I'm on to you sklansky

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Rape is way overrated. I mean, most people would much rather get shot (provided they survive) than getting raped, this is a ridiculous social pressure that we need to get rid off. So you got raped. Besides the chance that you got a STD, it's no big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]It's not just a question of sexual mores as some misguided liberals would have it, or even a question of property [of services] as a certain kind of deranged capitalist would have it.

We are our body, in more ways than the physical one. Any kind of violation of our body to which we do not consent constitutes a trauma, literally. Social considerations are constructed on top of this, sometimes irrelevant to this. (I.e. some societies' norms dictate that your body doesn't really belong to you.)

BTW, that judgee's ruling was crap.

A professional boxer consents to a fight. Goes through the fight. Right after the fight is over, the boxer is attacked on the ring by an enraged fan of his opponent, who starts punching him, i.e. boxing with him. The enraged fan manages to land a few serious punches on the boxer. Is he not supposed to be charged with assault?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
A professional boxer consents to a fight. Goes through the fight. Right after the fight is over, the boxer is attacked on the ring by an enraged fan of his opponent, who starts punching him, i.e. boxing with him. The enraged fan manages to land a few serious punches on the boxer. Is he not supposed to be charged with assault?

[/ QUOTE ]

A big difference in your analogy is the fact that in the case of the prostitution, she's already breaking a law. In a perfect world I would agree that clearly she was raped in the same vein that the boxer was assaulted, but I think the law sees a big difference in your defense if you're already involved in another crime. (That doesn't really speak to the classification of "Occupational Hazard" but could account for the general tone of the interpretation.)

I think the broader solution is just getting the government out of courts so misinterpretations like this become drastically less likely.

[Mempho]

Nice call by the judge.

[jono]

so everything would have been fine in her eyes if she had been paid for 5 men having sex with her. She was probably crying over the lost money. I think the judge did well here.

[holl@b4x]

wow. Ok I don't want to get into a long winded post here so I'll keep it brief - rape is one of the worst things that can happen to a womans mental health, I had an ex who was raped and it did a number on her head/emotions. They feel, among other things, like soiled goods. Of course you can't paint all women with the same brush, some have the mental strength to overcome being raped and put it completely behind them, others don't and hold onto it for life.

ALso, there was a big thread about this topic about a year ago posted here by sklansky, he basically asserted that rape in the case of a prostitute is closer to theft than it is to rape IIRC.

edit: here's the post

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

It isn't a "circular argument with a fuzzy conclusion." It's a very basic argument with a very basic (but also humbling) conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Everything people do they do for themselves'

It is an argument that uses any outcome of any given situation to verify its own statement. Falsifying it is next to impossible because it is using data that can always be interpreted several ways.

Since the data is ambiguous the conclusion is also ambiguous.

I don't care if you believe in it. I'm not even discussing if the theory is right or wrong - I'm saying it is hazy, but the simplicity of the statement makes people believe it isn't.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It isn't a "circular argument with a fuzzy conclusion." It's a very basic argument with a very basic (but also humbling) conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Everything people do they do for themselves'

It is an argument that uses any outcome of any given situation to verify its own statement. Falsifying it is next to impossible because it is using data that can always be interpreted several ways.

Since the data is ambiguous the conclusion is also ambiguous.

I don't care if you believe in it. I'm not even discussing if the theory is right or wrong - I'm saying it is hazy, but the simplicity of the statement makes people believe it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see why it's "hazy." I would accept that it's meaningless or semantical. But ultimately I think it's pretty clear that we are self-interested actors, and we shouldn't be ashamed to look at ourselves and each other in that way.

But what's your point? You're the one that started this "is everything ultimately for yourself" discussion (when I wasn't even responding to you in the first place). And now as soon as I respond, you "don't care if it's right" but just want to point out that it's hazy?

Ugh, OK. Well my position is that there is nothing hazy about it, so feel free to show me why it's hazy, if that's your argument?

Am I not allowed to call something like I see it because you infer that my deeper philosophical position is something that you're not sure is 100% correct? Isn't the whole point of these discussions to defend what we do think is correct? So what's the point of responding to someone and being like "hey, you... your position is hazy!" I don't understand what you're getting at or where you're going. Why don't you tell me what I've said in this thread that you disagree with if you think you have something to argue about.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
'Everything people do they do for themselves'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, please stop writing things like this as if I've actually said it. While those words might be ones I agree with in some sense, they're not the ones I'd use, and it isn't very constructive to put my argument in your own grossly oversimplified words (and then tell me my position is hazy when I've never even declared it!).

If you're curious what I think about something, ask me and I'll tell you. But basically all you are doing is (correctly) assuming my general mindset, filling it with words and justifications that I don't necessarily hold, and then telling me it's all hazy (when I've hardly said anything!) and that you don't care who is actually right.

I really don't get what you're trying to do. The whole self-interest thing is semantical in a way. My claim that 'people who think others "should" care about the things they care about are being self-righteous' is a claim I am comfortable defending even if you don't accept self-interest. It could be self-righteous from your perspective too.

[tame_deuces]

Well, you wrote something along the lines 'I do hope you admit that your efforts are ultimately for you'. As you might have noticed I have a problem with the view that altruism can not exist, even if I'm not dreadfully interested if it exists or not.

I just don't like people calling out the efforts on others on the assumption that those efforts are only something they ultimately do for themselves.

The assumption is based on a standpoint which is next to impossible to falsify (because almost any situation can be twisted to both falsify or fit the statement, making it ambiguous) and as such I don't think it belongs in sensible debate (about other stuff). It is kinda like saying 'the spaghetti monster made you do it'.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you wrote something along the lines 'I do hope you admit that your efforts are ultimately for you'. As you might have noticed I have a problem with the view that altruism can not exist

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's not what I was getting at.

My point was that the judge's ruling is (even if strange) a legitimate perspective. I sort of see that position. Do I agree? Probably not, but that's beside the point. As long as we accept state judges with an inefficient means of incentive, we should expect poor results. So while Max's approach to fighting this problem might be to file complaints when the state wrongs someone and he happens to hear about it, my approach would be to argue in favor of ending the state monopoly on courts.

Further, my approach would involve preaching good habits to my friends and family. I don't have much sympathy for someone who sells herself for sex to strangers on the internet and then gets raped. Sorry, I just don't. I'm not saying she isn't in the right to file rape charges, I'm just saying this isn't the type of thing that makes me say WHOOAAAA, I gotta say something about this!!!

So my point wasn't that altruism doesn't exist (that's just maybe my deep rooted philosophical position that you read into based on other threads), it was merely that not feeling a sense of outrage about this ruling is a legitimate perspective too. I'd rather stay on point and defend the specific arguments I've actually made rather than go into a tangent about your impression of my general philosophy.

I posted a thread in politics about Genarlow Wilson, a guy who when he was 17 was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having oral sex with a 15 year old. THAT is something I feel passionate about and would be willing to help (if the ruling wasn't already overturned).

But I wouldn't represent it as something that suggested I think less of people who don't feel the same way as I do. I might think they are WRONG to not draw the conclusion that government courts don't work well. But I wouldn't ever feel like they're *supposed* to feel strongly about this particular case just because I do.

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't like people calling out the efforts on others on the assumption that those efforts are only something they ultimately do for themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it was originally a joke. I wouldn't have "called him out" if his tone didn't strike me as self-righteous. It's only a big deal now because people are making it one.

If he had just said something like "for anyone who agrees with me and wants to make their voice heard, here's some info" I would have had no problem (and if anything thought well of it). But he basically suggested that everyone is supposed to agree that they care a lot about this case and that the right approach is complaining about the judge. Like I said, I'd rather solve the problem by the roots and support (in both my words and my actions) privatized courts. It's a different (and IMO better) approach to the problem than simply complaining when a judge screws up, and I don't consider myself a bad person just because my approach does not pass the knee jerk moral high ground test.

I'm sure you think you're the "good guy" here. That's the way the cookie usually crumbles. What can you do.

I just hate self-righteousness and will feel free to call it out when I smell it. If you don't think Max was being self-righteous, then I guess we interpreted his post in different ways. But it need not have anything to do with whether or not altruism truly exists.