold blooded murder of all Jews. If you disagree with any part of this sentence you're either being irrational or missing my point.

Bartender
08-11-2014, 11:20 AM
First thing, the 'indicator' is not a 'test'. Second, the authors put a lot of effort into ensuring it was both valid and reliable.

I think what you're trying to say is that Jungian Type is pseudoscience.

I actually did not know either of those things. Not something I really looked into.

Aurast
08-11-2014, 12:47 PM
That wasn't his point at all. He was saying that claiming X is worse than Y doesn't mean you're endorsing Y. He isn't saying that all rape cases can be ordered in terms of severity.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that he chose a poor example to make that point with. It doesn't help your point to use examples that are themselves invalid.

Plus his later comment suggests that he does in fact believe what he said:


Dawkins parodied harsh responses by later tweeting: "'Stealing £1 is bad. Stealing an old lady's life savings is worse.' How DARE you rank them? Stealing is stealing. You're vile, appalling."

Senseye
08-11-2014, 03:54 PM
I understand that. What I'm saying is that he chose a poor example to make that point with. It doesn't help your point to use examples that are themselves invalid.

Plus his later comment suggests that he does in fact believe what he said:He probably does, but his main point is just by ranking the severity does not imply endorsement. But it's likely he would stand behind his rape severity rankings if pressed. One of his twitter responses is:

Yes yes, you rank X and Y differently. Fine. Whichever you rank as worse, it is still illogical to interpret that as approval of the other.He's not trying to actually get consensus on what rape situations are the worst. He purposely chose a 'hot button' issue to also illustrate people will respond emotionally rather than logically, which is exactly what happened.

JollyBard
08-11-2014, 10:02 PM
He purposely chose a 'hot button' issue to also illustrate people will respond emotionally rather than logically, which is exactly what happened.

And it worked beautifully.

Dawkins is the one true troll.

lethe
08-11-2014, 11:57 PM
Meh, the topics themselves have been and continue to be discussed and examined in less emotional terms.

All he showed is that how you approach or start a topic, how you phrase things can affect how people to respond to it. WOW. Amazing.

jyng1
08-12-2014, 01:12 AM
Meh, the topics themselves have been and continue to be discussed and examined in less emotional terms.

All he showed is that how you approach or start a topic, how you phrase things can affect how people to respond to it. WOW. Amazing.

What was his topic? "Are there emotional no-go areas where logic dare not go?"

lethe
08-12-2014, 01:15 AM
What are the no-go areas? They can be discussed, are being discussed.

jyng1
08-12-2014, 01:31 AM
What are the no-go areas? They can be discussed, are being discussed.

The 'no-go' areas wasn't his topic.

lethe
08-12-2014, 01:33 AM
I'm saying the claim, that there are no-go areas isn't accurate or shown by anything he said. All he showed was that if you want to rile people up you can. That is not news or interesting.

jyng1
08-12-2014, 01:44 AM
I'm saying the claim, that there are no-go areas isn't accurate or shown by anything he said. All he showed was that if you want to rile people up you can. That is not news or interesting.


And when you've riled people up by introducing a 'no-go' area, you can no longer discuss it using logic.

lethe
08-12-2014, 01:50 AM
I'm saying it's not the topic itself that is no-go. It's not the topic itself that riles people up.
If you want to say that it's hard to discuss something when people are riled up? Sure, also not new or interesting. If you want to say its possible, even easier to rile people up with some topics? Sure. Not news.

But I would also say anyone with an interest in discussing no-go topics logically already knows this, and its easy enough to work around. It's not the topics that are the problem.

If I want to rile people up I can do so. If I want to rile them up using some topics will be easier than others. It will be more difficult to go on to a logical discussion after I have purposely riled a person up. Is this seriously news to anyone who has ever talked to anyone?

We can and do talk about these topics logically in situations where people aren't purposely being riled up.

jyng1
08-12-2014, 01:56 AM
If you want to say that it's hard to discuss something when people are riled up? Sure, also not new or interesting.

Totally agree.

P-O
08-12-2014, 02:00 AM
We can and do talk about these topics logically in situations where people aren't purposely being riled up.

ehhh. If you're talking about a community discussion, for some highly polarized topics, it seems like it's just a matter of time before people start losing their shit. People become defensive when a topic is even mentioned and it colors their interpretation of what's being discussed. You can look on this board for plenty of examples.

For some topics, the number of ways to rile someone up are infinitely larger than the number of ways to keep a conversation rational. Even the most cautious tip toer is bound to mess up eventually.

lethe
08-12-2014, 02:03 AM
Thats why I referenced the depravity report.
It is EXACTLY answering the question of which type of murder or rape is worse than the other. If a person wants to get answers and discuss this stuff, it's not going to be by purposely riling a person up. It can, has, and IS being done.


Depravity Standard/Depravity Scale

Welner has pioneered research to operationalize an evidence-based approach for courts and juries charged with defining “heinous,” “depraved,” and “evil” crimes in sentencing determinations.[70] The Depravity Standard contains twenty-five components of intent, actions, victimology, and attitudes associated with criminal offenses.[71] The goal of the research is to promote an emphasis on gathering evidence as opposed to relying on impressionistic arguments, and to establish a methodology that prevents bias based on race, diagnosis, prognosis, or history, socioeconomics, or other personal factors.[72] The application of the Depravity Standard distinguishes particular crimes by their severity relative to other comparable crimes. For example, the Depravity Standard’s application will enable the distinction of the worst of murder relative to other murders, the worst of assault relative to other assaults, and the worst of white collar crimes and thefts relative to comparable crimes.[73]

The Depravity Standard is an inventory of evidence relating to the different stages of a crime – before, during, and after. The Depravity Scale, an internet-based series of surveys and a component of the Depravity Standard research,[74] has established public consensus for what aspects of a crime are most heinous.[71] The Depravity Standard, informed in part by this data, by higher court decisions, and by evidence from adjudicated cases,[75] is not a psychological evaluation or test.[74] Rather, it is an inventory to guide inexperienced jurors on what qualities of a crime may distinguish its severity if they believe them to be present.[71]

P-O
08-12-2014, 02:32 AM
So are you saying the Depravity standard/scale represents a public discussion about the severity of of murder? According to the part you quoted it represents census data and court decisions. I agree that this kind of thing will reveal to the interested reader a good deal of information about public perceptions.... but there is a difference between a public conversation and a study. Isn't there?

I mean, obviously dawkins is not going to get what he wants here. People ARE going to react harshly with these kinds of subjects. It's just how humans are. I don't know how he didn't notice that earlier.

OrionzRevenge
08-12-2014, 02:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho

lethe
08-12-2014, 03:07 AM
https://depravitystandard.org/about_the_research.html

Well, there is the survey part of it now, essentially asking for people's opinions and looking for consensus, which is close. There is also the media coverage and comments there, and professionals working on it. From there individuals can discuss among themselves and we have a terminology and a starting point. It's as close as you can get to a logical "public discussion" involving a public this large.

It's been a very long, on going project covered in the media and with professionals and asking for public opinion and input. So yeah, pretty close to public discussion. More so than most laws, I suppose. People aren't reacting harshly to this. It's not the idea of ranking crime or even asking them which crimes are worse that is riling them up.

If he wanted to have an actual logical discussion about a sensitive topic, to gather or state opinions, he probably could have. But that's not what he wanted. And that is not what he tried to do. Showing that you can rile people up with sensitive topics and then insisting they are too emotional to ever discuss it is inaccurate. That would be like me purposely insulting or offending my boyfriend during an argument then pointing out that he is angry and insisting he is too emotional to discuss our problems. "See? There you go getting all upset again. Why can't you discuss anything logically?"

P-O
08-12-2014, 05:26 AM
If he wanted to have an actual logical discussion about a sensitive topic, to gather or state opinions, he probably could have. But that's not what he wanted. And that is not what he tried to do. Showing that you can rile people up with sensitive topics and then insisting they are too emotional to ever discuss it is inaccurate. That would be like me purposely insulting or offending my boyfriend during an argument then pointing out that he is angry and insisting he is too emotional to discuss our problems. "See? There you go getting all upset again. Why can't you discuss anything logically?"

I really don't think his intentions were as malicious as that. I don't get that picture when I read what he's written. I read it as him defending himself from claims that he's a staunch proponent of mild pedophilia (or whatever the claim is) by resting on a sound logical point that he thinks should trump any other points his opponents can muster.

scarydoor
08-12-2014, 08:57 AM
Richad Dawkins keeps getting himself into fairly silly debates. I feel bad for him. I liked his book The God Delusion, but once you start debating against these people with beliefs which are inaccessible to reason, in the taboo corner, it becomes pretty dull and tedious I think. It's a wonder to me that he has maintained his interest.

Senseye
08-12-2014, 02:08 PM
If he wanted to have an actual logical discussion about a sensitive topic, to gather or state opinions, he probably could have. But that's not what he wanted. And that is not what he tried to do. Showing that you can rile people up with sensitive topics and then insisting they are too emotional to ever discuss it is inaccurate. I agree his goal was to be provocative rather than actually have a discussion (about crime severity or whatever). But I don't think he is implying people are too emotional to ever discuss such a subject, he is saying they are generally too emotional to discuss sensitive topics, and as such, this often (but not always) suppresses any attempt at doing so.

The key point is someone is free to disagree with Dawkins argument, or ignore him, but one shouldn't say he should not be even discussing the subject.

gps
08-12-2014, 07:08 PM
Richard Dawkins keeps getting himself into fairly silly debates.
I feel bad for him.
I liked his book The God Delusion, but once you start debating against these people with beliefs which are inaccessible to reason, in the taboo corner, it becomes pretty dull and tedious I think.
It's a wonder to me that he has maintained his interest.


If you address this behavior from the perspective of promoting book sales I believe his behavior is crazy like a fox.
If his main market -- whether NT/Rationals or not -- is NOT turned off by this grandstanding of a dull and tedious nature then this market share is retained.
Yet if he can garner new market sectors via his excursions into the public arena then overall market share can grow.

I believe that he is not debating to win an argument so much as he is grandstanding to increase the market for his books and speaking appearances by which he profits monetarily.

He's doing what Cassius Clay cum Mohamed Ali (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali) and Gorgeous George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgeous_George) did before him; he's whipping the pay-per-view, pay-per-read audience into a feeding frenzy by which he can profit.
I'd call it effective marketing.

Roger Mexico
08-12-2014, 10:46 PM
This is good though: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpXAZGuCMAA21xA.jpg:large

Yeah, basically.

I don't really pay much attention to Dawkins anymore. God Delusion was an interesting book because he set out to actually examine religion from an objective scientific standpoint. At the time, I also agreed (and still do) with the basic premise that there's nothing wrong with atheists defending their point of view on religion by invoking the question of whether deities are actually a logical thing to believe in. But this was based on my own observation that plenty of religious people feel no compunction about declaring their beliefs to be intellectually superior to competing beliefs (whether of other religions or of the non-religious), and I live in a culture where that is generally tolerated.

I've grown tired of the "atheist movement" people, though. Dawkins frequently opines outside his area of expertise while expecting to be regarded with the same deference as he can claim entitlement to while speaking within his area of expertise, Christopher Hitchens was always kind of a twat IMO, and I'd never even paid attention to Sam Harris until he started saying dumb things that, like Dawkins, he clearly has no business expecting to be regarded as having valuable expertise about. (Recently, the fighting in Gaza, where he basically reiterated a bunch of grossly oversimplified Israeli government talking points and tried to hand-wave the oversimplification with the argument that Hamas are a bunch of scary religious fanatics--see, 'cause he's a self-appointed expert on the evils of religion so he's automatically an expert on any topic that involves religion, I guess.)

There really needs to be a term for arguments that are basically Godwins but with rape instead of the Holocaust. I realize that's sort of his point, but it seems intentionally provocative to use rape as an example, to the point where the whole thing almost strikes me as a desperate, cloying plea for attention now that he's apparently already said all the things that he has to say which are worth the general public paying attention to.

JollyBard
08-12-2014, 11:11 PM
Dawkins is actually right on pretty much everything. The problem is that he's preaching to the choir.

gps
08-13-2014, 12:22 AM
Dawkins is actually right on pretty much everything.
The problem is that he's preaching to the choir.

Well in THAT case, Einstein was actually right on pretty much everything.
Who seems interested in discussing quantum mechanics in public?

Those not in the proverbial choir don't enter Dawkins' church as a general rule.
Meaning ... if he did enter an actual church to disabuse those suffering from the God Delusion the church would empty out because the deluded don't want to hear it.

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of bystanders who'd rather watch the carnage resulting from a train wreck than an academic, scientist, or academic scientist attempt to use logic and reason upon those he's characterized as delusional as if delusion could or would yield to such.

I used to have a GF who was borderline (between neurosis and psychosis) and I attempted to use a calm, reasonable voice when she was in `delusional' psychotic mode.
It NEVER WORKED.
I finally got smart enough to shut the fuck up and give her a bear hug which pinned her arms down to her side -- so she couldn't use them to demolish my apartment -- and held her (usually less than a minute) until I felt the tension release, thus indicating she had transitioned back into mere neurotic mode wherein she WAS responsive to words and tone of voice.

Dawkins' talking-at or talking-over (the heads of) those deluded seems about as effective as talking to psychotics.
However, many of those hanging with the God-believing herd are not `true believers' and can be cherry-picked to join HIS herd.
So his proselytizing might be effective with transferring sheeple from one heard to another.

The jury is still out as his show goes on.

JollyBard
08-13-2014, 01:13 AM
I've grown tired of the "atheist movement" people, though. Dawkins frequently opines outside his area of expertise while expecting to be regarded with the same deference as he can claim entitlement to while speaking within his area of expertise, Christopher Hitchens was always kind of a twat IMO, and I'd never even paid attention to Sam Harris until he started saying dumb things that, like Dawkins, he clearly has no business expecting to be regarded as having valuable expertise about. (Recently, the fighting in Gaza, where he basically reiterated a bunch of grossly oversimplified Israeli government talking points and tried to hand-wave the oversimplification with the argument that Hamas are a bunch of scary religious fanatics--see, 'cause he's a self-appointed expert on the evils of religion so he's automatically an expert on any topic that involves religion, I guess.

Why do people get confined to "areas of expertise"? As a quasi-ENTP, this terrifies me. I hope I won't get famous enough in one discipline to be regarded only as an expert on that. You don't see people going around saying we shouldn't be interested in anything Da Vinci painted because he was actually an inventor.

My point is, being an expert in one narrow field and having political, philosophical opinions are two completely different things: one takes years of dedication and study with a shitload of focused information; the other takes intellect and an open-mind, as well as a shit-ton of data in as many fields as possible.

Roger Mexico
08-13-2014, 11:01 PM
Why do people get confined to "areas of expertise"? As a quasi-ENTP, this terrifies me. I hope I won't get famous enough in one discipline to be regarded only as an expert on that. You don't see people going around saying we shouldn't be interested in anything Da Vinci painted because he was actually an inventor.

My point is, being an expert in one narrow field and having political, philosophical opinions are two completely different things: one takes years of dedication and study with a shitload of focused information; the other takes intellect and an open-mind, as well as a shit-ton of data in as many fields as possible.

Sure, but you have to do something to earn the status of "expert." You can't just decide you're an expert and become one on the basis of that. I guess it's fine if people who are already paying attention to someone because of some expertise they've demonstrated want to keep paying attention to that person when they start talking about something else, but my point is that Richard Dawkins' expertise about evolutionary biology don't make his opinions about anything other than evolutionary biology any more interesting or valuable than the opinions of anyone else who has opinions about those things. That's just how I prefer to allocate my own attention, of course, but I do regard it as a logical fallacy to think otherwise.

If I was interested (for some reason) in which types of rape are worse than other kinds, I'd probably look for input from someone with expertise in trauma psychology. Since "expert on trauma psychology" does not accurately describe Richard Dawkins, I'm not particularly interested in what Richard Dawkins thinks about this topic. (Just as I'm not particularly interested in what Sam Harris thinks about the Gaza conflict, since reading his ramblings made it painfully evident that he's far from an expert on the politics of that situation.)

wise fool
08-14-2014, 12:11 AM
I've grown tired of the "atheist movement" people, though.
I'm certainly glad that this perception is becoming more prevalent, particularly with regard to Dawkins' place in it, and to see more articles like these:

Richard Dawkins does it again: New Atheisms Islamophobia problem (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamop hobia_problem/)
Can a Religious Believer Be a Serious Journalist? Richard Dawkins and the Unbearable Smugness of Tweeting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-stephens/can-a-religious-believer-be-a-serious-journalist-richard-dawkins-and-the-unbearable-smugness-of-tweeting_b_3141971.html)
Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind (http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind)
Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new atheists (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/)

gps
08-14-2014, 12:57 AM
If I was interested (for some reason) in which types of rape are worse than other kinds, I'd probably look for input from someone with expertise in trauma psychology.

Roger, I believe that you and a few others have been putting too fine a point on this types/kinds/degrees of <noun> topic of discourse.
If you subsume Dawkins' domain of expertise back to the overarching domain of empirical science you may recall that quantification and qualification are kinda required to `do' science.

Does Hawkins or any other empiricist or scientist need a specific niche of expertism to displace an absolutist all-or-nothing low-res notions of <noun> with a quantifiable-qualifiable continuum?

Would a mere philosopher or philosopher of language need qualify as an expert to likewise expand an absolute into a continuum?
C'mon ... the kid who comments on the Emperor's New Clothes now needs a phd in men's fashion to comment on the possibly-raped and certainly naked truth?
Does Dawkins' field of expertise trump his overarching capacity to qualify and quantify something ANYTHING anyone in the Universe of Discourse is free to comment upon?
Really?
We'd handcuff, hobble, and straight jacket him while allowing blatherskites to speak freely?
Perhaps we have different notions of what the concurrent freedoms of speech and assembly entail.
Do those with Master of Divinity degrees get to speak of rape in absolute terms without anybody attempting to exclude THEM from the discussion/debate?
Do feminists get to define `rape' through political processes and changes to legal code without the likes of Dawkins questioning the semantics or framework in which `rape' is assessed?

No, Dawkins gets to retain his status as generic scientist in the main as well as a philosopher and perhaps-mere-amateur philosopher of language in such matters.
Nice try though.

Roger Mexico
08-14-2014, 01:53 AM
Roger, I believe that you and a few others have been putting too fine a point on this types/kinds/degrees of <noun> topic of discourse.
If you subsume Dawkins' domain of expertise back to the overarching domain of empirical science you may recall that quantification and qualification are kinda required to `do' science.

Does Hawkins or any other empiricist or scientist need a specific niche of expertism to displace an absolutist all-or-nothing low-res notions of <noun> with a quantifiable-qualifiable continuum?

Would a mere philosopher or philosopher of language need qualify as an expert to likewise expand an absolute into a continuum?
C'mon ... the kid who comments on the Emperor's New Clothes now needs a phd in men's fashion to comment on the possibly-raped and certainly naked truth?
Does Dawkins' field of expertise trump his overarching capacity to qualify and quantify something ANYTHING anyone in the Universe of Discourse is free to comment upon?
Really?
We'd handcuff, hobble, and straight jacket him while allowing blatherskites to speak freely?
Perhaps we have different notions of what the concurrent freedoms of speech and assembly entail.
Do those with Master of Divinity degrees get to speak of rape in absolute terms without anybody attempting to exclude THEM from the discussion/debate?
Do feminists get to define `rape' through political processes and changes to legal code without the likes of Dawkins questioning the semantics or framework in which `rape' is assessed?

No, Dawkins gets to retain his status as generic scientist in the main as well as a philosopher and perhaps-mere-amateur philosopher of language in such matters.
Nice try though.

No, he's obviously free to speak about whatever he wishes to speak about. I just don't particularly care what he has to say unless he's speaking about a topic on which he has some specific expertise--and that's because having specific expertise about something means being familiar with a large amount of relevant empirical information. Science is all about drawing logical conclusions from as much data as you can make available to yourself--to approach any topic scientifically means to say "well, based on what I know about this, I think it makes sense to say ___________ about it," and to realize that you'd logically be able to say more things that make more sense about it the more you know about it. Scientists do research--they seek out more empirical information on the topics of their interest--for this reason.

What Dawkins has to say about evolutionary biology is interesting, and likely to make sense, because he's spent a lot of his time in pursuit of empirical knowledge about evolutionary biology. When he extrapolates conclusions from what he knows about the subject, these are worth more from a scientific standpoint than what someone else who knew less about it could come up with by extrapolating from what they knew.

Errors in logic can compromise an extrapolation from empirical knowledge, but by definition even a logically perfect extrapolation can only ever be as good as the information it's extrapolated from.

So, unless Richard Dawkins has repeatedly been raped in a variety of different ways, or unless he happens to be extensively familiar with the results of scientific research on the psychological states of people who have been raped in various ways, I don't see how it makes any difference that he's a scientist who's good at logic-type stuff and all that when I say he probably doesn't have anything especially informative to say on the relative severity of the effects caused by different varieties of rape. He's not in a position to know what he's talking about to begin with, whether or not his logic is sound given the premises he begins with.

gps
08-14-2014, 02:53 AM
He's not in a position to know what he's talking about to begin with, whether or not his logic is sound given the premises he begins with.

So if we accept him as an NT/rational fellow traveler he STILL doesn't get to point out how blatantly irrational the framework for assessing and/or asserting rape IS, you're still not interested?
Other NT/rationals with less fame have to call the general public on it's collective silliness and/or wrong-headedness?

You're a tough crowd unto yourself, dude.

And here I had thought of INTJs as overly specialized when contrasted with INTP generalists.
Here we are -- correct me if I'm wrong -- seeing an INTP who has compartmentalized the INTJ rather than the other way around.
Man bites dog ... INTP marginalizes-through-compartmentalization a fellow NT/rational applying rational thought and critical thinking to a merely-socioPolitical phenomenon outside of his narrowly-scoped domain of expertise?
No?

Do any of us HERE qualify as experts on rape qua RAPE ... the bar you've raised for Dawkins?
Yet HERE we ARE discussing something which evokes a yawn of boredom when another non-expert NT/rational discusses it?

Yes, I understand aesthetics are at issue with you.
That which interests IS interesting.
I experience diminishing returns as well.
I've heard Dawkins speak on so many occasions -- through recordings -- that his rhetorical style is well-known enough that what I usually hear is something resembling yadda-yadda-yadda.

Here's the rub: if a no-name NT/rational were to attempt to raise the same points as Dawkins those in the viewing audience would respond with "Who the fuck is (s)he?"
So if NT/rationals are to be represented in mainstream society it pretty much has to be someone with name recognition.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
There might be a handful of people outside those reading these posts which MIGHT give a damn what you or I have to say on the issue.
The body impolitic (mis)uses The Genetic Fallacy in the form of IDENTITY and REPUTATION; Dawkins is an NT/Rational with a public identity and reputation as a `scientist', author, atheist, and/or celebrity.
When he speaks, the genesis/origin IS `a scientist' and/or someone whose name triggers the name-recognition circuity in the alleged mind of a beholder ... well, except among we jaded INTPs who've heard enough from him in recent months and years ... until we cleanse our palettes before the next taste test of what he's serving.

JollyBard
08-14-2014, 03:56 AM
tl;dr: Saying that someone is an expert X and therefore cannot be right on Y is an ad hominem fallacy. Nobody is actually listening to Dawkins because he's Dawkins, that's actually the whole point of many of his debates about rationality. We're listening to his arguments. Who cares what he is?

I'll parody again: "We shouldn't care about Da Vinci's paintings because he is an expert inventor."

Roger Mexico
08-14-2014, 04:04 AM
tl;dr: Saying that someone is an expert X and therefore cannot be right on Y is an ad hominem fallacy. Nobody is actually listening to Dawkins because he's Dawkins, that's actually the whole point of many of his debates about rationality. We're listening to his arguments. Who cares what he is?

I'll parody again: "We shouldn't care about Da Vinci's paintings because he is an expert inventor."

Then you're missing my point. Obviously someone can be both an expert painter and an expert inventor. The point is that being an expert painter doesn't make you an expert inventor. Unless you happen to be an expert inventor independently of being an expert painter, you're just another schmuck when it comes to whether or not I feel like consulting you for opinions about inventing things.

Faust
08-14-2014, 05:44 AM
"Now joining our panel, Professor Dawkins: expert Atheist"

I suppose the only precise term is Philosopher, though I don't think of him as one. He's certainly more associated with God Delusion than Microbiology. Likewise Nietzsche isn't associated with Psychology.

Perdix
08-14-2014, 06:02 AM
JollyBard Specialization in a particular skill or industry is more profitable and efficient in today's world.

I have to say I agree with Hawkins, the amount of physical and psychological pain one feels is variable, each experience must differ in the level of pain.

Resonance
08-14-2014, 09:09 AM
I guess I'm late to the party, but...

Making points about logic and reasoning, using examples that are highly charged with emotional trauma, gender politics, and knee-jerk reactions, seems like an absurdly amateurish mistake.


Or a marketing grab.

JollyBard
08-14-2014, 12:07 PM
JollyBard Specialization in a particular skill or industry is more profitable and efficient in today's world.

I have to say I agree with Hawkins, the amount of physical and psychological pain one feels is variable, each experience must differ in the level of pain.

I never said anything against specialisation...


I guess I'm late to the party, but...

Making points about logic and reasoning, using examples that are highly charged with emotional trauma, gender politics, and knee-jerk reactions, seems like an absurdly amateurish mistake.


Or a marketing grab.

His point was that subjects that are taboo are somehow off-limits from reasoning. He proved his point.

Resonance
08-14-2014, 12:11 PM
His point was that subjects that are taboo are somehow off-limits from reasoning. He proved his point.
That was my point (and the point of several observers!), not his. His point was: "X is worse than Y" does not imply "X is okay".

Unless the part where that was his point all along was left out of the discussion somehow.


He finished Monday’s discussion by saying he learned that people on Twitter "think in absolutist terms".
Suggests to me that "subjects that are taboo are somehow off-limits from reasoning" was his conclusion after the fact, not his original thesis.

P-O
08-14-2014, 04:59 PM
Making points about logic and reasoning, using examples that are highly charged with emotional trauma, gender politics, and knee-jerk reactions, seems like an absurdly amateurish mistake.
I would agree that it's amateurish if his job was in public relations. Dawkins isn't a diplomat he's merely an amateur in that field. He always goes right to his point. That's his schtick. He's a social dunce, so he just says what he's thinking about.


This is my favorite example of my point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Aw9UGYNsA
Tyson makes a totally reasonable point about Dawkins not being diplomatic and Dawkins' reply is essentially to give him the middle finger.


I think this article clarifies his position:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/are-there-emotional-no-go-areas-where-logic-dare-not-show-its-face/



So why did I choose rape as my unpleasant hypothetical (in both directions) rather than the “breaking someone’s nose” example? Here’s why.

I hope I have said enough above to justify my belief that rationalists like us should be free to follow moral philosophic questions without emotion swooping in to cut off all discussion, however hypothetical. I’ve listed cannibalism, trapped miners, transplant donors, aborted poets, circumcision, Israel and Palestine, all examples of no-go zones, taboo areas where reason may fear to tread because emotion is king. Broken noses are not in that taboo zone. Rape is. So is pedophilia. They should not be, in my opinion. Nor should anything else.

I didn’t know quite how deeply those two sensitive issues had infiltrated the taboo zone. I know now, with a vengeance. I really do care passionately about reason and logic. I think dispassionate logic and reason should not be banned from entering into discussion of cannibalism or trapped miners. And I was distressed to see that rape and pedophilia were also becoming taboo zones; no-go areas, off limits to reason and logic.

He thought that if he fleshed out the logical point FIRST, then people would be able to keep their cool about it.

Resonance
08-14-2014, 05:17 PM
I would agree that it's amateurish if his job was in public relations. Dawkins isn't a diplomat he's merely an amateur in that field. He always goes right to his point. That's his schtick. He's a social dunce, so he just says what he's thinking about.


This is my favorite example of my point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Aw9UGYNsA
Tyson makes a totally reasonable point about Dawkins not being diplomatic and Dawkins' reply is essentially to give him the middle finger.
Ok, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. I guess it was more obvious than I thought.


I think this article clarifies his position:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/are-there-emotional-no-go-areas-where-logic-dare-not-show-its-face/

He thought that if he fleshed out the logical point FIRST, then people would be able to keep their cool about it.
Interesting.

I think even Dawkins himself might have done better if he had the space to frame it correctly. It's hard to fit all the necessary context into 140 characters, which makes it very easy to pull those statements out of context.

Example:

"Suppose I were to argue that stranger rape is worse than date rape. Regardless of whether you agree or not, that doesn't mean I condone date rape."

146 characters. Actually, you could probably compress it a bit and still get the same impact.

HIRE ME MISTER DAWKINS

P-O
08-14-2014, 05:39 PM
Ok, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. I guess it was more obvious than I thought.


FWIW, by now I think most people don't agree with me on that. Most people think the money grab option better explains his behavior... but to me Dawkins fulfills enough "social idiot" criteria for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. I prefer not to assume malice in people when miscommunication is a viable explanation.

Resonance
08-14-2014, 05:48 PM
FWIW, by now I think most people don't agree with me on that. Most people think the money grab option better explains his behavior... but to me Dawkins fulfills enough "social idiot" criteria for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. I prefer not to assume malice in people when miscommunication is a viable explanation.
With you 100% now.

gps
08-14-2014, 06:58 PM
tl;dr:
Saying that someone is an expert X and therefore cannot be right on Y is an ad hominem fallacy.


Is QUA is ... for both (mis)uses of `is'?
So are you insinuating that Roger's selective deafness vis-a-vis non-biological topics of discussions involving Dawkins is tantamount to a cognitive fallacy rather than a matter of taste/preferences?



Nobody is actually listening to Dawkins because he's Dawkins, that's actually the whole point of many of his debates about rationality.


So if JollyBard or RogerMexico, for examples, were mouthing the same words The General Public would respond the same way as they would to Dawkins?
YOU might want to revoke the tl;dr selective-ignorance you indicated imposing on my previous post.
However the `tl;dr' is a close-enough approximation to the response of the majority of individuals among The General Public were you, RogerMexico, or about anyone else in this group -- I imagine (I don't know if any Dawkins-grade high-profile celebrities subscribe) -- were to speak on the subject of rape qua `rape' (whatever `rape' MEANS sociolinguistically as it's very meaning is knocked around like a hockey puck) The General Public would NOT respond the same way as to Dawkins.

When (radical?) so-called `feminists' start defining penis-in-vagina AS -- or as-if -- `rape' and nobody of Dawkins' stature and celebrity status says a thing, what happens over a course of socio-impolitical time (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=semantic+shift)?
We not only have the absurdity of rape being arbitrated via statute {aside: I live in a country where a tomato IS-by-statute a `vegetable' rather than a fruit BECAUSE statute declares it such, irrespective of what truck farmers or botanists have to say about the matter.} we have various gender-(im)political forces who want to collectively re-define `rape' on the fly and make THEIR definition stick among all members of a society and/or nation.




We're listening to his arguments.


As Virginia Satir might respond, "Who is your `we'?"
What Roger pretty much said is that he ignores him unless or until he speaks/writes ON-TOPIC ... the topic of his compartmentalized expertise ... which is NOT vampire slaying a_la Buffy.



Who cares what he is?


Those who favor those with celebrity status with their perhaps-undivided, perhaps-ephemeral ATTENTION ... while IGNORING/disfavoring crumb-bum no-name INTPs like us.

And if WE each care more about a coherent, cohesive argument than who is saying it then why:
(1) don't we have a `black box' account through which any of us can launder/mask our identities within the group?
(2) do we have an `ignore' feature so we can discriminate based on identity/account/channel irrespective of the stimuli presented through it?

BTW, if you feel the urge to reply with a `tl;dr', please don't; just ask `Ptah and the collective' to make a post-splitter and book-marker feature which accommodates your attention span. :devil:

Hephaestus
08-14-2014, 08:00 PM
tl;dr: Saying that someone is an expert X and therefore cannot be right on Y is an ad hominem fallacy.
It is an ad hominem, but that doesn't mean it is a fallacy. Not all ad hominems are fallacies--and in this case, it could be considered a valid argument.

Resonance
08-14-2014, 08:38 PM
It is an ad hominem, but that doesn't mean it is a fallacy. Not all ad hominems are fallacies--and in this case, it could be considered a valid argument.
Just because an argument is valid doesn't mean it's not a fallacy. :p

Hephaestus
08-14-2014, 08:50 PM
Just because an argument is valid doesn't mean it's not a fallacy. :p

Yes, yes it does. That's the [logic] definition of fallacy: an error in reason that renders an argument invalid.

An argument can be fallacious and still have a true conclusion though--which a horse of a different colour: truth vs. validity.

JollyBard
08-14-2014, 09:09 PM
It is an ad hominem, but that doesn't mean it is a fallacy. Not all ad hominems are fallacies--and in this case, it could be considered a valid argument.

That's bullshit. Ad hominems can never be valid arguments because they don't say anything about the content of what a person says. I've found truths in the words of schmucks from obscure internet forums.

Anyway, we can all agree that Dawkins is a shitty educator. He's the famous projection of scientifically-minded dorks all around the world, and boy do we love those "Dawkins owning religious fanatic" youtube videos.

About the video with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I think he actually took the rebuke nicely and that he really considered it. His anecdote was just for comic relief and to excuse himself, in way, by showing that some people are worse. I don't think he endorsed his quote. Besides, it was hilarious.

pensive_pilgrim
08-14-2014, 09:21 PM
I think this article clarifies his position:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/are-there-emotional-no-go-areas-where-logic-dare-not-show-its-face/


Some people angrily failed to understand that it was a point of logic using a hypothetical quotation about rape. They thought it was an active judgment about which kind of rape was worse than which.
Well no shit dude, that's how you worded it! Learn to use the English language correctly and then you can complain when people misunderstand you.

Hephaestus
08-14-2014, 09:27 PM
That's bullshit. Ad hominems can never be valid arguments because they don't say anything about the content of what a person says.

Not so, but I'm more interested in showing the case where ad hominems are unambiguously valid: when the character of a person is what is up for debate, or when the source of the information is just a person, and not something verifiable elsewhere. It's also used in consideration of sentencing in jurisprudence.

Some simple examples:

A person is lobbying for a treasurer position in an organization. Someone opposes their appointment by pointing out that this person has a history of embezzlement, is filing for bankruptcy, and is being investigated for mail fraud. All of these are ad hominems. All of them are relevant, neh?

Someone makes a bald claim about something. This claim would require action, but if it was untrue, the result of the action would be bad. It's pointed out that the person making the claim has a poor grasp of reality, or perhaps is known for spreading malicious rumors and therefore lacks credibility. There is no corroborating evidence.

A person has been convicted of a violent crime. At the sentencing the prosecution argues for harsh punitive measure on the basis of the convict's past criminal record showing a pattern of escalating violence and a lack of visible remorse. These are also ad hominems, and also relevant.

A more complex (ambiguous) and relevant example:

A person who is a world reknowned chemist is cited for his comments on economic policy. Yes, the person is well educated, intelligent, etc, but they lack any known background in the relevant field. That lack of background means that it is fallacious to give them the same meritorious credit for their commentary on economic issues that they should have on issues of their specialization. It says nothing about whether or not they are right, it just means that the source of the argument no longer has merit other than to say, "I agree with this person". It is an ad hominem to point out that a person being used as an authoritative source is not an authoritative source on the subject at hand, but it is valid.

The purpose in this case isn't to dismiss what the person has said, just to reduce it from "expert" to "man in the street" status. It is the method for deposing fallacious appeals to authority. And it is ad hominem.

Hephaestus
08-14-2014, 10:39 PM
A simpler example, just in case it helps with the nuance:

Let's say I opined on the beauty of the skyline in Paris. Then someone else mentioned that I've never even been to France, let alone observed the skyline of Paris. It's an ad hominem that attacks my credibility on the topic, but it has no effect on whether or not said skyline is in fact, lovely.

Now a Parisian mentions the objective beauty of the skyline in Paris. Someone points out that they, being a Parisian, are understandably biased. It's an ad hominem that again, has no effect on the truth of the statement, but does affect the credibility of their objectivity.

Someone who is not a Parisian, but who has been to Paris, makes commentary on the beauty of the skyline in Paris. Then someone else says this observer is a drunkard and a lout. It's an ad hominem that has no bearing on their ability to observe the attractive qualities of the skyline in Paris. It would be fallacious to take it into account.

I understand the urge, the drive, to dismiss all ad hominems as fallacies--most of them are, and one of the first things a person has to be taught qua reasoned discourse, is to stop calling the opposition a poo-poo head. But not all ad hominems are fallacies, but the ones that aren't are nuanced and difficult to identify.

It's not a fallacy to call your opponent a poo-poo head if they clearly have poo on their head and are saying that dinner smells repugnant.

It's not a fallacy to say you only think Dawkins is credible when discussing evolutionary biology. It's an explanation as to why you are dismissive when Dawkins opines on any other topic.

JollyBard
08-15-2014, 12:36 AM
Guess I have to reply to each one of your examples.


A person is lobbying for a treasurer position in an organization. Someone opposes their appointment by pointing out that this person has a history of embezzlement, is filing for bankruptcy, and is being investigated for mail fraud.

It's not ad hominem. The subject of the proposition happens to be the same as its speaker.


Someone makes a bald claim about something. This claim would require action, but if it was untrue, the result of the action would be bad. It's pointed out that the person making the claim has a poor grasp of reality, or perhaps is known for spreading malicious rumors and therefore lacks credibility. There is no corroborating evidence.

This isn't about an argument, this is about a fact, or information. The argument would be "we must believe X because this guy saw it", which can be refuted based on the guy's crediblity, without it being ad hominem. An argument ad hominem is when the refutation is about the speaker and not about their arguments.


A person has been convicted of a violent crime. At the sentencing the prosecution argues for harsh punitive measure on the basis of the convict's past criminal record showing a pattern of escalating violence and a lack of visible remorse. These are also ad hominems, and also relevant.

This is not at all about argumentation.


A more complex (ambiguous) and relevant example:

A person who is a world reknowned chemist is cited for his comments on economic policy. Yes, the person is well educated, intelligent, etc, but they lack any known background in the relevant field. That lack of background means that it is fallacious to give them the same meritorious credit for their commentary on economic issues that they should have on issues of their specialization. It says nothing about whether or not they are right, it just means that the source of the argument no longer has merit other than to say, "I agree with this person". It is an ad hominem to point out that a person being used as an authoritative source is not an authoritative source on the subject at hand, but it is valid.

The purpose in this case isn't to dismiss what the person has said, just to reduce it from "expert" to "man in the street" status. It is the method for deposing fallacious appeals to authority. And it is ad hominem.

This is a bit more convincing, but it's still about facts. The reason we believe in "experts" is that they have access to facts we don't, not because their reasoning is superior. If the chemist makes interesting comments, then who cares if he's a chemist? And in fact, if he makes consistently good comments, then he might become a verfied source, of sorts. Which brings me to my next point:

You seem to be conflating "merit of an argument" with the Bayesian probability that the speaker is right (Bayesian in the sense that it's based on your own previous observations). Of course you'll be more tempted to read an expert's argument, but that doesn't mean the argument itself has less merit.


beauty of Paris skyline

Aesthetics are fundamentally subjective and thus cannot be dicussed objectively.


one of the first things a person has to be taught qua reasoned discourse

That's not what "qua" means.


It's not a fallacy to say you only think Dawkins is credible when discussing evolutionary biology. It's an explanation as to why you are dismissive when Dawkins opines on any other topic.

It's not a fallacy to say that Dawkins is not likely to have anything interesting to say about rape, but it is a fallacy to say his arguments are all wrong because he's an expert biologist.

I'm NOT saying he's right. Just that it doesn't mean he's wrong.

Also, I hope you already know that just because one argument is wrong that the reverse is true. That's the (hilarious) fallacy fallacy. http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

Hephaestus
08-15-2014, 02:28 AM
You can't attack a person's credibility without it being an ad hominem. Being about facts doesn't make something not an ad hominem. It just makes it not an ad hominem fallacy. We generally truncate the word fallacy when referring to formal fallacies, but that doesn't mean the word isn't implied. It also doesn't mean there isn't a form of the phrase without the appended 'fallacy' that is not a fallacy.

Being subjective doesn't preclude reasoned discourse.

Interesting. I appear to have changed universes again because a year ago, the dictionary definition of qua was 'regarding' or 'with regards to'. That was definition one of every dictionary that had it in the universe I came from.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm talking about the value of a particular arguer making an argument to that argument. I'm talking about challenge to the validity of a source of information.

I think that what you are defending, and understandably, is that nobodies like us can still have solid arguments without having expertise. That's true, and it's a valid thing. What I'm saying does nothing to strip that away. It just strips away the extra heed a person would give to an expert talking about a subject of their expertise when said expert is talking about something outside their expertise. It's just stripping them of the weight of authority, and revealing them as another nobody as far as that field is concerned.

I agree with you assertion that about what constitutes a fallacy regarding Dawkins talking about rape. However, the image that introduced this wasn't doing that. It was just an opinion about when it was worth the bother to listen to Dawkins. That's a bit different. It doesn't make him wrong, it just makes him irrelevant. And that's a perfectly valid argument: "I don't bother listening to Dawkins when isn't talking about biology because he's an expert in biology and that's the only place I value his input."

It doesn't mean his opinions or arguments about anything are wrong. It just dismisses him as a desired source of input on other topics.

Keep in mind, I'm not one of the people who got emotionally huffy.

Resonance
08-15-2014, 07:23 AM
It is the method for deposing fallacious appeals to authority. And it is ad hominem.
Exactly.

An appeal to authority is an informal fallacy, which usually reduces to the form,

X says Y. (fact)
X is an expert. (generally accepted as fact, I don't think anyone needs to argue that Dawkins isn't an expert)
Therefore, Y.

The logic is sound, if you accept the hidden premise, Everything an expert says is true. That's what makes it an informal fallacy (as opposed to a formal fallacy, which is a problem with the structure of the argument).

The most parsimonious way to tear it down would be to argue, Not everything an expert says is true.

What we're doing instead - and what JollyBard is contesting - is creating a new premise.

"Whether or not Y is true depends on what kind of expert X is."

Or more specifically: The truth value of Y when said by X is equal to the truth value of the statement, "X is an expert on domain Z, which contains Y."

X says Y, which is in domain Z.
X is an expert on Z.
Therefore, Y is true.

X says U, which is in domain V.
X is NOT an expert on V.
Therefore, U is false.

This is a false dichotomy, among other things, and is just as problematic as the first form.



I'm going to take it a step further and suggest that any statement appealing to credibility or expertise is fallacious, positive or negative. Whether a statement is true or not, whether an argument is valid or not, does not depend on whether an expert said it or not. Reality is independent of our top scientists' mental models of it.

Of course, the antithesis is also possible, but then we're getting into ontology and deconstructing empiricism and at that point you're pretty much destroying any scientist because empiricism is a core assumption about the scientific method.


Experts are valuable because they know a lot of things, not because they are right all the time.

Hephaestus
08-15-2014, 09:26 AM
X says U, which is in domain V.
X is NOT an expert on V.
Therefore, U is false.

What I read is:

I care when X is talking about domain V.
X is NOT talking about domain V.
I don't care what X says.

At no point does the argument say that what X says is false. Just that it isn't something worth noting.


Furthermore, I don't care about this particular ad hominem. My argument is focused on showing that ad hominems are not tautological fallacies, and that an ad hominem is not tautologically an invalid argument.

An ad hominem fallacy, specifically, as a (very large) subset of ad hominems, is also an informal fallacy, wherein the flaw (assuming validity of the underlying premises) is irrelevancy. But an ad hominem can be valid and relevant. That is what I'm arguing.

This particular ad hominem about Dawkins is ISMO: valid, irrelevant.

It makes an argument not about the validity or even the truth of Dawkins' argument, but about the worth of bothering to consider those things. That enters a slightly more ambiguous territory and the ultimate relevancy depends entirely on whether or not you subjectively care about the question being asked.

To wit: are you attempting to dismiss the argument as invalid, or dismiss the person as noise without regard to the argument other than to notice it doesn't qualify as signal to you?

But again, that's very tangential to the argument I was making.

Btw, on reflection your argument that being valid didn't obviate fallacy is actually true when considering informal fallacies. I was too rigid in my consideration and forgot the distinction. Perhaps a little overzealous about the special cases where ad hominems are legit.

Resonance
08-15-2014, 09:55 AM
What I read is:

I care when X is talking about domain V.
X is NOT talking about domain V.
I don't care what X says.

At no point does the argument say that what X says is false. Just that it isn't something worth noting.


Furthermore, I don't care about this particular ad hominem. My argument is focused on showing that ad hominems are not tautological fallacies, and that an ad hominem is not tautologically an invalid argument.

An ad hominem fallacy, specifically, as a (very large) subset of ad hominems, is also an informal fallacy, wherein the flaw (assuming validity of the underlying premises) is irrelevancy. But an ad hominem can be valid and relevant. That is what I'm arguing.

This particular ad hominem about Dawkins is ISMO: valid, irrelevant.

It makes an argument not about the validity or even the truth of Dawkins' argument, but about the worth of bothering to consider those things. That enters a slightly more ambiguous territory and the ultimate relevancy depends entirely on whether or not you subjectively care about the question being asked.

To wit: are you attempting to dismiss the argument as invalid, or dismiss the person as noise without regard to the argument other than to notice it doesn't qualify as signal to you?

But again, that's very tangential to the argument I was making.

Btw, on reflection your argument that being valid didn't obviate fallacy is actually true when considering informal fallacies. I was too rigid in my consideration and forgot the distinction. Perhaps a little overzealous about the special cases where ad hominems are legit.
Ok. :nerd:

IMO, given that 'relevance' is somewhat subjective, it should fall outside the realm of pure logic, fallacies, reasoning, etc. and deserves a whole different nomenclature. (so really, I am more challenging JollyBard than you I guess)

Guess Who
03-11-2017, 10:25 AM
I came across this thread today and did some research on the issue. It looks like an example of misdirection by Dawkins or his handlers.

On the 28th July 2014, Dawkins tweeted, "It is reasonable to deplore both the original founding of the Jewish State of Israel & aspirations now to destroy it." and attracted some criticism for it.

On the morning of 29th of July 2014, he tweeted his messages about paedophilia and rape. It seems like he or his handlers wanted to get people thinking about and discussing these emotionally charged but inconsequential (in terms of bigger picture issues) and quickly forgotten issues to take their focus off his tweet about Israel of the previous day.

Populations are manipulated in this way regularly by politicians and others through the media to control our thinking. News, entertainment and politics is mostly misdirection.

Bloody School Daze
03-11-2017, 10:05 PM
Exactly.

An appeal to authority is an informal fallacy, which usually reduces to the form,

X says Y. (fact)
X is an expert. (generally accepted as fact, I don't think anyone needs to argue that Dawkins isn't an expert)
Therefore, Y.

The logic is sound, if you accept the hidden premise, Everything an expert says is true. That's what makes it an informal fallacy (as opposed to a formal fallacy, which is a problem with the structure of the argument).

The most parsimonious way to tear it down would be to argue, Not everything an expert says is true.

What we're doing instead - and what JollyBard is contesting - is creating a new premise.

"Whether or not Y is true depends on what kind of expert X is."

Or more specifically: The truth value of Y when said by X is equal to the truth value of the statement, "X is an expert on domain Z, which contains Y."

X says Y, which is in domain Z.
X is an expert on Z.
Therefore, Y is true.

X says U, which is in domain V.
X is NOT an expert on V.
Therefore, U is false.

This is a false dichotomy, among other things, and is just as problematic as the first form.



I'm going to take it a step further and suggest that any statement appealing to credibility or expertise is fallacious, positive or negative. Whether a statement is true or not, whether an argument is valid or not, does not depend on whether an expert said it or not. Reality is independent of our top scientists' mental models of it.

Of course, the antithesis is also possible, but then we're getting into ontology and deconstructing empiricism and at that point you're pretty much destroying any scientist because empiricism is a core assumption about the scientific method.


Experts are valuable because they know a lot of things, not because they are right all the time.

For me personally, I would argue the best way to do it is to flip the burden of proof around when dealing with experts. A non-expert must prove an expert wrong if they are speaking within an area of expertise. This reflects the fact that experts are simply more likely to have facts on hand that are relevant to the discussion, while allowing for the possibility they might be wrong.

All that said, I hate the way information is withheld in society, and I think an expert that pulls rank is arguing in bad faith.