Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Probably because rape allegations are one of the easiest things to abuse to try and shame someone for ulterior motives.

But yeah, I'd suggest moving it to the progressive thread.

I'm sure Vector would be very pleased to have rape apology in her thread.

1. http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/5/55103/2090109-straw_man.jpg
2. It's Penguin Of Honor's thread now.

[Jerick]

"Other rape cases aren't always taken seriously, therefore we should not take this one seriously" doesn't follow at all.  Sweden has indeed had serious problems with prosecuting rapes in the past - that's why they want to pursue this case to help prove that they're changing.  It's true that alleged rapists aren't usually extradited this vigorously, but that's because rapists don't normally take off to another country in the middle of an investigation into them.  They also don't usually have the legal muscle to repeatedly claim that what they are accused of isn't a crime.

In fact they often do on both counts and when they don't leave the country it's because they don't have to.
Many powerful people have swept rape acusations under the carpet with ease.
It's hard enough for victims to come out about this kind of thing without powerful people putting pressure on them to stay silent.
And when they do they often launch vicious well funded smear campains against the victims.
But even when the rapist isn't infulential we rarely see the prosocution going to much effort to prosocute them and the rapists can still intimadate their victims into backing down in many cases.
In short do other sex offenders deserve this kind of response?
Yes they do.

Sweden changing it's stance on rape?
Then why isn't it going after sex trafficing rings?
Why is it focusing all it's attention on one person and not bringing in legislation that would more protect victims of sexual crimes?
Name one other rapist (alleged or not) where the goverment threatened to storm the embasy they were in to retreive them?
With the number of unresolved cases the energy and reasources all the governments involved in this mess is just insulting to those whom the law is ignoring.
Forget seiging an embassy for one alleged rapist when hundreds walk around free and known.

The argument that the government bending over backwards for one guy is insulting to all the people the same government is barely lifting a finger to help is not bizarre.

[Dsarker]

Anyway, getting back on topic...

A Texas judge who presides over Family and Protective Services cases gets video taped beating his daughter for downloading music.  His ex-wife also claims he is abusive.  His punishment?  Some paid leave and a public warning.

That's disgusting, and it should be condemned.

[Zangi]

Anyway, getting back on topic...

A Texas judge who presides over Family and Protective Services cases gets video taped beating his daughter for downloading music.  His ex-wife also claims he is abusive.  His punishment?  Some paid leave and a public warning.

That's disgusting, and it should be condemned.

On the other hand... it is the parent's choice to dish out physical punishment as a form of... punishment.  It is just a belt beating and the kid damn well deserved, it at least in that setting.

I really don't see anything wrong from that video.  There are far worse cases of 'abuse' then what was just shown.

[kaijyuu]

it is the parent's choice to dish out physical punishment as a form of... punishment.

* kaijyuu disagrees with this.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

it is the parent's choice to dish out physical punishment as a form of... punishment.

* kaijyuu disagrees with this.

* MetalSlimeHunt disagrees with this.

[Dsarker]

I dispute its validity as a punishment at all. But let's say that parents are free to discipline their children however they want. The claim by his ex-wife of abuse should be the central issue, then, and paid leave and a public warning is not sufficient for that.

I would wish punishment, /and/ rehabilitation, such that it prevents it from happening again.

[Putnam]

Most studies have shown that physical punishment is pretty much nothing but detrimental to children.

[scriver]

it is the parent's choice to dish out physical punishment as a form of... punishment.

* kaijyuu disagrees with this.

* MetalSlimeHunt disagrees with this.

That's too bad, MSH, because you're pretty much objectively wrong in this matter.

You don't beat kids. There is no ifs, buts or unlesses. It's that simple. Anyone who lays a hand on their kids are complete and utter failures as parents as well as human beings.

[kaijyuu]

Normally I don't care about derails, but there are appropriate topics to discuss this stuff if we wanna go into detail...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

it is the parent's choice to dish out physical punishment as a form of... punishment.

* kaijyuu disagrees with this.

* MetalSlimeHunt disagrees with this.

That's too bad, MSH, because you're pretty much objectively wrong in this matter.

You don't beat kids. There is no ifs, buts or unlesses. It's that simple. Anyone who lays a hand on their kids are complete and utter failures as parents as well as human beings.

No, see, I was starting a chain disagreement with kaijyuu, not disagreeing with kaijyuu.

[SalmonGod]

I think it's appropriate in certain circumstances, mostly with very young kids.  From anywhere in the age 1-4 range (all mature at different rates), kids have very little fear of anything.  They will put themselves in danger.  They cannot be reasoned with.  They are purely emotional creatures with very short attention spans.  The best thing to do is let them learn from their own mistakes when possible.  This is not an option when they want to do something like run out into traffic.  Telling them that they will die if they do that will not register with them, and non-physical types of punishment often take time that you don't have or cannot be carried out in such a way that the child will mentally associate the punishment with the situation you're trying to prevent.  Where they lack an instinctual or reasoned fear to prevent them from doing something dangerous, you need to take action to put that fear in place yourself.

This is a very narrow set of circumstances, though.  Fear of punishment doesn't teach anything, and teaching is the ideal.

But in any case, this argument is bizarre.  "Other rape cases aren't always taken seriously, therefore we should not take this one seriously" doesn't follow at all.  Sweden has indeed had serious problems with prosecuting rapes in the past - that's why they want to pursue this case to help prove that they're changing.  It's true that alleged rapists aren't usually extradited this vigorously, but that's because rapists don't normally take off to another country in the middle of an investigation into them.  They also don't usually have the legal muscle to repeatedly claim that what they are accused of isn't a crime.

I understand the logical fallacy you're claiming here, but it doesn't work in this case.  It would apply if anybody was saying that just because other people get away with things that Assange should too.  Nobody is saying that.  What we're making is an observation that the behavior by national governments towards Assange is extremely out of character, and that this behavior gives us reason to believe that real motives are not being officially admitted to.  Going after Assange so aggressively does not show that they are taking sex crimes very seriously all of a sudden, and is not a triumph for feminist interests.  It's an insult, because they're abusing feminist interests to achieve their own unrelated ends.  This is what Naomi Wolf means by "pimping out feminism."

And you can say whatever you want about the details of the allegations.  The victims had no desire to press charges against Assange in the first place.  All they wanted was for him to come back and get tested for STDs, and didn't seem to bear any negativity towards him.  It was state prosecutors who escalated the case into what it is today, once again indicating political motives.

[scriver]

I think it's appropriate in certain circumstances, mostly with very young kids.  From anywhere in the age 1-4 range (all mature at different rates), kids have very little fear of anything.  They will put themselves in danger.  They cannot be reasoned with.  They are purely emotional creatures with very short attention spans.  The best thing to do is let them learn from their own mistakes when possible.  This is not an option when they want to do something like run out into traffic.  Telling them that they will die if they do that will not register with them, and non-physical types of punishment often take time that you don't have or cannot be carried out in such a way that the child will mentally associate the punishment with the situation you're trying to prevent.  Where they lack an instinctual or reasoned fear to prevent them from doing something dangerous, you need to take action to put that fear in place yourself.

This is a very narrow set of circumstances, though.  Fear of punishment doesn't teach anything, and teaching is the ideal.

I'm sorry for the strong words, but this is complete bullshit. Everybody in Sweden learned to not run into streets or whatever without having to be beaten. All beatings does is hurt your child, both mentally and physically, and your relationship to them.

As for "there is no other way to keep them from doing dangerous stuff", if people around them react with fear and worry when they are about to do something, kids will puck up on that, and start to be afraid themselves. It's how every mammal, not just humans, teach their offspring what to not do (everyone who's ever seen a goat mum charge and stomp down a poisonous weed just because their kid got close to it have seen it in action), and it's how I got my phobia of bees and wasps - my parents overreacted whenever a bee was around me, causing me to have an unrequited fear of them, and it's why phobias so often is inherited by children. No violence required.

[Frumple]

... scrive, there's a difference between what salmon's talking about and a beating, alright? Yes, I realize you don't see it that way but you're terribly unlikely to get anything done when you're comparing controlled corporal punishment with wild physical abuse -- most people, especially those in a culture that is more accepting of getting a bit physical, see a more nuanced situation. I understand you've got strong feelings about this, but that sort of hyperbole seriously gets in the way of trying to actually convince people of anything.

Also, don't misuse "everybody" unless you've got hard statistics that there's a 100% rate going down. If no children in Sweden have ever been hit by a vehicle, I would be terribly surprised (and probably suggest it has more to do with vehicle use than anything else, but hey). If there hasn't, well, your society needs to hurry up and write and publish a bloody book and donate a free copy to every parent in the world with detailed and specific instructions. "React with fear and worry" is pretty vague, especially when you then state not to overreact -- which is pretty much going to be how any adult (who is neither afraid nor worried of a road) is going to be reacting if they're showing fear and worry of the road. Should... should you go and stomp on passing cars or something?

Also, hey, hey. Maybe another thread for the soapbox? You've done this before, and could probably quote yourself for every response you'd like to make for an OP. Maybe even just write that out, post it, lock the thread, and just provide a link to said thread every time this comes up, so we can avoid the regular derail?

[palsch]

I didn't really want to reply here, and if there is conscientious on where this is best kept I'd be pleased to move it. For now read only if interested in this discussion.

Spoiler: Assange/Wolf stuff. (click to show/hide)

What we're making is an observation that the behavior by national governments towards Assange is extremely out of character, and that this behavior gives us reason to believe that real motives are not being officially admitted to.

The problem I have with this argument is that there still isn't any hidden motive that makes any damned sense.

Again, exactly what is the conspiracy here that is so obvious to everyone but me? What exactly about extradition to Sweden would Assange have to fear compared to his situation at any other point in the last two years?

And please either reference his legal situation, simply because if the law is going to be ignored anyway what does any of this matter? And anyway, if he is going to be whisked away by some extra-judicial means surely that would be easier if he wasn't under the protection of the judicial system.

Regarding Wolf in general, she made a really stupid mistake when Assange was first arrested, publishing this steaming pile before she had any of the facts of the case. Since then she has been trying to defend her original stance while only gradually walking back the worst of it. The article you linked was somewhere between that original piece and eight big problems (which are completely bunk, based on her not knowing anything about Swedish law) article, long before this Mumsnet interview where she walked back her position all the way. Now she is saying she only ranted about how Assange was being persecuted to highlight the problems women in Sweden face due to underfunded rape hotlines and similar, as represented by not getting through to phone lines or replies to her emails. Notably issues compounded by being investigated by a non-Swedish speaker from outside Sweden.

I entirely understand and have some sympathy for most of her actions; it's even harder to walk back from being wrong on the internet as to walk away from someone else being wrong, and she does have a good cause in trying to improve circumstances for rape survivors. The problem is the conflict between these two. She has to repeat rape myths and push blind policies (such as making the names of women who allege rape public) to support her claims regarding Assange, even as she tries to make this about general rape prevention and support.