Regarding Rape Culture: Its Presence and Method of Attack

[Mike the Progressive]

All right, time for a math lesson.

Let's say 90% of all rape accusations are true (nice round number, plus close to the logarithmic mean of the 2% claim generally made by one side and the 40% claim on the other side).
Let's also say that 50% of rape accusations end with the defendant being found guilty (number pulled out of my ass because I don't want to wade through the kinds of sites that would have the actual number).
Being generous, let's say that falsely accused defendants are NEVER convicted.
By simple math, we find that that 20% of the defendants who are found not guilty were correctly found not guilty. This is what is known as a "significant minority."

If we estimate a higher false accusation rate of 1 in 3 (unlikely to be that high) and again assume no false convictions and a conviction rate of 50%, we calculate that the majority of the defendants found not guilty are in fact innocent.

Besides the fact that nobody ever claimed that the majority of accused rapists found not guilty are innocent, your implication that this is the same as saying that the majority of accused rapists are innocent is false.

....jesus fucking christ

Actually Jesus and Christ are the same person. So not sure how they'd be fucking each other. I mean maybe you misunderstood the trinity or something?

[Miss Defied]

What the holy hell am I reading?
No, this is all just so wrong.

Great argument.

Please source all your assertions of when exactly certain sexual activities stopped being "bad" then tell me how exactly that relates to rape, which, in case you are not aware, is not a sexual activity at all, and then what you are saying may be considered a proper argument. Then I may go ahead and say something more.

When you put forth a nonsense post, don't quip about a nonsensical response, please.

[Cenetra]

....jesus fucking christ

Great argument.

[Individuality-ness]

....jesus fucking christ

Actually Jesus and Christ are the same person. So not sure how they'd be fucking each other. I mean maybe you misunderstood the trinity or something?

It's called "wanking" Nixon. Or did you miss the memo?

[Neo Art]

....jesus fucking christ

Great argument.

You are really really bad at this.

[Mike the Progressive]

Actually Jesus and Christ are the same person. So not sure how they'd be fucking each other. I mean maybe you misunderstood the trinity or something?

It's called "wanking" Nixon. Or did you miss the memo?

[Saint Jade IV]

If there are so many studies demonstrating harmful overall effects on society, by all means, post a few.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... f-culture/

http://www.k-state.edu/psych/research/d ... ct3rev.doc

http://theresurgence.com/2011/11/19/7-n ... ts-of-porn

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_brief ... ndex1.html

From your first link:

Lasha Darkmoon’s current TOO article provides case studies illustrating the sexual deviance of some of the main promoters of pornography. The question here is whether the availability of pornography is bad for Whites or, indeed, for any group.

Yeah - I stopped reading there. Looking at the rest of the stuff around the page, I'm finding it hard to believe they are completely unbiased.

On a brief skim, your second link doesn't say what you think it does. In fact, it relates to depictions of sex in the media, and discusses whether the ways in which women are depicted in these portrayals may contribute to wider problems in society. It makes no comment on whether sex in general is damaging.

Your third link is a Christian fundamentalist site, whose agenda is quite clearly against certain kinds of sex. Furthermore, that site discusses the morality of pornography and whether it is damaging, not sex.

Your fourth link relates to the consumption of sex in the media by teenagers, and whether it hastens the onset of sexual activity. Which does not prove that sex in and of itself is moral or immoral, nor whether it's harmful to society.

Try harder.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

and which no physical evidence can prove the crime occurred only the act in which the crime is based,

Other crimes that leave no physical evidence:

larceny (physical possession of the stolen good doesn't count, that's only proof of the act in which the crime is based)
driving under the influence (BAC tests don't count, those are only proof of the act in which the crime is based)
trespass (physical presence on the land doesn't count, that's only proof of the act in which the crime is based)
murder (physical presence of a dead body doesn't, that's only proof of the act in which the crime is based)

In fact, the ONLY crimes I can think of that leaves DIRECT physical evidence inherent in the act of committing the crime are battery and arson. Those are the only crimes where I can think of where the presence of physical evidence speaks DIRECTLY to the commission of a crime. In EVERY OTHER CRIME, physical evidence merely points to the existence of an event which, in particular contexts, is illegal, and then relies on other evidence to substantiate that context.

Somehow, nobody ever complains about all those whores falsely accusing men of purse snatching JUST BECAUSE there's some physical evidence that suggests he was in possession of her purse, and she testifies under oath that she didn't give it to him voluntarily.

Jesus fucking Christ, in NO OTHER CRIME do we hold victims to this absurd standard of "just because we found him with your purse, and you testify that he stole your purse, that doesn't MEAN anything, after all, he said you gave it to him willingly, you lying lying whore."

Well we can't hold the victim to that standard in murder,...cause well yeah. But they can physically "prove" it trough forensics, etc.

And trespassing, yeah we do, but it's also a misdemeanor at best.
Driving under the influence, that's a fucking stretch. BAC, and physical presence behind the wheel of an operating vehicle. They can scream not drunk all they want, "over the legal limit, under arrest"

And larceny, "yes it is" anyone in possession of "Stolen property" is subject to arrest, even if that product was supposedly legally bought. It happens all the time.

And I'm not complaining, I'm voicing my skepticism, and i think it's a skepticism that holds true in more than just rape cases.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Great argument.

Please source all your assertions of when exactly certain sexual activities stopped being "bad" then tell me how exactly that relates to rape, which, in case you are not aware, is not a sexual activity at all, and then what you are saying may be considered a proper argument. Then I may go ahead and say something more.

When you put forth a nonsense post, don't quip about a nonsensical response, please.

Sorry you lost me at "rape is not a sexual activity at all"

[Miss Defied]

Please source all your assertions of when exactly certain sexual activities stopped being "bad" then tell me how exactly that relates to rape, which, in case you are not aware, is not a sexual activity at all, and then what you are saying may be considered a proper argument. Then I may go ahead and say something more.

When you put forth a nonsense post, don't quip about a nonsensical response, please.

Sorry you lost me at "rape is not a sexual activity at all"

I'm not surprised after reading a few pages of your posts concerning the topic.

[Cenetra]

You are really really bad at this.

While I appreciate the compliment, you really should consider making real arguments more often.

[Neo Art]

Well we can't hold the victim to that standard in murder,...cause well yeah. But they can physically "prove" it trough forensics, etc.

You have utterly lost sight of your own argument, haven't you? Like, you've totally lost the plot.

Your whole point was that rape is defined as sex without consent, but we can not use physical evidence to prove "without consent". We can only use physical evidence to prove that sex occurred. No physical evidence can PROVE it wasn't consensual.

Well, murder is defined as the taking of life with malice aforethought. now, forensics can prove someone is dead. Forensics may even be able to prove that I was the one who killed him. But physical evidence can not prove I acted with malice aforethought.

OTHER evidence can do so. But physical evidence can not PROVE malice aforethought. It can prove that I killed someone, but not my state of mind.

And trespassing, yeah we do, but it's also a misdemeanor at best.

....so?

Driving under the influence, that's a fucking stretch. BAC, and physical presence behind the wheel of an operating vehicle. They can scream not drunk all they want, "over the legal limit, under arrest"

BAC proves, as a matter of physical evidence, that I was over the legal limit. What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE do you have, in a DUI case, that I was operating a motor vehicle at the time of my intoxication?

None. Of course. What you have is the testimony of the police officer that, at the time of my intoxication, I was operating a motor vehicle. I mean, it's almost like that physical evidence of a particular fact (intoxication/sex) coupled with testimony that makes that fact a crime within a certain context (operating a motor vehicle/without consent) is enough to convict someone.

Who would have fucking thought it?

And larceny, "yes it is" anyone in possession of "Stolen property" is subject to arrest, even if that product was supposedly legally bought. It happens all the time.

It's curious you feel yourself qualified to talk about the law without knowing the difference between "larceny" and "possession of stolen property". Those are two different things, and I use the term I use for a reason. Larceny is described as the taking of the property of another with the intent to deprive the lawful owner of his or her legal possession, and without the consent of the lawful owner.

Physical possession of a stolen good does not prove said good was taken without consent. What actually DOES prove that it was taken without consent is typically the testimony of the lawful owner.

Once again, a certain physical fact (possession) coupled with witness testimony that makes said fact criminal in this context (didn't have permission) is sufficient.

and i think it's a skepticism that holds true in more than just rape cases.

yeah, you're lying.

You're also apparently incapable of stringing together a halfway cogent thought process. The combination of these two things doesn't surprise me.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Sorry you lost me at "rape is not a sexual activity at all"

I'm not surprised after reading a few pages of your posts concerning the topic.

Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Rape by definition is a sexual act. good day.

[Neo Art]

You are really really bad at this.

While I appreciate the compliment, you really should consider making real arguments more often.

Sorry, you were under the impression that "well, if I use these totally made up numbers, that might mean you're wrong!" is something that normal people think worthwhile responding to?

You think that's something reasonably intelligent people consider worth their time?

You must hang out with really dull people.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well we can't hold the victim to that standard in murder,...cause well yeah. But they can physically "prove" it trough forensics, etc.

You have utterly lost sight of your own argument, haven't you? Like, you've totally lost the plot.

Your whole point was that rape is defined as sex without consent, but we can not use physical evidence to prove "without consent". We can only use physical evidence to prove that sex occurred. No physical evidence can PROVE it wasn't consensual.

Well, murder is defined as the taking of life with malice aforethought. now, forensics can prove someone is dead. Forensics may even be able to prove that I was the one who killed him. But physical evidence can not prove I acted with malice aforethought.

OTHER evidence can do so. But physical evidence can not PROVE malice aforethought. It can prove that I killed someone, but not my state of mind.

And trespassing, yeah we do, but it's also a misdemeanor at best.

....so?

Driving under the influence, that's a fucking stretch. BAC, and physical presence behind the wheel of an operating vehicle. They can scream not drunk all they want, "over the legal limit, under arrest"

BAC proves, as a matter of physical evidence, that I was over the legal limit. What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE do you have, in a DUI case, that I was operating a motor vehicle at the time of my intoxication?

None. Of course. What you have is the testimony of the police officer that, at the time of my intoxication, I was operating a motor vehicle. I mean, it's almost like that physical evidence of a particular fact (intoxication/sex) coupled with testimony that makes that fact a crime within a certain context (operating a motor vehicle/without consent) is enough to convict someone.

Who would have fucking thought it?

And larceny, "yes it is" anyone in possession of "Stolen property" is subject to arrest, even if that product was supposedly legally bought. It happens all the time.

It's curious you feel yourself qualified to talk about the law without knowing the difference between "larceny" and "possession of stolen property". Those are two different things, and I use the term I use for a reason. Larceny is described as the taking of the property of another with the intent to deprive the lawful owner of his or her legal possession, and without the consent of the lawful owner.

Physical possession of a stolen good does not prove said good was taken without consent. What actually DOES prove that it was taken without consent is typically the testimony of the lawful owner.

Once again, a certain physical fact (possession) coupled with witness testimony that makes said fact criminal in this context (didn't have permission) is sufficient.

and i think it's a skepticism that holds true in more than just rape cases.

yeah, you're lying.

You're also apparently incapable of stringing together a halfway cogent thought process. The combination of these two things doesn't surprise me.

Fine. I'm done arguing this rhetorical nonsense. I concede, People never lie. Let's skip the trial from now one. anyone accused of rape is guilty. Anyone ever accused of a crime ever is guilty. Good day.

[Neo Art]

You have utterly lost sight of your own argument, haven't you? Like, you've totally lost the plot.

Your whole point was that rape is defined as sex without consent, but we can not use physical evidence to prove "without consent". We can only use physical evidence to prove that sex occurred. No physical evidence can PROVE it wasn't consensual.

Well, murder is defined as the taking of life with malice aforethought. now, forensics can prove someone is dead. Forensics may even be able to prove that I was the one who killed him. But physical evidence can not prove I acted with malice aforethought.

OTHER evidence can do so. But physical evidence can not PROVE malice aforethought. It can prove that I killed someone, but not my state of mind.



....so?



BAC proves, as a matter of physical evidence, that I was over the legal limit. What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE do you have, in a DUI case, that I was operating a motor vehicle at the time of my intoxication?

None. Of course. What you have is the testimony of the police officer that, at the time of my intoxication, I was operating a motor vehicle. I mean, it's almost like that physical evidence of a particular fact (intoxication/sex) coupled with testimony that makes that fact a crime within a certain context (operating a motor vehicle/without consent) is enough to convict someone.

Who would have fucking thought it?



It's curious you feel yourself qualified to talk about the law without knowing the difference between "larceny" and "possession of stolen property". Those are two different things, and I use the term I use for a reason. Larceny is described as the taking of the property of another with the intent to deprive the lawful owner of his or her legal possession, and without the consent of the lawful owner.

Physical possession of a stolen good does not prove said good was taken without consent. What actually DOES prove that it was taken without consent is typically the testimony of the lawful owner.

Once again, a certain physical fact (possession) coupled with witness testimony that makes said fact criminal in this context (didn't have permission) is sufficient.



yeah, you're lying.

You're also apparently incapable of stringing together a halfway cogent thought process. The combination of these two things doesn't surprise me.

Fine. I'm done arguing this rhetorical nonsense. I concede, People never lie. Let's skip the trial from now one. anyone accused of rape is guilty. Anyone ever accused of a crime ever is guilty. Good day.

Man, you've just UTTERLY given up even PRETENDING to be intellectually honest at this point, haven't you?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Fine. I'm done arguing this rhetorical nonsense. I concede, People never lie. Let's skip the trial from now one. anyone accused of rape is guilty. Anyone ever accused of a crime ever is guilty. Good day.

Man, you've just UTTERLY given up even PRETENDING to be intellectually honest at this point, haven't you?

No, I just stopped giving a shit arguing with clearly biased people.

[Saint Jade IV]

Fine. I'm done arguing this rhetorical nonsense. I concede, People never lie. Let's skip the trial from now one. anyone accused of rape is guilty. Anyone ever accused of a crime ever is guilty. Good day.

Man, you've just UTTERLY given up even PRETENDING to be intellectually honest at this point, haven't you?

He was pretending?

[Neo Art]

Man, you've just UTTERLY given up even PRETENDING to be intellectually honest at this point, haven't you?

No, I just stopped giving a shit arguing with clearly biased people.

You people, you think something is in the minority JUST BECAUSE it occurs less than half the time!

You're all biased!

[Miss Defied]

I'm not surprised after reading a few pages of your posts concerning the topic.

Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Rape by definition is a sexual act. good day.

Yep, just one of those deviant sexual acts that society has become more tolerant of right? You lump it right in there with sodomy and S&M and -gasp- adultery. That's the aspect of your view that I was challenging. It's not a sexual act in the respect you put forth.

[Neo Art]

Man, you've just UTTERLY given up even PRETENDING to be intellectually honest at this point, haven't you?

He was pretending?

I mean, he wasn't really fooling anyone, but he was giving it a try.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, I just stopped giving a shit arguing with clearly biased people.

You people, you think something is in the minority JUST BECAUSE it occurs less than half the time!

You're all biased!

dafuq? I was quipping about about something another person said. Or could you not fucking comprehend that. I was quipping someone else for claiming exactly that.

Fuck it I'm leaving before I start flaming people.

[Condunum]

Man, you've just UTTERLY given up even PRETENDING to be intellectually honest at this point, haven't you?

No, I just stopped giving a shit arguing with clearly biased people.

Funny thing, Neo Art's only major bias is towards the law.

You know... Cause it's his fucking job to know what it is.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Rape by definition is a sexual act. good day.

Yep, just one of those deviant sexual acts that society has become more tolerant of right? You lump it right in there with sodomy and S&M and -gasp- adultery. That's the aspect of your view that I was challenging. It's not a sexual act in the respect you put forth.

You know other cultures actually consider Rape an essential part of the Courting Process of marriage. Hmm the more you know.

[Condunum]

Yep, just one of those deviant sexual acts that society has become more tolerant of right? You lump it right in there with sodomy and S&M and -gasp- adultery. That's the aspect of your view that I was challenging. It's not a sexual act in the respect you put forth.

You know other cultures actually consider Rape an essential part of the Courting Process of marriage. Hmm the more you know.

Hmm... I don't see how that justifies anything...