NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do people word the question header entirely opposite from the poll question/answer?

understood, I used law and legality because society's laws is the best indicators of society's morals.

actually no. a person can morally justify an action that they know would be normally wrong.
I believe that what you suggest is an irreconcilable internal contradiction. It is my view that it is simply impossible for a person to think that an action is moral AND that it is wrong at the same time, and therefore, if they say they do believe that, I will think they are lying.

NOTE: I realize that, by "normally wrong," you may be referring to an act that society deems wrong according to a moral code that the individual does not share, but if that is your meaning, then you are missing my point again. I am NOT talking about discrepancies between an individual's moral code and a society's moral code. I am talking about discrepancies WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL between his own claimed moral code and his own actions/choices.

you can have moral criminals, but that doesn't mean they are not criminals and their actions not a crime.
Yes, obviously. The abolitionists who helped slaves escape to freedom in 19th century USA were breaking the law but doing a morally justified thing. That is why I stressed that law =/= morality.

But in my comment, I was thinking more about criminals like rapists, which is the topic, after all.

Morally Justifying an action is mainly for the person committing the action. Moral justification can be used to explain the reason behind the action but rarely does it succeed to be the excuse for the action.
Indeed, as in my remarks that, while I accept that a person may think his actions are morally justified under his own moral code, that will mean nothing to me in judging his actions because I operate under my moral code, not his.

So I guess, if I had to judge and punish a person who committed rape and honestly believed he was morally justified in doing so, I would have to just say, "Bad luck for you, then, rapist, because you're not in charge of your case. I am, and I'm not interested in what you think of your actions."

And remember is you coerce the woman into sex by pointing out that the survival of humanity is on her shoulders as the last woman on earth, you have raped her. Shame Shame Murayvvets won't play with you anymore...granted I guess she would not be in existence anyway since there is only one woman and she wouldn't give in to coercion so obviously the last woman wasn't her. ;)

A single woman does not provide enough long-term genetic diversity to "maintain" the species.

If we're ever down to a single woman, or a single man, we're done as a species. Period. Maybe not right away, but certainly within a couple of generations of horribly inbred descendants.

Therefore, even in this extreme scenario, rape is unjustifiable, not only for the obvious reasons we attribute to rape in "normal" situations, but because in this instance it does nothing to solve the problem...as the problem is unsolvable.

So that means according to the bible we are all fu**ed?
Or does the Gdog know best?

AMK
xxx

I sure hope you were trying to be funny. You failed horribly, but if you're serious that makes it 100 times worse.
Rape is always justified. Any girl that got raped always deserved it. Over nine thousand times. That answer your question?

This is a split off the "A Virgin Until Death" thread. In it, Soviestan asked:



So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

No.

No.

NO.

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?

This hypothetical is ridiculous and offensive.

Lame hypotheticals are lame.

Too true.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

Oh, sorry, so we've made it clear that you're somewhat mentally defective?

I'm just sayin, black people don't have to put on as near high an SPF as I do. On the other hand, they do have to contend with things like ashy skin and racism.

People of every race get skin cancer.

I just hope you're one of them. :rolleyes:

But NOT raping would kill people, and killing people is always wrong too.

So are you saying rape is wrong now?

Incorrect, people aren't getting "not made" if you don't rape the terrorist, they're getting killed. Not raping the terrorist kills innocent people. By not raping the terrorist, you commit mass murder. Is rape worse than mass murder?

Your hypotheticals fail.

what if the woman in question has a rape fantasy?
;):p:D:gundge:

It's not rape then.

Now we’ve established that, we can move on.

Thank God.

Only when he/she consents to it.

That's not rape.

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?

No. And why does it make a difference if she looks like Jessica Alba?

Okay. What if, generalization of the hypothetical situation here, the other person would submit to intercourse if you could properly communicate the reasons why to them? This clearly brings up the question how could one know that the other would agree with their thoughts and if they are even right.

Let us say however that this situation actually happens and due to time constraints or other communication problems (eg. language barriers etc.) you don't have time to explain to someone why you need to have intercourse and are forced to rape them. Afterwords you 'have the time' to explain it to them and they then agree with your way of thinking and forgive you for raping them. Is that still rape? Is that situation just not plausible as there is no real life likeness? Or perhaps one can not take the perspective of someone after the rape as the outcome is always unknown.

If you were 99% sure they would agree with you though?

Yes, it's still rape. A language barrier is not an excuse. Body language is very very clear, and you're absolutely dellusional if you think she'll forgive anyone for raping her.

Sure. It's perfectly morally justifiable to force a rapist into nonconsentual sex. In fact, it should be an acceptable sentencing option.

No.

No.

NO.

Don't most animals rape each other? I know I've see male dogs and ducks rape each other. Rape may be morally abhorrent to humans but it seems to have a place in the natural order of things. I mean, when was the last time you saw animal kissing and going on dates before having sex? They mostly just get horny and then force sex.

I don't know about you, but I'm not an animal. [Obviously I'm aware that human beings are "animals".]

You know I don't know how truly representative that poll is, but it scares me.

Ditto.

So then what do you think of rape as a punishment for rape?

It's wrong.

If you were raped you would want the rapist to get off with a few years in jail while you are scarred for the rest of your life?

Not even jail time is going to stop the victim being scarred.

A better question: is it rape if they're asking for it?

How can someone ASK to be raped?

Last woman on the planet. If she's some kind of retard and doesn't want to continue the human race, then rape is fine.

You fail.

Unless Indri means the person in question is a consenting adult, in which case it becomes some kind of BDSM roleplay.

That's not rape.

Rape is always justified. Any girl that got raped always deserved it. Over nine thousand times. That answer your question?

Oh, please do explain.

Ever heard the expression "not even if you were the last man alive"? This implies that concept exists in spite of evolutionary interests, that's the beauty of being sentient; we make moral and ethical decisions that are sometime contrary to our survival.

We would be fine obviously! Ever heard of Adam and Eve?
2 people who created the entire human race as we know it and we are not inbred freaks, well not all of us anyway...

AMK
xxx

We would be fine obviously! Ever heard of Adam and Eve?
2 people who created the entire human race as we know it and we are not inbred freaks, well not all of us anyway...

AMK
xxxJoke or for real?

Ever heard the expression "not even if you were the last man alive"? This implies that concept exists in spite of evolutionary interests, that's the beauty of being sentient; we make moral and ethical decisions that are sometime contrary to our survival.

There is surely a difference between insulting someone you dont like and looking deeply into the ethics of human survival?

AMK
xxx

er, tongue in cheek. I am an evolutionist. However its a salient point nontheless.It's really hard to tell tongue in cheek from rabid belief sometimes... ;)
It does bring in an argument that will probably degenerate into the same old religious bickering as it normally does but hopefully not.
I do ask the question however that if you believe in creationism, surely you cannot argue that if there are 2 people left, we are all stuffed.
If you are an evolutionist, you must surely believe the opposite?

AMK
xxxWell, you aren't bound by the dogmatic statement that it is possible if you don't consider Genesis more than a parable. This doesn't mean you must believe that it isn't possible, merely that there's nothing forcing you to believe that it is.

Joke or for real?

er, tongue in cheek. I am an evolutionist. However its a salient point nontheless.
It does bring in an argument that will probably degenerate into the same old religious bickering as it normally does but hopefully not.
I do ask the question however that if you believe in creationism, surely you cannot argue that if there are 2 people left, we are all stuffed.
If you are an evolutionist, you must surely believe the opposite?

AMK
xxx

Interesting. If there is a woman who is the last on the planet, but refuses to have sex, is it wrong to rape her to maintain the species?

Why is maintaining the species a moral value in and of itself?

Rape is not about sex, it never is. It's about power.

It's about a socially deviant's need to control the other gender, or another person. There's nothing right about that. There's no moral right about it.

For the most part, a rapist has some sort of sexual dysfunction...in fact, the profile of the rapist is much like the profile of the serial killer.

So no, there's no way, shape, or form that would excuse rapists, justify rape, or make it proper.

To be honest, I'd be happy if rapists convicted for three or more, or convicted for a third time...have their private parts completely removed.

There is surely a difference between insulting someone you dont like and looking deeply into the ethics of human survival?

AMK
xxx

I don't think you quite understood what he said.

I don't think you quite understood what he said.

Oh, no, he did.

You see, the fact people say 'not even if you were the last man on earth' doesn't mean they truly, deeply mean just that.

Consider this: When the natural balance between men and women is moved about (say, most of the men die off), suddenly uglier men have a chance of getting laid (think late 1940's Russia).

Since this thread somehow is still alive, let me just add my

NO! NEVER!!

to the "debate"...

Suppose there's a nuclear weapon inside someone and it will only deactivate if it detects your semen. Millions of lives hang in the balance, including the poor shmuck with the bomb inside. And there's no time to explain....

Wow. That even hurt MY brain. :(

It is more common to have a mental disorder than not have one. Everybody that says no is contaminated with the disorder called weakness.

In the end we humans are just animals, behave like one.

If you think rape is unjustifiable, bring justice. Stop whining.

It is more common to have a mental disorder than not have one. Everybody that says no is contaminated with the disorder called weakness.

In the end we humans are just animals, behave like one.

If you think rape is unjustifiable, bring justice. Stop whining.

Everyone who says "no" to sex is "contaminated" with a "disorder", and this "disorder's" name is "weakness?"

Shit, we better rewrite the science books stat!:rolleyes:

Rape is not about sex, it never is. It's about power.

It's about a socially deviant's need to control the other gender, or another person. There's nothing right about that. There's no moral right about it.

For the most part, a rapist has some sort of sexual dysfunction...in fact, the profile of the rapist is much like the profile of the serial killer.

So no, there's no way, shape, or form that would excuse rapists, justify rape, or make it proper.

To be honest, I'd be happy if rapists convicted for three or more, or convicted for a third time...have their private parts completely removed.I disagree with your assumption. Rape can be committed by anyone, socially deviant or socially accepted, sexually dysfunctional or not.

Rape is always justified. Any girl that got raped always deserved it. Over nine thousand times. That answer your question?
Yes, it does answer my question. You are actually not serious. You are just trolling an already questionable thread with deliberately offensive and outrageous bullshit. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, its called suprise sex.

There is surely a difference between insulting someone you dont like and looking deeply into the ethics of human survival?

AMK
xxx
There is nothing ethical about rape, never has been and never will be. There mere suggestion is nonsense to the point of inverting reality.

If you are going to treat that idiotic joke of a hypothetical seriously, then you must realize that if you choose to rape someone (repeatedly, as demanded by the hypothetical, if you think about it) in the vain hope that you might be able to produce enough people to repopulate the planet (what utter bullshit of a notion!), then you are abandoning ethics in favor of self-interest. You desire a certain outcome, and in order to get it, you are choosing to do something you know is morally wrong, you are choosing deliberately to inflict harm on another person who has done nothing to harm you. That is a text-book example of unethical behavior. And since the act in question is an immoral one, then it makes your choice a text-book example of immoral behavior as well.

And don't bother to throw the Bible into this disgusting mix, because (1) arguing for an immoral hypothetical by using fairy tales as your evidence is so stupid as to be ignore-worthy; (2) the Bible can be taken as pretty much the aforementioned text book of unethical and immoral behaviors; and (3) Adam did not rape Eve, according to that story, so citing it as evidence that two people could repopulate the world (head asplodes) does NOT justify rape.

I disagree with your assumption. Rape can be committed by anyone, socially deviant or socially accepted, sexually dysfunctional or not.
Rape, in and of itself, is socially deviant. Therefore a rapist is a social deviant, regardless of what his social status might be.

Rape, in and of itself, is socially deviant. Therefore a rapist is a social deviant, regardless of what his social status might be.Is it? I'd consider it wrong, but socially deviant is another thing altogether.

Is it? I'd consider it wrong, but socially deviant is another thing altogether.
Please don't take this personally, but reading NSG, I do sometimes wonder if people really have such fundamental problems with vocabulary.

"Socially deviant" -- a term that indicates an act or condition that deviates from the accepted norms of social behavior. It does not matter if 1 in 4 women become victims of rape. Rape is not an accepted norm of social behavior, therefore it is socially deviant. Period.

Do people really have trouble wrapping their brains around such simple terms, or are they just so invested in not saying "Oh, I get it; ok, then, nevermind" that they would rather make themselves look foolish by endless hair-splitting over what words mean?

What if somebody spikes your punch with hallucinogens and (s)he's drunk and you hallucinate her/him saying "Fuck me, Vetalia" but (s)he really didn't say it and you go ahead and unintentionally rape him/her?

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?
What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I'm not sure, but I'm getting kinda hard.


If you think you're being funny, trust me: you're not.

One moment, please...

Shit I said yes well ignore that I meant no

ish, i voted for the wrong poll response. My answer if no. Anytime you forcibly deny the rights of another human being it is wrong.

Bah, you title the thread "Is rape always wrong" and then switch the question to "Is rape ever justified" My vote is with no, aka always wrong, but I put the wrong one.

Bah bad poll....stupid me.

The thread reads Is Rape Always Wrong

The list reads Is Rape Ever Justified


I said "yes".....answering the title Is Rape Always Wrong :headbang:



YES IT IS ALWAYS WRONG

NO IT IS NEVER JUSTIFIED

Same thing happened to me. I think that might be the only reason there are so many yeses.

I voted yes by mistake.... rape is NEVER justified... it's one of the wost crimes a person can commit :mad:

Ok. Here's what I did.

1) The thread title now matches the poll title.
2) The posters quoted above's votes were subtracted from "yes it is justified" and added to "no, it is not" since they are the only ones who clearly stated they made a perfectly understandable error given the disparity between the thread title and poll question. The other votes must stand as they are.

Carry on.

What Vetalia said.

Furthermore, in a society with systemic rape, there are compelling rule-utilitarian objections to even the hypotheticals: to consider the exceptional cases when rape might be justified is to weaken its absolute prohibition, to give an excuse for it to the many people who seem already perfectly willing to dishonestly excuse and equivocate on this topic.

In this case, even the veneer of plausibility is too much.

No.
I don't know about you, but I'm not an animal. [Obviously I'm aware that human beings are "animals".]

I almost corrected you, but then I noticed your additional message :p .

I disagree with your assumption. Rape can be committed by anyone, socially deviant or socially accepted, sexually dysfunctional or not.

I agree.

No, its called suprise sex.

Because that's new. :rolleyes:

I almost corrected you, but then I noticed your additional message :p .

I'm sneaky like that.

One moment, please...



Ok. Here's what I did.

1) The thread title now matches the poll title.
2) The posters quoted above's votes were subtracted from "yes it is justified" and added to "no, it is not" since they are the only ones who clearly stated they made a perfectly understandable error given the disparity between the thread title and poll question. The other votes must stand as they are.

Carry on.
Thanks, Kat. Sadly the number of yes votes is still horrifying and depressing.

Thanks, Kat. Sadly the number of yes votes is still horrifying and depressing.

I have to agree with you there, i thought folks would know better, and read the question. 18% is quite scary really.

I have to agree with you there, i thought folks would know better, and read the question. 18% is quite scary really.

I think it's probably an accurate measure of society's thoughts, too. I mean, how many jock-a**holes probably think the same thing?

I think it's probably an accurate measure of society's thoughts, too. I mean, how many jock-a**holes probably think the same thing?

Jock?
like in those cheesy Love stories e.g. Greese lightning.
I hate musicals, wel other than blues brothers, they were brilliant.

Jock?
like in those cheesy Love stories e.g. Greese lightning.
I hate musicals, wel other than blues brothers, they were brilliant.

No, no.
Jocks... wait... (how can you hate musicals?) are typically private-school-educated, gym-junkie, rowers, who have blonde hair, an attitude problem and disrespect women. Well, that's a "jock" where I'm from, anyway.

No, no.
Jocks... wait... (how can you hate musicals?) are typically private-school-educated, gym-junkie, rowers, who have blonde hair, an attitude problem and disrespect women. Well, that's a "jock" where I'm from, anyway.

Ah it stems from chitty chitty bang bang, i watched it as a kid, then i watched it once too often, i hated it, but at the same time screamed the house down if i didn't get to watch it. Needless to say i didn't have the chance to scream any house down, and was chucked outside to play about there.
That and going to school musicals, i don't know why, not enough acting too much singing.
Oh Jock, you mean toff, or ponce. or snobby git.
anyway i'm derailing the thread a bit. so just to sum up Rape is never justified, regardless of any horrific scenario you can think of.

No.

No.

NO.



This hypothetical is ridiculous and offensive.



Too true.



Oh, sorry, so we've made it clear that you're somewhat mentally defective?



People of every race get skin cancer.

I just hope you're one of them. :rolleyes:



So are you saying rape is wrong now?



Your hypotheticals fail.



It's not rape then.



Thank God.



That's not rape.



No. And why does it make a difference if she looks like Jessica Alba?



Yes, it's still rape. A language barrier is not an excuse. Body language is very very clear, and you're absolutely dellusional if you think she'll forgive anyone for raping her.



No.

No.

NO.



I don't know about you, but I'm not an animal. [Obviously I'm aware that human beings are "animals".]



Ditto.



It's wrong.



Not even jail time is going to stop the victim being scarred.



How can someone ASK to be raped?



You fail.



That's not rape.



Oh, please do explain.

Hahahahaha!


You're smart and hilarious! Excellent rye responses!

I'm sneaky like that.

And its cute sneakiness ;)

Hahahahaha!


You're smart and hilarious! Excellent rye responses!

Why thankyou!

I'm thinking of starting a "bitching about everyday sh*t" collumn.

And its cute sneakiness ;)

:)

I don't think you quite understood what he said.

I do, i just don't think you understood what i said.

AMK
xxx

There is nothing ethical about rape, never has been and never will be. There mere suggestion is nonsense to the point of inverting reality.

If you are going to treat that idiotic joke of a hypothetical seriously, then you must realize that if you choose to rape someone (repeatedly, as demanded by the hypothetical, if you think about it) in the vain hope that you might be able to produce enough people to repopulate the planet (what utter bullshit of a notion!), then you are abandoning ethics in favor of self-interest. You desire a certain outcome, and in order to get it, you are choosing to do something you know is morally wrong, you are choosing deliberately to inflict harm on another person who has done nothing to harm you. That is a text-book example of unethical behavior. And since the act in question is an immoral one, then it makes your choice a text-book example of immoral behavior as well.

And don't bother to throw the Bible into this disgusting mix, because (1) arguing for an immoral hypothetical by using fairy tales as your evidence is so stupid as to be ignore-worthy; (2) the Bible can be taken as pretty much the aforementioned text book of unethical and immoral behaviors; and (3) Adam did not rape Eve, according to that story, so citing it as evidence that two people could repopulate the world (head asplodes) does NOT justify rape.


First of all, i did not know the daily mail had a correspondent in NSG

Second of all, an argument is usually much more worthy of consideration when it is not written in a hysterically emotional manner, filling an argument with needless and badly thought out superlatives seldom does anything to aid the gravity of the argument

Thirdly, obviously completely misunderstanding the use of a far fetched hypothetical situation is not helping. The hypothesis was put in place so that people could examine the boundaries of their ethics, i think it goes without saying that rape in any concievable circumstance cannot be defended ethically or morally. One of the points of this discussion is to figure out what it would take for such a deeply held ethic to be stretched to the point where we would consider changing it. If you are unable to cope with that sort of discussion then perhaps you should take your own advice and ignore it.

Fourthly, if your hysterics had not got in the way of rational thought, you would most probably have noticed that my inclusion of the bible as evidence, was, probably rather naughtily, designed to introduce a new slant to the topic, one that was disparaging to the bible and religion as a whole, showcasing the idiocy of the creationism argument however showing at the same time people who believe, as is there right, in creationism, will be able to have faith in mankind's capacity to recover from such a devastating blow as to lose all but 2 of its protagonists.


AMK
xxx

First of all, i did not know the daily mail had a correspondent in NSG

<snip ad hominem attack that was presented instead of an argument>


AMK
xxx
1) You claimed that there were "ethics" of species survival that would justify the "it's okay to rape if it's to preserve the species" hypothetical. I pointed out that, in fact, such a decision would be self-serving and unethical.

2) You claimed that two people could restore the species, but I pointed out that that does not make rape a morally justified action. That means that whether it is possible or not is irrelevant.

3) Speaking figuratively, you cited Adam and Eve to illustrate your point. Since the thread is about whether rape is ever morally justified, I pointed out that Adam did not rape Eve and that the Bible is full of examples of unethical and immoral behavior, so that story and source, too, are irrelevant to the discussion, which is about whether rape is ever morally justified, not about whether two people could repopulate the Earth.

And you responded, not by defending your assertions, nor by referring to the topic, but by insulting the style of my post and me personally. EDIT: It also amuses me that you think I don't know what the conversation is about. I suppose that means you have not read any of my other posts? That would explain why you even made your comment about the question being what it would take to make "us" reevaluate our prohibition against rape. If you had bothered to read the arguments of the person you were attacking, you would have seen that I am of the opinion that there is nothing at all that would make me reevaluate that prohibition, nor accept the arguments of those who would. But of course, why bother learning who your target is, when you can just shut down discussion with insults?

1) You claimed that there were "ethics" of species survival that would justify the "it's okay to rape if it's to preserve the species" hypothetical. I pointed out that, in fact, such a decision would be self-serving and unethical.

2) You claimed that two people could restore the species, but I pointed out that that does not make rape a morally justified action. That means that whether it is possible or not is irrelevant.

3) Speaking figuratively, you cited Adam and Eve to illustrate your point. Since the thread is about whether rape is ever morally justified, I pointed out that Adam did not rape Eve, so that story, too, is irrelevant to the discussion.

And you responded, not by defending your assertions, nor by referring to the topic, but by insulting the style of my post and me personally.

OK, thanks for playing. 'Bye.

I insulted the style by which you replied because the style of your reply was not conducive to debate. it was a style full of emotionally charged superlatives and bold text that served to take away from the substance of what you appeared to be saying.
You also seemed to be taking the wrong end of the stick with every single point i had made and felt compelled to bring this to the attention of the thread because in doing so you had made me out to be an immoral buffoon who was meaning the exact opposite of what was actually there to be discerned.
Please don't go, that won't help anyone, it will just go to prove that you cannot and will not engage in challenging debate.

AMK
xxx

Please don't go, that won't help anyone, it will just go to prove that you cannot and will not engage in challenging debate.

1. Muryavets has proven herself to be fully capable in challenging debates on numerous occasions.

2. She was saying for you to go ahead and leave.

1. Muryavets has proven herself to be fully capable in challenging debates on numerous occasions.

2. She was saying for you to go ahead and leave.

*bangs head really really hard*
Is irony illegal?

AMK
xxx

*bangs head really really hard*
Is irony illegal?

AMK
xxx

I was seconding her suggestion.

Ace, can you blackball me as well?

AMK
xxx

I insulted the style by which you replied because the style of your reply was not conducive to debate. it was a style full of emotionally charged superlatives
Get used to it. It's the way I swing.

and bold text that served to take away from the substance of what you appeared to be saying.
Um... boldface is a typographical feature for calling attention to specifics within a text. It does not carry any emotional implications.

You also seemed to be taking the wrong end of the stick with every single point i had made and felt compelled to bring this to the attention of the thread because in doing so you had made me out to be an immoral buffoon who was meaning the exact opposite of what was actually there to be discerned.
Heh, I didn't actually say anything even remotely like that. You seem to have brought quite a lot of interpretation to this table. You go to the trouble of claiming that your attack against me was not personal, yet you fail to consider that I was attacking not you, but your premise that, under the hypothetical circumstance, rape might be an ethical choice. I said that if someone made that choice, they would be acting unethically. I said nothing at all about you, personally. Trust me, if I had wanted to call you an "immoral buffoon" I would have done so. I dont trust sentiments like that to implication.

Please don't go, that won't help anyone, it will just go to prove that you cannot and will not engage in challenging debate.

AMK
xxx
That wasn't me leaving. That was me dismissing you as having failed to carry your argument. But if you look back, you'll see I edited it out. I figured you were not likely to leave, and I decided I had something else that I'd rather say.

Thanks, Kat. Sadly the number of yes votes is still horrifying and depressing.

I hope against hope most of those were errors too.

I hope against hope most of those were errors too.

Me too. Hopefully, the posters will not be too put off by the discussion in general and to come back and announce the errors.

Get used to it. It's the way I swing.


Um... boldface is a typographical feature for calling attention to specifics within a text. It does not carry any emotional implications.


Heh, I didn't actually say anything even remotely like that. You seem to have brought quite a lot of interpretation to this table. You go to the trouble of claiming that your attack against me was not personal, yet you fail to consider that I was attacking not you, but your premise that, under the hypothetical circumstance, rape might be an ethical choice. I said that if someone made that choice, they would be acting unethically. I said nothing at all about you, personally. Trust me, if I had wanted to call you an "immoral buffoon" I would have done so. I dont trust sentiments like that to implication.


That wasn't me leaving. That was me dismissing you as having failed to carry your argument. But if you look back, you'll see I edited it out. I figured you were not likely to leave, and I decided I had something else that I'd rather say.

Ace, thanks.
I am not saying that you meant to attack the premise of my argument. However the complaint i raised and will stand by is that i do not feel you understood my point compeletly, and in failing to do so, created an idea that what i was saying was defficient of sense, and if taken in that way, indeed was.
Then after getting all aflap about my personal attack, proceeded to include, an admittedly well crafted one line attack on myself, whilst maintaining that i was in the wrong for attacking you.
Thats cool by me.
Just a shame really.

AMK
xxx

Me too. Hopefully, the posters will not be too put off by the discussion in general and to come back and announce the errors.

I hope that the ones that are not mistakes are all based on the far fetched hypotheses that we cannot agree on, otherwise its a bit worrying.
I think we can agree on that?

AMK
xxx

(last post MK2)

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.
Eventually these prisoners will be freed and most likely rape someone else:eek:.

Me too. Hopefully, the posters will not be too put off by the discussion in general and to come back and announce the errors.

I hope that the ones that are not mistakes are all based on the far fetched hypotheses that we cannot agree on, otherwise its a bit worrying.
I think we can agree on that?

AMK
xxx

Ace, thanks.
I am not saying that you meant to attack the premise of my argument. However the complaint i raised and will stand by is that i do not feel you understood my point compeletly, and in failing to do so, created an idea that what i was saying was defficient of sense, and if taken in that way, indeed was.
Then after getting all aflap about my personal attack, proceeded to include, an admittedly well crafted one line attack on myself, whilst maintaining that i was in the wrong for attacking you.
Thats cool by me.
Just a shame really.

AMK
xxx
A shame that you were out-wisecracked so quickly? I don't think it's a shame at all. :p

HINT: If you think someone has misunderstood you, it usually helps to explain yourself rather than just bitch about it.

You acknowledge that my reading of your argument makes sense, but if indeed, I missed your point, instead of just heaping dismissive abuse on me, why don't you try telling us what your point actually is? However, if you do decide to defend your argument rather than just scold those who attack it, please start by reading what I actually wrote in response to your original remarks, so we don't repeat ourselves unnecessarily. This time, try to read past the hyperbole, just as you ask me to read past your pissiness.

I hope that the ones that are not mistakes are all based on the far fetched hypotheses that we cannot agree on, otherwise its a bit worrying.
I think we can agree on that?

AMK
xxx
No. Again, you may want to go back and read the full thread, as I and others have already touched upon the worthlessness and invalidity of those hypotheticals. Soheran (I think) even mentioned why they are a bad thing to play around with at all.

Oh, and you should use the edit/delete button to get rid of your duplicate posts. Jolt has time issues and that happens sometimes.

A shame that you were out-wisecracked so quickly? I don't think it's a shame at all. :p

HINT: If you think someone has misunderstood you, it usually helps to explain yourself rather than just bitch about it.

You acknowledge that my reading of your argument makes sense, but if indeed, I missed your point, instead of just heaping dismissive abuse on me, why don't you try telling us what your point actually is? However, if you do decide to defend your argument rather than just scold those who attack it, please start by reading what I actually wrote in response to your original remarks, so we don't repeat ourselves unnecessarily. This time, try to read past the hyperbole, just as you ask me to read past your pissiness.

Shame is in the eye of the beholder. I am a scottish male, I have virtually none.
You are right, it does usually help to explain myself, however your original post was, to me, so odiously contrite, hysterical and crafted in such a way as to highlight the tabloid emotion surrounding what appeared to be very little substance, that I felt there was no need for explanation until a better argument could be put forward to explain and debate with.
That is why i chose not to engage directly but to attack the post and its merits, or lack thereof.
I do not deny your wisecracking abilities are good, perhaps if I had been awake for less time than I have been, mine might be better. Nonetheless I maintain the integrity of my original response whilst acknowledging that the ideas within both our posts have been disseminated to a degree that engenders more thoughful and objective debate.

AMK
xxx

Question. Is there anybody in this thread who thinks that torture or killing is sometimes justifiable, but not rape? Why is there so much support for government-sponsored torture and killing. and sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and killing on TV, but not rape? Isn't this a double standard?

No. Again, you may want to go back and read the full thread, as I and others have already touched upon the worthlessness and invalidity of those hypotheticals. Soheran (I think) even mentioned why they are a bad thing to play around with at all.

Oh, and you should use the edit/delete button to get rid of your duplicate posts. Jolt has time issues and that happens sometimes.

I happen to disagree, i think that they are a good thing to "play around with" as long as the audience has the ability to understand they are dealing with hypothetical situations and not reality. If you hide away from things that are uncomfortable to think about, you never really get the chance to understand why you think how you do. I agree that if some of these stances were put in place in reality i would be distinctly uncomfortable with it. But when did we ever get anywhere sticking to the comfort zone?
Correct me if i am wrong, but it appears that because something is difficult/unpleasant to comprehend, that you would like the discussion surrounding it to be stopped?
I find that as uncomfortable an idea as someone thinking raping someone else is right.

AMK
xxx

Question. Is there anybody in this thread who thinks that torture or killing is sometimes justifiable, but not rape? Why is there so much support for government-sponsored torture and killing. and sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and killing on TV, but not rape? Isn't this a double standard?

Killing, i think yes, if a person/persons are endeavouring to end your life and your self defence results in their death, then, whilst horrible and undesireable, i feel every person has the right to defend their lives to the full extent of their attackers if the needs be.
Torture no, it implies you have complete control over the victim and you are doing it for reasons other than a direct threat on your own life.

Killing differs from rape{edit} in this context{edit} in as much as raping someone is not, realistically, going to stop you from dying.

AMK
xxx

Question. (1)Is there anybody in this thread who thinks that torture or killing is sometimes justifiable, but not rape? Why is there so much support for government-sponsored torture and killing. and sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and killing on TV, but not rape? (2)Isn't this a double standard?

1. Killing is sometimes justifiable.
2. No.

I'm just saying, everybody objected to my 24-style hypothetical, but nobody objects to the show 24. In fact, the US government uses that kind of reasoning to justify their actions and a significant portion of the population swallows it up, but they wouldn't if one of the interrogation methods was rape. (Of course, you know that it is - see Abu Graib)

Question. Is there anybody in this thread who thinks that torture or killing is sometimes justifiable, but not rape? Why is there so much support for government-sponsored torture and killing. and sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and killing on TV, but not rape? Isn't this a double standard?

You can kill in self-defense. You can kill in defense of others.

Conceivably--though not very often--you could torture in self-defense and in defense of others, too (which does not mean it should be legal.)

I cannot, however, think of a plausible circumstance where rape could be used for such a purpose. Its only function is to harm and degrade.

Is rape justifiable as punishment for a crime (in Hammurabi fashion)? I wouldn't feel an ounce of compassion for a child molester who was subjected to being raped as punishment for his/her crimes.

Execution (killing) is accepted by most as punishment for our most serious crimes.

Is rape justifiable as punishment for a crime (in Hammurabi fashion)? I wouldn't feel an ounce of compassion for a child molester who was subjected to being raped as punishment for his/her crimes.

Execution (killing) is accepted by most as punishment for our most serious crimes.

A lot of people will take issue with that.

Me too. Hopefully, the posters will not be too put off by the discussion in general and to come back and announce the errors.


Mine was an error .. I should've stated that in my post in the first place. I'm sure many more yes votes were errors as well.

Ok. Here's what I did.

1) The thread title now matches the poll title.
2) The posters quoted above's votes were subtracted from "yes it is justified" and added to "no, it is not" since they are the only ones who clearly stated they made a perfectly understandable error given the disparity between the thread title and poll question. The other votes must stand as they are.

Carry on.

Thanks, Kat. Stupid mistake on my part.

Question. Is there anybody in this thread who thinks that torture or killing is sometimes justifiable, but not rape? Why is there so much support for government-sponsored torture and killing. and sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and killing on TV, but not rape? Isn't this a double standard?

Killing is justifiable in self defense or the defense of another. Torture, like rape never is. If you fail to understand why there isn't much I'm able to do for your warped and twisted little mind.

Killing is justifiable in self defense or the defense of another. Torture, like rape never is. If you fail to understand why there isn't much I'm able to do for your warped and twisted little mind.
I agree with you, but primetime TV doesn't. It is rife with sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and murder, but not rape. Where's the primetime dramatization of this?:
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/13750482.html

Shame is in the eye of the beholder. I am a scottish male, I have virtually none.
You are right, it does usually help to explain myself, however your original post was, to me, so odiously contrite, hysterical and crafted in such a way as to highlight the tabloid emotion surrounding what appeared to be very little substance, that I felt there was no need for explanation until a better argument could be put forward to explain and debate with.
That is why i chose not to engage directly but to attack the post and its merits, or lack thereof.
I do not deny your wisecracking abilities are good, perhaps if I had been awake for less time than I have been, mine might be better. Nonetheless I maintain the integrity of my original response whilst acknowledging that the ideas within both our posts have been disseminated to a degree that engenders more thoughful and objective debate.

AMK
xxx
I see, you stand by your argument but do not intend to make any attempt to defend or explain it, but instead just keep crabbing about me.

Fine, I'll consider my attack of your argument to have been successful then (since it has not been shot down), and our part of this conversation closed. I'm glad, because I was starting to get bored by the way you kept harping on what you don't like about me instead of debating the topic of the thread.

I happen to disagree, i think that they are a good thing to "play around with" as long as the audience has the ability to understand they are dealing with hypothetical situations and not reality. If you hide away from things that are uncomfortable to think about, you never really get the chance to understand why you think how you do. I agree that if some of these stances were put in place in reality i would be distinctly uncomfortable with it. But when did we ever get anywhere sticking to the comfort zone?
Correct me if i am wrong, but it appears that because something is difficult/unpleasant to comprehend, that you would like the discussion surrounding it to be stopped?
I find that as uncomfortable an idea as someone thinking raping someone else is right.

AMK
xxx
Then address a few points, please:

1) If a person is going to posit a hypothetical situation, it should at least be structured so as to do what the person wants it to. If a hypothetical situation is supposed to offer a framework for morally justifying rape, it should be able to stand up to attacks based on logic and/or ethics/morality. But so far every hypothetical has failed to stand up to such attacks (including failing on the grounds that what they were describing as an ethical or moral choice was actually the opposite based on the standard meanings of the terms "ethical" and "moral"). Therefore, so far, no one who has tried to present a hypothetical scenario for morally justifying rape has succeeded in doing so, for every one has been shown not to morally justify rape. So then, what is the point of these little thought experiments, except to prove that rape cannot be morally justified?

2) You stipulate that this distasteful little game is okay to play "as long as the audience has the ability to understand they are dealing with hypothetical situations and not reality." Yet you live in a world where many, many people (rapists and apologists for rapists) fail to grasp that distinction every single day. Given that reality, what benefit is there in encouraging people to imagine scenarios in which they would condone rape? People who simply do not and will not condone rape will never be able to imagine such a scenario, so those who can are quite likely to be the people who do condone or excuse it already in real life. So, as Soheran pointed out, all you will be doing is giving some semblance of credence or validity to their views, which do harm real people every day. That rather undermines your disclaimers about how unacceptable you personally think rape is. Personally, I don't consider that good, clean, wholesome intellectual fun.

Is rape justifiable as punishment for a crime (in Hammurabi fashion)? I wouldn't feel an ounce of compassion for a child molester who was subjected to being raped as punishment for his/her crimes.
No.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and the class has moved on since Hammurabi.

Execution (killing) is accepted by most as punishment for our most serious crimes.
No, it isn't. It is accepted by relatively few people globally, and it is not accepted by many, many people even in the US, which still has the barbaric practice of a death penalty.

I agree with you, but primetime TV doesn't. It is rife with sympathetic portrayal of revenge torture and murder, but not rape. Where's the primetime dramatization of this?:
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/13750482.html
Who gives a rat's ass what primetime television says? It is one thing to acknowledge that ignorant, lazy people can't be bothered to question what they see on "24". It is quite another to talk as if that has any meaning or relevance to actual debates about issues.

If television encourages bad behavior and false ideas, then television is at fault, and the appropriate response is to change television and educate people, not to act as if idiotic notions designed for nothing but entertainment are equivalent to serious ideas about real things.

Who gives a rat's ass what primetime television says? It is one thing to acknowledge that ignorant, lazy people can't be bothered to question what they see on "24". It is quite another to talk as if that has any meaning or relevance to actual debates about issues.

If television encourages bad behavior and false ideas, then television is at fault, and the appropriate response is to change television and educate people, not to act as if idiotic notions designed for nothing but entertainment are equivalent to serious ideas about real things.
Television reflects and frames actual cultural sentiment on many issues; capitalism makes sure of that. The parallels between 24-style primetime fantasy and the Bush administration's terror fantasies are not coincidental.

So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

It's not rape if the rapee never finds out.

*runs away from angry mob*

What would you do if you were a guy and you were raped by like 3 insanely hot chicks at the same time?


Happens to me all the time. Really.

Television reflects and frames actual cultural sentiment on many issues; capitalism makes sure of that.
Nonsense. Television is reactive to society, and those "sentiments" change with each passing fad. TV is not some Stalinesque corporatist propaganda mind-control system precisely because of capitalism. There's not enough profit in cultural sentiments. The only mindset television is intent on reinforcing is the one that gets you to buy the sponsor's products.

The parallels between 24-style primetime fantasy and the Bush administration's terror fantasies are not coincidental.
Of course not, they are related in that they are both exploiting 9/11 for profit. Bush & Co use it to promote their war machine, and Fox television uses it to get ratings, which attracts advertisers, which makes them rich. Trust me, if Bush's policies were not in keeping with the hot current fad of social anxiety guaranteed to keep an audience tuned in to "24", Rupert Murdoch would not be such a big contributor to Republican campaigns. Neither Bush's nor Murdoch's policies have anything to do with what Americans really think, though.

And none of this makes it any less ridiculous to argue that the size of "24"'s audience is proof that a significant number of people are okay with torture. Nor does the existence of some people who are okay with torture prove that torture is morally justifiable -- just like rape is not morally justifiable.

Nonsense. Television is reactive to society, and those "sentiments" change with each passing fad. TV is not some Stalinesque corporatist propaganda mind-control system precisely because of capitalism. There's not enough profit in cultural sentiments. The only mindset television is intent on reinforcing is the one that gets you to buy the sponsor's products.That's what I SAID. Television is a bellwether of cultural values because that's how it gets viewers and makes money.

And none of this makes it any less ridiculous to argue that the size of "24"'s audience is proof that a significant number of people are okay with torture. I disagree. The best way to pinpoint a culture's values is by studying its artistic/entertainment products, and our culture has produced a great deal of them. Hell, drama only makes thematic sense when parsed through a shared set of values; if 24's underlying value lexicon assumes that murder and torture are sometimes justifiable, the audience NECESSARILY shares those sets of values, as they are the required context for enjoying the drama. Otherwise the viewer would just change the channel, or is watching it for mere academic reasons, or the flashy pictures.

Nor does the existence of some people who are okay with torture prove that torture is morally justifiable -- just like rape is not morally justifiable.I wasn't saying that it necessarily did - I was just pointing out the fact that we have entire genres of television and movies devoted to exploring hypotheticals involving torture and murder that present themselves as plausible, but if somebody suggests that there might be some kind of possible circumstance in which rape might possibly be justified, they're gasped at and shouted down. It IS a double standard.

Please don't take this personally, but reading NSG, I do sometimes wonder if people really have such fundamental problems with vocabulary.

"Socially deviant" -- a term that indicates an act or condition that deviates from the accepted norms of social behavior. It does not matter if 1 in 4 women become victims of rape. Rape is not an accepted norm of social behavior, therefore it is socially deviant. Period.

Do people really have trouble wrapping their brains around such simple terms, or are they just so invested in not saying "Oh, I get it; ok, then, nevermind" that they would rather make themselves look foolish by endless hair-splitting over what words mean?Ah, by that definition, you are wrong then.

So long as rape is accepted as social behavior, it wouldn't be socially deviant. This would then depend on how a societies view it. For instance, there's that conflict between Arab immigrants and the Australians regarding whether it's ok to rape a girl that's "dressed like a slut." While wrong and despicable, there is apparently some society where this view is the norm, so one instance of rape can't be considered socially deviant within this framework. Therefore, not all rape is universally socially deviant (even if it should be).

Likewise, spousal rape has only recently become considered socially deviant in the Western world. Up until then, there was legal recognition of a husband's right to have sex with his wife, because they were married. We still have posters coming here that believe that crap, even if most of Western society has abandoned that notion. I lack the research, but I can imagine that plenty of countries where forced marriages are still common will have similar views on spousal rape, i.e. not viewing it as wrong (and therefore not socially deviant).

What would you do if you were a guy and you were raped by like 3 insanely hot chicks at the same time?

If the male did not want it then it would still be rape.

Execution (killing) is accepted by most as punishment for our most serious crimes.It is? By most what?

Is rape justifiable as punishment for a crime (in Hammurabi fashion)? I wouldn't feel an ounce of compassion for a child molester who was subjected to being raped as punishment for his/her crimes.

Execution (killing) is accepted by most as punishment for our most serious crimes.

But how does raping a rapist help anyone? Rape is wrong, and it should remain that way. No rape is ever justified.

And it's NOT accepted by most.

It's not rape if the rapee never finds out.

*runs away from angry mob*

Yes, yes it is.

*runs after United Chicken Kleptos waving sticks of fire*

What would you do if you were a guy and you were raped by like 3 insanely hot chicks at the same time?


Happens to me all the time. Really.

You're an absolute fool.
You've just dimished the very meaning of the word "rape", and what's worse is that you think you're funny!
If you were "raped", you wouldn't have wanted it to happen, so you wouldn't care if they were hot or not.
Maybe one day you'll understand this isn't a topic to make jokes about. Perhaps you'll learn that without experiencing it, or perhaps you'll change your mind when 3 disgusting men rape you at the same time.

Ah, by that definition, you are wrong then.

So long as rape is accepted as social behavior, it wouldn't be socially deviant. This would then depend on how a societies view it. For instance, there's that conflict between Arab immigrants and the Australians regarding whether it's ok to rape a girl that's "dressed like a slut." While wrong and despicable, there is apparently some society where this view is the norm, so one instance of rape can't be considered socially deviant within this framework. Therefore, not all rape is universally socially deviant (even if it should be).

Likewise, spousal rape has only recently become considered socially deviant in the Western world. Up until then, there was legal recognition of a husband's right to have sex with his wife, because they were married. We still have posters coming here that believe that crap, even if most of Western society has abandoned that notion. I lack the research, but I can imagine that plenty of countries where forced marriages are still common will have similar views on spousal rape, i.e. not viewing it as wrong (and therefore not socially deviant).

"Socially deviant" isn't really a term that should've come into this at all. Rape is wrong. Full stop.

Maybe one day you'll understand this isn't a topic to make jokes about

There's no such thing as a topic not to make jokes about.

There is surely a difference between insulting someone you dont like and looking deeply into the ethics of human survival?

AMK
xxx

Two things:

First thing; common expressions can sometimes reflect views embedded in the collective social conscience, this is such a case.

Second thing; you have a signature already, stop adding the cutesy-kitsch inanity.

"Socially deviant" isn't really a term that should've come into this at all. Rape is wrong. Full stop.Yeah, that was the point I made earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13437916#post13437916).

I struggle to think of a situation where rape would be 'justified'. Most of the hypothetical situations on the first 4-5 pages are too unlikely to really be considered. I tried to think of some more plausable situations but no, couldn't come up with any. Henceforth no, I don't think it's ever morally justified.

Then address a few points, please:

1) If a person is going to posit a hypothetical situation, it should at least be structured so as to do what the person wants it to. If a hypothetical situation is supposed to offer a framework for morally justifying rape, it should be able to stand up to attacks based on logic and/or ethics/morality. But so far every hypothetical has failed to stand up to such attacks (including failing on the grounds that what they were describing as an ethical or moral choice was actually the opposite based on the standard meanings of the terms "ethical" and "moral"). Therefore, so far, no one who has tried to present a hypothetical scenario for morally justifying rape has succeeded in doing so, for every one has been shown not to morally justify rape. So then, what is the point of these little thought experiments, except to prove that rape cannot be morally justified?

2) You stipulate that this distasteful little game is okay to play "as long as the audience has the ability to understand they are dealing with hypothetical situations and not reality." Yet you live in a world where many, many people (rapists and apologists for rapists) fail to grasp that distinction every single day. Given that reality, what benefit is there in encouraging people to imagine scenarios in which they would condone rape? People who simply do not and will not condone rape will never be able to imagine such a scenario, so those who can are quite likely to be the people who do condone or excuse it already in real life. So, as Soheran pointed out, all you will be doing is giving some semblance of credence or validity to their views, which do harm real people every day. That rather undermines your disclaimers about how unacceptable you personally think rape is. Personally, I don't consider that good, clean, wholesome intellectual fun.

Your point is fair, the first one, that each scenario that has been put, with very little exception has proven that rape is not a defensible action. I am not and never was trying to defend the act.
Your second point however valid it may be in its facts, still is saying that basically because its a difficult subject we should ignore it and hope it goes away. I agree that people might try to use that as justification for their own unethical (im not a huge fan of the word moral as it tends to get hyjacked by the religious lobby) actions.
If someone is so driven to such an action, I really do not think that the debate on a forum is going to drive someone to rape, they may attempt to justify themselves to others by using it, however if they are so close to committing such an offence that this forum tips them over the edge, i dare say it's only a matter of time anyway.
These issues MUST be discussed openly and frankly, the supression of debate and discussion, regardless of how moral (there, i used it) or otherwise you find the motives, all debate must be allowed unimpeded else you threaten to sweep a problem under the carpet and wait till it rears its head before dealing with it again.

AMK
xxx

Ah, by that definition, you are wrong then.
<snip>

No, I'm not. You missed the point of what I was saying. But I'm not surprised, because I kind of suspect you weren't trying to get my point.

Anyway, I have a new NSG policy for myself, the gist of which is I will no longer get sucked into circular side arguments about tiny little details which are not germane to the topic and which are not fun or interesting in themselves. An argument with you over what "socially deviant" means can do nothing but devolve into an ego-war over whose vocabulary is broader. Boring. So I am abandoning this argument BUT NOT CONCEDING IT. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. We're done here. Back to topic. Thank you.

Maybe one day you'll understand this isn't a topic to make jokes about.

It is a natural human reaction to make fun of things that otherwise traumatise and cause fear.
Denying people their right to talk about things serves to do more damage to any debate than a person who is not taking it seriously.

Ghandi said "if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth"
This, is in my opinion, completely correct. However in a democracy, sadly has no effect.
If the majority of people in the world thought that rape was not a crime, governments the world over would be duty bound to repeal rape laws.
One person does not have the right to dictate to an entire populace what is right and what is wrong. We are fortunate to live in a society (societies) where rape will never be condoned and I cannot honestly see public opinion changing from its current viewpoint, certainly in Scotland where I live, however the denying someone of their right to a viewpoint or stance on a subject is as dangerous to me as saying that rape is justifiable.

AMK
xxx

Second thing; you have a signature already, stop adding the cutesy-kitsch inanity.

No

AMK
xxx

I struggle to think of a situation where rape would be 'justified'. Most of the hypothetical situations on the first 4-5 pages are too unlikely to really be considered. I tried to think of some more plausable situations but no, couldn't come up with any. Henceforth no, I don't think it's ever morally justified.

At the risk of repeating what you just said, I think you cannot come up with a realistic situation where rape is justifiable because there are none. I have been racking my brains, in between trying to insult everyone here and still have not come up with one.
I may have missed due to working but has anyone raised the connection between rape and torture and how they can be classed in the same vein in some circumstances?
Rape is the utter humiliation and physical degredation of one person for personal gain howsoever achieved, torture is the utter humiliation and physical degredation of one or more people as well, just that it has a wider scope of application.
None of which is ethically defensible.

AMK
xxx

That's what I SAID. Television is a bellwether of cultural values because that's how it gets viewers and makes money.
So, does that mean that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was a bellwether of cultural values and an indicator of what Americans wanted their society to be like in real life? How about other popular shows like "Lost" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" then? You can't pick just one show or one kind of show and say, "See? It's on television, so it must be an accurate portrayal of American cultural attitudes. This, then, is what Americans think."

I disagree. The best way to pinpoint a culture's values is by studying its artistic/entertainment products, and our culture has produced a great deal of them. Hell, drama only makes thematic sense when parsed through a shared set of values; if 24's underlying value lexicon assumes that murder and torture are sometimes justifiable, the audience NECESSARILY shares those sets of values, as they are the required context for enjoying the drama. Otherwise the viewer would just change the channel, or is watching it for mere academic reasons, or the flashy pictures.
Your "otherwise" remarks are what invalidate your argument. You have no reason to think those are not contributing reasons to why "24" has an audience. Hell, I have watched shows I fucking HATED, just because the lead actor was hot and I needed some eye candy after a hard day's work.

I wasn't saying that it necessarily did - I was just pointing out the fact that we have entire genres of television and movies devoted to exploring hypotheticals involving torture and murder that present themselves as plausible, but if somebody suggests that there might be some kind of possible circumstance in which rape might possibly be justified, they're gasped at and shouted down. It IS a double standard.
You have yet to prove that there is any "standard" in "24"'s audience, so you have yet to prove the existence of a double standard. Face it, the tv citation failed because there wasn't enough substance in it.

Your point is fair, the first one, that each scenario that has been put, with very little exception has proven that rape is not a defensible action. I am not and never was trying to defend the act.
If you see exceptions to the failures of justification scenarios, please point them out.

Your second point however valid it may be in its facts, still is saying that basically because its a difficult subject we should ignore it and hope it goes away. I agree that people might try to use that as justification for their own unethical (im not a huge fan of the word moral as it tends to get hyjacked by the religious lobby) actions.
If someone is so driven to such an action, I really do not think that the debate on a forum is going to drive someone to rape, they may attempt to justify themselves to others by using it, however if they are so close to committing such an offence that this forum tips them over the edge, i dare say it's only a matter of time anyway.
These issues MUST be discussed openly and frankly, the supression of debate and discussion, regardless of how moral (there, i used it) or otherwise you find the motives, all debate must be allowed unimpeded else you threaten to sweep a problem under the carpet and wait till it rears its head before dealing with it again.
Who said anything about suppressing debate?

All I said was that I am not going to pretend as if arguments about hypothetical situations that might justify rape have any intellectual validity. I call them pure bullshit, and I see no reason to waver from that position. By all means, let people play around with them if they like, but let them get used to being attacked on the lack of merits in their argument.

I am not going to pretend to respect a kind of argument that I do not think is worthy of respect. That has nothing to do with any attempt to suppress debate.

Never. Rape is by definition a violation of someone else's freewill.
End of story.

Wot you sed!

Never. Rape is by definition a violation of someone else's freewill.
End of story.

You have no reason to think those are not contributing reasons to why "24" has an audience. Hell, I have watched shows I fucking HATED, just because the lead actor was hot and I needed some eye candy after a hard day's work.

I'm sorry

When you have a country like oh say Nazi Germany and they do all kinds of really bad things with popular support, their women totally deserve to get some good hard rapings.

When you have a country like oh say Nazi Germany and they do all kinds of really bad things with popular support, their women totally deserve to get some good hard rapings.

If you're joking, then its in rather poor taste...
If you're serious then you're one sick puppy :mad:


Also what Trots said...
If you're from any Western nation, I have only one thing to say to you: bend over and prepare for a long occupation. If it applies to women, than it also applies to men. And if it applies to Germany, than it applies to any nation that committed atrocities with wide public support.

When you have a country like oh say Nazi Germany and they do all kinds of really bad things with popular support, their women totally deserve to get some good hard rapings.

If you're from any Western nation, I have only one thing to say to you: bend over and prepare for a long occupation. If it applies to women, than it also applies to men. And if it applies to Germany, than it applies to any nation that committed atrocities with wide public support.

No, its never justified. The senario in which there's one woman left on earth is rediculous, as lack of genetic diversity would make reproduction an exercise in futillity. I can't understand those who fabricate contrived situations to "justify" atrocities. Are they just trying to find an outlet for there own sick fantasies by contriving a senario where they could tell themselves its okay? If so then :upyours: Even in such a desperate situation, you could argue that it might be nessisary, but it still wouldn't be right. I'd rather die than abuse some one that way.:(

So, does that mean that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was a bellwether of cultural values and an indicator of what Americans wanted their society to be like in real life?That's an oversimplification, but in a sense you're correct.
How about other popular shows like "Lost" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" then?Yes, them too.
You can't pick just one show or one kind of show and say, "See? It's on television, so it must be an accurate portrayal of American cultural attitudes. This, then, is what Americans think."It might be inaccurate to generalize to every American, but I can say that for the majority of the viewership.
Your "otherwise" remarks are what invalidate your argument. You have no reason to think those are not contributing reasons to why "24" has an audience.As a popular drama, we can be reasonably certain that most people watching it do so for dramatic reasons. Otherwise, the clever capitalists would realize after sufficient focus grouping that would be no need to pay for screenwriters.
Hell, I have watched shows I fucking HATED, just because the lead actor was hot and I needed some eye candy after a hard day's work.I find that masturbating to pornography is a far more satisfying and efficient way to fulfill this need.
You have yet to prove that there is any "standard" in "24"'s audience, so you have yet to prove the existence of a double standard. Face it, the tv citation failed because there wasn't enough substance in it.I made a logical argument based on the nature of drama and culture that I think ought to be self-evident to anybody attuned to such things. People watch TV because if makes them feel good. People watch the violence on 24 because the context in which it is depicted gives them a feeling of intense satisfaction. That's why people worldwide waste hours of their lives in front of a TV.

There's no such thing as a topic not to make jokes about.

You're right. His however was offensive and non-funny.

You're an absolute fool.


And apparently, you're an oversensitive pussy.

If you honestly think that I'm supporting something like rape, then you are possibly the most retarded person I have ever encountered online.

What kind of question is this!!!
Rape is never justified, under any circumstances whatsoever.

Any man who commits rape should be castrated.

End of discussion.

Rape under any pretenses is never justifiable by any means. It defies the Human conscience and sense of good. It is, in essence, a true act of evil for it robs a woman, or even a man, of his or her innocence; regardless of whether or not they be a virgin or not.

The Poll Question should have been "Would you justify the death penalty if Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered?" I mean, it's just that pointless and tasteless.

Rape under any pretenses is never justifiable by any means. It defies the Human conscience and sense of good. It is, in essence, a true act of evil for it robs a woman, or even a man, of his or her innocence; regardless of whether or not they be a virgin or not.

The robbing of innocence doesn't enter into it. The mere fact that someone does not want it is reason enough.

A thread on rape should not contain so many wildly hilarious posts. Gartref's hypothetical deserves some kind of award.

Yeah, that was the point I made earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13437916#post13437916).

I was agreeing with you.

*snip*
AMK
xxx

Learn to multi-quote.

When you have a country like oh say Nazi Germany and they do all kinds of really bad things with popular support, their women totally deserve to get some good hard rapings.
If you're joking, then its in rather poor taste...
If you're serious then you're one sick puppy :mad:

What he said.

*snip* I can't understand those who fabricate contrived situations to "justify" atrocities. Are they just trying to find an outlet for there own sick fantasies by contriving a senario where they could tell themselves its okay?

I think they are.

*snip* I'd rather die than abuse some one that way

Me too.

I was agreeing with you.
Accursed interweb! So hard to tell, sometimes... :p

I don't think anyone can justify the physical and mental torture that a raped person has to carry around with them for the rest of their life. Ok so the physical scars might disapear after time, but it's not something you ever forget.
If we're thinking of other evils... murder - not as bad as rape, as the murdered person isn't exactly going to remember it and it wont really ruin that person's life. Paedophilia - yeah OK that's just as bad... perhaps that's the only evil I can think of where the rape of an adult would be preferable to that of a child. And that really is the only thing! Otherwise, no, hell no, not jusitfiable at all!

What kind of question is this!!!
Rape is never justified, under any circumstances whatsoever.

Any man who commits rape should be castrated.

End of discussion.

What about a woman who does the same?

AMK
xxx

Learn to multi-quote.


Goin show me how?
Even the worst teachers in the world know that they cant just tell a kid to learn something, they have to teach them.
That would be like me saying to you, "Learn to pull off a 17m triple jump"
;-)

AMK
xxx

Goin show me how?
Even the worst teachers in the world know that they cant just tell a kid to learn something, they have to teach them.
That would be like me saying to you, "Learn to pull off a 17m triple jump"
;-)

AMK
xxx
The little plus button. It turns orange. Then, when you quote something, all orange posts (from any page) will be added to that quote.

Any man who commits rape should be castrated.

What would you recommend for a female rapist?

Goin show me how?
Even the worst teachers in the world know that they cant just tell a kid to learn something, they have to teach them.
That would be like me saying to you, "Learn to pull off a 17m triple jump"
;-)

AMK
xxx

It's not exactly brain surgery, or like jumping 17 metres. I taught myself. I must be a genius.

While I can't find any reason to justify rape,... my believe that humanity is dynamic begs differ. Our morality fluctuates, not even our gods is set in stone. Do you justify murder? Well there are a thousand reasons that could justify murder, from sacrifices to protection for the good of all. Hmmm, seems that all bad things have this similarity with each other,... "the good of all". Slavery, territorial occupation, rights denial.

In any case, I'd say, "Is rape ever justified", well, I'd personally say no with exclamation, but then again, I don't say that humanity will not find a justification for rape. Simply put, we just haven't found the justification for rape yet.

That's an oversimplification, but in a sense you're correct.
Yes, them too.
It might be inaccurate to generalize to every American, but I can say that for the majority of the viewership.
As a popular drama, we can be reasonably certain that most people watching it do so for dramatic reasons. Otherwise, the clever capitalists would realize after sufficient focus grouping that would be no need to pay for screenwriters.
I find that masturbating to pornography is a far more satisfying and efficient way to fulfill this need.
I made a logical argument based on the nature of drama and culture that I think ought to be self-evident to anybody attuned to such things. People watch TV because if makes them feel good. People watch the violence on 24 because the context in which it is depicted gives them a feeling of intense satisfaction. That's why people worldwide waste hours of their lives in front of a TV.
So, putting all the above answers into the context of our discussion, what you are telling me is that your entire argument pertaining to television and culture in regards American moral attitudes is pointless BS, based on completely arbitrary assertions for which you have no factual support and which you admit are not more valid than any other assertions about any other tv shows or American audience habits.

Well, I suppose that makes sense. Bullshit can wear any hat, as it were, and if you can get away with claiming that the audience of "24" accurately represents what Americans think and want (and make that claim in the same post where you admit that such generalizations are inaccurate), then why can't anyone make the exact same claim about Americans based on any other small group's viewing habits? I can easily "prove" you wrong by pointing out that lots of Americans watch the reality shows on Bravo and that proves that Americans are gay, art-loving liberals who oppose all forms of violence or brutality or anything even remotely related to right-wing politics or morals. And other people can "prove" us both wrong by pointing out that lots of Americans watch sports or cooking shows -- and don't even get into the vicious philosophical battles between the home makeover show watchers and the car makeover show watchers. And then we can parse it out even finer by basing claims about American moral attitudes based on fictitious numbers (which we'll just talk about without even bother to make up actual numbers to cite) of Americans who agree with the liberal characters or the conservative characters on any one of the "Law & Order" shows. And then we can start a moral/ethical/policy smackdown fight between the "L&O" fans and the "CSI" fans.

I'm sorry, but the "the fact that some Americans watch '24' shows that Americans think things like torture are morally justifiable'" argument is bullshit, plain and simple. If you can't see that, or if you refuse to see that, it doesn't make a difference. There is no validity in that assertion, and enough time has been wasted on it. If you want to assert that American cultural attitudes allow justification of torture, rape, or any of that kind of thing, you are going to have to find a better support for your arguments than television.

I've yet to see, and yet to to conceive, of a contingency in which rape could be morally justified.

I think we can safely say that it is not morally justifiable to rape someone.

How about being raped? Is it ever morally justified to be raped? Hypothetical example: a woman allows herself to be raped so that some other, morally worse scenario is averted.

I'm thinking that in this case, it would be her sacrifice that would be morally justifiable rather than the act itself.Yeah, but that has nothing to do with rape being justifiable...

In the original version of sleeping beauty that prince guy had to rape her to wake her up. Is that justified?!

I think we can safely say that it is not morally justifiable to rape someone.

How about being raped? Is it ever morally justified to be raped? Hypothetical example: a woman allows herself to be raped so that some other, morally worse scenario is averted.

I'm thinking that in this case, it would be her sacrifice that would be morally justifiable rather than the act itself.

There's no justification on the violation of another human being. Rape is amoral.

There's no justification on the violation of another human being. Rape is amoral.

No, rape is immoral, not amoral. Amoral would denote that the act has no moral content, and cannot be measured by ethics or morality. Immoral means that the act is wrong.

The little plus button. It turns orange. Then, when you quote something, all orange posts (from any page) will be added to that quote.

Awesome, thanks! :-)

It's not exactly brain surgery, or like jumping 17 metres. I taught myself. I must be a genius.

Could be that, or could be that I am a moron, could be either, i personally think its neither.

I think we can safely say that it is not morally justifiable to rape someone.

How about being raped? Is it ever morally justified to be raped? Hypothetical example: a woman allows herself to be raped so that some other, morally worse scenario is averted.

I'm thinking that in this case, it would be her sacrifice that would be morally justifiable rather than the act itself.

It is surely not possible to allow rape? As soon as consent is given it ceases to be rape.
I was under the impression that the whole reason rape is rape is because there is no consent, therefore allowing the act to take place for whatever reason nullifies that.

AMK
xxx

Incorrect, people aren't getting "not made" if you don't rape the terrorist, they're getting killed. Not raping the terrorist kills innocent people. By not raping the terrorist, you commit mass murder. Is rape worse than mass murder?

Today, a lot of people in Africa died of hunger. Any amount of money you possess would be enough to feed some of them. So by not giving all your money, you're a mass murderer?

Today, a lot of people in Africa died of hunger. Any amount of money you possess would be enough to feed some of them. So by not giving all your money, you're a mass murderer?Sheer brilliance... =O

It is surely not possible to allow rape? As soon as consent is given it ceases to be rape.
I was under the impression that the whole reason rape is rape is because there is no consent, therefore allowing the act to take place for whatever reason nullifies that.

AMK
xxx

Good point. And nice multiquoting.

I don't think rape can be justified under any reasonable circumstances, but yeah, I think if you had to choose between killing 1000 people or rape one person the choice would be easy to make. It wouldn't mean that raping is right, but it would be better than killing 1000 people.


Today, a lot of people in Africa died of hunger. Any amount of money you possess would be enough to feed some of them. So by not giving all your money, you're a mass murderer?

I didn't read the argument you were arguing in, but I find it an interesting question, ignore this if you think it's to of topic.
Yes, I think not giving your money is the same as murdering the amount of people you didn't save. I think there are very good arguments for not treating you as one, but morally I don't think there's a difference between omission and commission. We can rationalize the choices we make, we know what consequences they have and we know there are people dying of hunger. I see no reason how I could defend my buying of useless stuff while some people could use it to obtain something way more important.

(yes, I'm a hypocrite, but on the other hand, realizing something is wrong is the first step towards improving it.)

Again, rape is never justifiable. Asking this question is useless.

Again, rape is never justifiable. Asking this question is useless.

I don't think so. I asked the question to challenge those who would say yes to defend their beliefs, since such a position requires that they prove the legitimacy of their position. Since they cannot, well, I leave that up to you to decide what that means.

Awesome, thanks! :-)

It is surely not possible to allow rape? As soon as consent is given it ceases to be rape.
I was under the impression that the whole reason rape is rape is because there is no consent, therefore allowing the act to take place for whatever reason nullifies that.

AMK
xxx

THANK YOU! Someone intelligent! Legally defined, rape is defined as non-consensual sex between two or more parties. The minute clear consent is given without intoxication or force (force is force, no ifs ands or buts!) of any kind, rape is no longer rape. So all these hypotheticals about convincing someone to consent are pointless.

Aside from the legal standpoint, rape causes severe mental trauma to the majority of victims (and I don't think this one needs proving), sometimes physical harm, and sometimes death when a rapist has fulfilled their needs. Furthermore, a good portion of rape victims have had to go on in life, pregnant with their (assailant/assailants)'s child, either giving birth to, or aborting their baby.

People go on for years suffering from this trauma regardless of whether or not a rapist actually pays for their crime, learn not to trust anyone, can often become socially frightened, and have their lives ruined by the experience.

I have not seen any justification for rape for one reason. There is no justification. In situations where you are talking about life or death circumstances, it is STILL not right, ever. People who have committed rape in situations such as this can also not necessarily say that it was justified, as they were acting on fear. I guarantee, if you go to someone who has been in this situation, they will most likely say that they can't justify saving their own life, or the lives of others in exchange for raping someone. Rapists who feel shame feel this because they have realized that it was wrong under the circumstances (or possibly, any circumstance).

People act on impulse based on the situation, but later can come to the realization what they did was wrong or unjustified--which further demonstrates the stupidity of these hypotheticals.

As for the situation of raping a terrorist to save lives, even if that does happen in Guantanamo (and I imagine it has), how is it right? You committed a brutal act on someone to save the lives of other people. I imagine that situation came from an American, using the "You're not American, you're a suspected terrorist, therefore why should I give a shit about your rights?" standard. I could also go on a rant about how torture isn't right, but that's for another thread. (And I'm not a liberal when it comes to social issues, even!)

To answer the question, rape is never right, nor justified by any means. And rape can never be consented to by its own definition. Even if one person in the party consents to it, it is only not rape for that person and/or their consenting partner alone.

I'm not even sure why people are trying to debate why it would be acceptable... Have you ever heard of a rape case where the rapist admitted to committing the crime, and was let go without any kind of punishment? That would be advocating the crime and declaring it justifiable. (If someone has an actual case that has happened, feel free to prove me wrong, I encourage it!)

I love how this question shows people's true colors. And I ask this to those of you who argued for the other sides: Do you really think rape can be justified, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Good point. And nice multiquoting.

Cheers, and cheers.

AMK
xxx

So, putting all the above answers into the context of our discussion, what you are telling me is that your entire argument pertaining to television and culture in regards American moral attitudes is pointless BS, based on completely arbitrary assertions for which you have no factual support and which you admit are not more valid than any other assertions about any other tv shows or American audience habits.Um, no. I mean, I've been too lazy to dig up sociological studies, but my argument is based on the very nature of drama itself.

Well, I suppose that makes sense. Bullshit can wear any hat, as it were, and if you can get away with claiming that the audience of "24" accurately represents what Americans think and want (and make that claim in the same post where you admit that such generalizations are inaccurate),.I don't think you're really reading what I'm posting. I'm not saying that ALL Americans think that 24-style violence is okay, but that most 24 viewers do. And because most 24 viewers do, and 24 is a very popular show, it is indicitave of a major sentiment held by much of America.
then why can't anyone make the exact same claim about Americans based on any other small group's viewing habits?I can.
I can easily "prove" you wrong by pointing out that lots of Americans watch the reality shows on Bravo and that proves that Americans are gay, art-loving liberals who oppose all forms of violence or brutality or anything even remotely related to right-wing politics or morals. And other people can "prove" us both wrong by pointing out that lots of Americans watch sports or cooking shows -- and don't even get into the vicious philosophical battles between the home makeover show watchers and the car makeover show watchers.Although it just so happened that many Americans are gay, art-loving liberals who oppose all forms of violence etc, I want to reemphasize that my argument is based on dramatic/thematic content. The shows you refer to are either largely instructional, or you don't have to be gay or art-loving to appreciate the themes. For example, if a gay dude overcomes adversity, overcoming adversity is the theme, not being gay. I contend, however, that an acceptance of violence in questionable circumstances is crucial to the dramatic appreciation of much of primetime drama.

And then we can parse it out even finer by basing claims about American moral attitudes based on fictitious numbers (which we'll just talk about without even bother to make up actual numbers to cite) of Americans who agree with the liberal characters or the conservative characters on any one of the "Law & Order" shows. And then we can start a moral/ethical/policy smackdown fight between the "L&O" fans and the "CSI" fans.Actually, that would be an interesting analysis, although more complex than you make it out of be.

I'm sorry, but the "the fact that some Americans watch '24' shows that Americans think things like torture are morally justifiable'" argument is bullshit, plain and simple. If you can't see that, or if you refuse to see that, it doesn't make a difference. There is no validity in that assertion, and enough time has been wasted on it. If you want to assert that American cultural attitudes allow justification of torture, rape, or any of that kind of thing, you are going to have to find a better support for your arguments than television.To further clarify, it's not the fact that they watch it, but the fact that they watch it and enjoy it.

Today, a lot of people in Africa died of hunger. Any amount of money you possess would be enough to feed some of them. So by not giving all your money, you're a mass murderer?
In a sense yes, unless more good will ultimately be done with your money by not immediately giving it away.

In the original version of sleeping beauty that prince guy had to rape her to wake her up. Is that justified?!
No.

But then "Sleeping Beauty" is not meant to be a "moral" story. This is why it is always problematical to use myths, folklore, literature, or other kinds of art as examples of morality. They are not always supposed to be examples of moral behavior.

It's also why that story was changed at some point.

EDIT TO DELETE MY RESPONSE TO GIFT-OF-GOD because Chesser Scotia said it better.

Um, no. I mean, I've been too lazy to dig up sociological studies, but my argument is based on the very nature of drama itself.
Right. Based on the nature of drama. But not on the actual opinions of Americans.

I don't think you're really reading what I'm posting. I'm not saying that ALL Americans think that 24-style violence is okay, but that most 24 viewers do. And because most 24 viewers do, and 24 is a very popular show, it is indicitave of a major sentiment held by much of America.
So all that means is that there is a relatively small number of people who think -- what? That torture is okay in real life? Or that its entertaining to watch shows that include torture scenes? The claim that "most '24' viewers" think torture is okay is an assertion of fact. I challenge you to provide supporting evidence that "most '24' viewers" fall into the category that approve of real life torture rather than the category of people who enjoy stories that include fictional torture.

The more seriously one thinks about your "24" example, the smaller and less applicable it seems to get.

I can.
Although it just so happened that many Americans are gay, art-loving liberals who oppose all forms of violence etc, I want to reemphasize that my argument is based on dramatic/thematic content. The shows you refer to are either largely instructional, or you don't have to be gay or art-loving to appreciate the themes. For example, if a gay dude overcomes adversity, overcoming adversity is the theme, not being gay. I contend, however, that an acceptance of violence in questionable circumstances is crucial to the dramatic appreciation of much of primetime drama.
Nonsense. Such an assertion totally misses the point of drama.

I am completely non-violent in real life. Yet I absolutely love the dramas of Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Akira Kurosawa, and Alfred Hitchcock. All of these include rather extreme descriptions and depictions of violence, and Poe particularly dealt with scenes of torture. Why do I enjoy them even though real life violence makes me feel sick? Because I understand the use of violence in drama, for the making of a narrative point, for the manipulation of audience emotions. I understand the difference between reality and fiction. The violence, in and of itself, is not entertaining -- not even a tiny bit. It has to be used properly, according to my tastes in drama, or else I consider it "gratuitous" and I will reject the story or movie because of it. This is why I hate the "Saw" movies and many other slasher movies.

People have different standards of what they like in fiction, but that doesn't mean they like the same thing in reality.

Actually, that would be an interesting analysis, although more complex than you make it out of be.
No, actually, I don't think it would be interesting at all. I think it would be very complicated and very dumb.

To further clarify, it's not the fact that they watch it, but the fact that they watch it and enjoy it.
No, it's about you not knowing as much about drama as you think you do.

I don't think so. I asked the question to challenge those who would say yes to defend their beliefs, since such a position requires that they prove the legitimacy of their position. Since they cannot, well, I leave that up to you to decide what that means.

When I stated that asking if raping is ever justifiable, and that I thought it was useless to ask such a question, I wasn't refering to the validity of your post or your intentions. I was reaffirming my belief that, in no way ever, is raping, violating another human being morally acceptable or that it's right to do so under a given circumstance.

When I stated that asking if raping is ever justifiable, and that I thought it was useless to ask such a question, I wasn't refering to the validity of your post or your intentions. I was reaffirming my belief that, in no way ever, is raping, violating another human being morally acceptable or that it's right to do so under a given circumstance.

Well, I believe that humanity just haven't found the way to justify rape. Of course then again humanity morality in it's rather young (in the scale of the universe) existence tends to fluctuates depending on the circumstances that surrounds us, whether internally or externally. So everything is questionable, if not in this era, then the next.

Disclaimer : though I believe humanity potential for sheer cruelty, I also believe in humanity's potential for kindness. I'm not a black and white kind of person, but still, I do have certain set of morality to work in a society. So in this case, even though I believe what I said above, I strongly oppose the idea (let alone the justification) of violation of other people, physically, mentally and metaphysically.

Well, I believe that humanity just haven't found the way to justify rape. Of course then again humanity morality in it's rather young (in the scale of the universe) existence tends to fluctuates depending on the circumstances that surrounds us, whether internally or externally. So everything is questionable, if not in this era, then the next.

Disclaimer : though I believe humanity potential for sheer cruelty, I also believe in humanity's potential for kindness. I'm not a black and white kind of person, but still, I do have certain set of morality to work in a society. So in this case, even though I believe what I said above, I strongly oppose the idea (let alone the justification) of violation of other people, physically, mentally and metaphysically.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, although I don't think everything can be questioned in this or the next era. Some canons might change, but I'm sure many human behaviors that are frowned upon or that are found unacceptable by our society will remain the same in the next eras.

Respectfully yours,
Nanatsu no Tsuki-hime

I don't think you're really reading what I'm posting. I'm not saying that ALL Americans think that 24-style violence is okay, but that most 24 viewers do. And because most 24 viewers do, and 24 is a very popular show, it is indicitave of a major sentiment held by much of America.


Is that so? Now I'm not American, but when I watched 24, the whole torture stuff sickened me to the point I loathed Bauer.

Not to mention the simple fact that species survival is not an intrinsic good. No one is harmed by people not reproducing and thus rendering ourselves extinct. But someone is definitely harmed by rape. Not to mention it treats an individual as a means to an end.

So following that logic you would be alright if the entire human race was killed, provided that there was not anything which you could assign blame to as "harming" people. It's amazing that as a species we have evolved to a point where suddenly our continued existence (the main focus of every other species in the universe) is considered an acceptable viewpoint.

If you would read, you would know that is not what I said.

I said that what matters is the well being and sanctity of individuals. That which harms individuals is rightly to be minimized and opposed. But the simple fact of people not reproducing harms no one. If people suddenly decide to not have children, who are we to force them otherwise?

Ultimately, this is one of many reasons why raping a woman to ensure the survival of the human species is not justified.

The people who are harmed are the species as a whole. And if you would've read what I said, you would know that I was merely making an observation about where the human race has come as a species. In any event, it doesn't hurt any particular individual if the race decides to stop reproducing, but it does hurt the human race as a whole.

So following that logic you would be alright if the entire human race was killed, provided that there was not anything which you could assign blame to as "harming" people. It's amazing that as a species we have evolved to a point where suddenly our continued existence (the main focus of every other species in the universe) is considered an acceptable viewpoint.

If you would read, you would know that is not what I said.

I said that what matters is the well being and sanctity of individuals. That which harms individuals is rightly to be minimized and opposed. But the simple fact of people not reproducing harms no one. If people suddenly decide to not have children, who are we to force them otherwise?

Ultimately, this is one of many reasons why raping a woman to ensure the survival of the human species is not justified.

If you would read, you would know that is not what I said.

I said that what matters is the well being and sanctity of individuals. That which harms individuals is rightly to be minimized and opposed. But the simple fact of people not reproducing harms no one. If people suddenly decide to not have children, who are we to force them otherwise?

Ultimately, this is one of many reasons why raping a woman to ensure the survival of the human species is not justified.

In the end what I was talking about was the well being of the human race as a species. Not reproducing wouldn't hurt any particular individual, but it would harm the entire human race.

Now, if the individual is really that important to you, than it is never justified to rape someone, but in this impossible hypothetical scenario I would consider it immoral to put the well being of one woman ahead of the entire human race. However, we both know that this'll never happen, so it really doesn't matter.

In the end what I was talking about was the well being of the human race as a species. Not reproducing wouldn't hurt any particular individual, but it would harm the entire human race.

Now, if the individual is really that important to you, than it is never justified to rape someone, but in this impossible hypothetical scenario I would consider it immoral to put the well being of one woman ahead of the entire human race. However, we both know that this'll never happen, so it really doesn't matter.

Au contraire. I consider this to be of utmost importance. You are subscribing to the same kind of "blood" myth that the Nazis subscribed to. You are talking about the good of the "human race", instead of the good of the people who inhabit that "race".

Mind you, I'm not calling you a Nazi. I am merely pointing out the fact that, ethically, you are standing on the edge of a knife. This is extremely troubling to me, since you are ascribing a supernatural importance to an abstract grouping of "the human race".

Simply put, no one is harmed by people no longer reproducing the species. If we die out in a wimper like that, no one will be harmed. The "human race" is not some construct that can cannibalize it's own for a mythical "greater good".

Au contraire. I consider this to be of utmost importance. You are subscribing to the same kind of "blood" myth that the Nazis subscribed to. You are talking about the good of the "human race", instead of the good of the people who inhabit that "race".

Mind you, I'm not calling you a Nazi. I am merely pointing out the fact that, ethically, you are standing on the edge of a knife. This is extremely troubling to me, since you are ascribing a supernatural importance to an abstract grouping of "the human race".

Simply put, no one is harmed by people no longer reproducing the species. If we die out in a wimper like that, no one will be harmed. The "human race" is not some construct that can cannibalize it's own for a mythical "greater good".

Hmm, well given that without the "human race" neither one of us would be here I think it is appropriate to afford it as an idea some respect and importance. It is not a very abstract group, even the most primitive humans understood that their children would not come into being without the present generation's reproduction.

Now as for what is good for that grouping as a whole, the first and foremost objective is the continuation of the group, as is shown in every other species in the world. I'm sorry if you don't believe in Darwinian biology, but I personally think that on this issue he was spot on.

And as I said before you are correct that no one in the present generation would be harmed by the lack of reproduction, however the subsequent generation would be harmed. I suppose that my argument rests on what you consider a human to be, as fetuses could either be considered part human, fully human, or part of the mother's body. With my definition of the phrase "human race" it would be acceptable to sacrifice a bit of the current generation's well being for the less visible part of the race would be acceptable (I don't know where you get off using the word cannibalize in this scenario, but that is beside the point).

Hmm, well given that without the "human race" neither one of us would be here I think it is appropriate to afford it as an idea some respect and importance. It is not a very abstract group, even the most primitive humans understood that their children would not come into being without the present generation's reproduction.

Procreation is an act of will. It cannot be forced upon someone. If people choose to have children, then by all means, have children. It means that these ethical arguments can continue one ad infinitum...

Now as for what is good for that grouping as a whole, the first and foremost objective is the continuation of the group, as is shown in every other species in the world. I'm sorry if you don't believe in Darwinian biology, but I personally think that on this issue he was spot on.

Darwinian biology is the understanding of the selective pressures and motivators of an organisms behavior. It does not, and should not, ascribe any ethical content to these. I have no problem with Darwinian biology as a science. In fact, I'm one of it's strongest supporters. But it does not make a complete ethical framework. It can certainly inform our sense of ethics, but it cannot be their master.

And as I said before you are correct that no one in the present generation would be harmed by the lack of reproduction, however the subsequent generation would be harmed. I suppose that my argument rests on what you consider a human to be, as fetuses could either be considered part human, fully human, or part of the mother's body. With my definition of the phrase "human race" it would be acceptable to sacrifice a bit of the current generation's well being for the less visible part of the race would be acceptable (I don't know where you get off using the word cannibalize in this scenario, but that is beside the point).

But those future generations do not exist yet. They cannot be harmed by our actions until they come into existence (i.e., they are born). I'm not advocating that we all decide to stop procreating right now: I'm saying that rape is an unacceptable price for the continuation of the human species.

I'm not getting off on using the term "cannibalize". It is an accurate term to describe the present scenario. Sacrificing one part of a whole to better the whole, just like I might cannibalize my old car for spare parts.

Darwinian biology is the understanding of the selective pressures and motivators of an organisms behavior. It does not, and should not, ascribe any ethical content to these. I have no problem with Darwinian biology as a science. In fact, I'm one of it's strongest supporters. But it does not make a complete ethical framework. It can certainly inform our sense of ethics, but it cannot be their master. I was referring to the idea of Darwinian fitness as it relates to the passing on of a specific genotype, in this case the genotypes of the species as a whole. However I will concede that since humans have moved past their basic instincts, and are able to go their entire lives with these instincts to reproduce sufficiently supressed, that darwinian ideas do not fully apply to humans anymore.


But those future generations do not exist yet. They cannot be harmed by our actions until they come into existence (i.e., they are born). I'm not advocating that we all decide to stop procreating right now: I'm saying that rape is an unacceptable price for the continuation of the human species.
Yes they can be, this is the same reason why conservation and pollution are issues today, it isn't that the people living today are going to see major consequences in their lifetime, it's that a generation or two down the line the population will be screwed. Through our potential passivity we stand to kill or deny the opportunity for life to countless people. Just because the effect is not immediately apparent doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

And I think that we can agree to disagree about the relative importance of a person's individual rights vs. the rights of their future children, and the human race.

Right. Based on the nature of drama. But not on the actual opinions of Americans.No, I'm talking about actual American opinion as reflected on TV. Actually, it you want a more direct source, look at the polling http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/index.html that shows a large number of Americans supporting use of waterboarding, a form of mock execution that's both psychological and physiological, on prisoners. Do you think that many would say okay to rape?

So all that means is that there is a relatively small number of people who think -- what? That torture is okay in real life? Or that its entertaining to watch shows that include torture scenes?Both. If my argument was merely based on the presence of a torture scene, it would just be the latter, but the fact that torture is performed by a protagonist and is part of the thematic narrative means that the former is also true of viewers who reap dramatic enjoyment from the show.
The claim that "most '24' viewers" think torture is okay is an assertion of fact. I challenge you to provide supporting evidence that "most '24' viewers" fall into the category that approve of real life torture rather than the category of people who enjoy stories that include fictional torture.I've provided a logical argument premised on the nature of drama, the reasons most people watch drama, and the fact that 24 is a popular show.

Nonsense. Such an assertion totally misses the point of drama.

I am completely non-violent in real life. Yet I absolutely love the dramas of Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Akira Kurosawa, and Alfred Hitchcock. All of these include rather extreme descriptions and depictions of violence, and Poe particularly dealt with scenes of torture. Why do I enjoy them even though real life violence makes me feel sick? Because I understand the use of violence in drama, for the making of a narrative point, for the manipulation of audience emotions. I understand the difference between reality and fiction.But is your enjoyment restricted to a merely academic appreciation? Dramatic enjoyment requires immersive verisimilitude - if you were really enjoying your Poe, then your values were plenty accomodating to notions of violence in the convenient absence of physically nauseating imagery.

The violence, in and of itself, is not entertaining -- not even a tiny bit. It has to be used properly, according to my tastes in drama, or else I consider it "gratuitous" and I will reject the story or movie because of it. This is why I hate the "Saw" movies and many other slasher movies.Exactly! The violence of 24 isn't the entertaining, satisfying thing - but the context in which it is played. Killing a random person is no fun, but killing a terrorist who makes your blood boil is satisfying as fuck for people who do that for a living in the CIA, and satisfying to watch on TV. You know, maybe 24 can be the show that breaks the rape barrier on TV. I'll bet that would really get people up and help erase the shameful double standard in society as well.

People have different standards of what they like in fiction, but that doesn't mean they like the same thing in reality.That's only because the fiction leaves out the inconvenient aspects of reality. The reason many people don't kill and torture each other in reality is largely because of fear of getting caught and laziness.

No, it's about you not knowing as much about drama as you think you do.Enlighten me then! Why do people enjoy drama?

Is that so? Now I'm not American, but when I watched 24, the whole torture stuff sickened me to the point I loathed Bauer.Well then you're just some pussy Euro-aussie-whatever! (Disclaimer: I haven't watched a single episode of 24 and I'm just going on what I've heard.)

Has anyone suggested a senario where the options are either rape or death?
Like someone says to you "Go rape that person, or I'll shoot you both"
That might justify the rape

Has anyone suggested a senario where the options are either rape or death?
Like someone says to you "Go rape that person, or I'll shoot you both"
That might justify the rape

Am I actually reading this? I'll take the bullet any time.

Has anyone suggested a senario where the options are either rape or death?
Like someone says to you "Go rape that person, or I'll shoot you both"
That might justify the rape

By definition, the man with the gun is the rapist, since he's forcing two other individuals to have sex against their will. So no, rape is not justified in this case.

Has anyone suggested a senario where the options are either rape or death?
Like someone says to you "Go rape that person, or I'll shoot you both"
That might justify the rape

no false dilemma, and there's always more options in a scenario like that (unless you're in a film).
Even assuming the options you offer are the only ones, rape would not be justified, neither action would be in the true sense "justified", rather forced to choose one evil over another.
Just not realistic try another one.

If you're from any Western nation, I have only one thing to say to you: bend over and prepare for a long occupation. If it applies to women, than it also applies to men. And if it applies to Germany, than it applies to any nation that committed atrocities with wide public support.

I am from the USA and the worst that can be said for us is that we had some pretty bad friends during the Cold War. You cannot say that any let alone every Western country was as vile as Nazi Germany.

I am from the USA and the worst that can be said for us is that we had some pretty bad friends during the Cold War. You cannot say that any let alone every Western country was as vile as Nazi Germany.

With all due respect, Freedonia, you should think about current events. The worst that can be said about your country isn't the bad friends you had during the Cold War. Think about what your president has done to Iraq, think about what your war-machine has done to the Middle East and Japan. The world watches, and it frowns. Of course, I'm not blaming USA citizens for the attrocities of your government, but I do accuse you of living in a bubble and perpetuiting this throughout the ages.

As for all Western Countries, no, we're not as horrible as the Nazi. Those were on a level all of their own.

By definition, the man with the gun is the rapist, since he's forcing two other individuals to have sex against their will. So no, rape is not justified in this case.

Hmm, good point, I hadn't looked at it that way.
But I still think that there must be (hypothetical) situations where the bad caused by raping is outweighed by some other good. I just think that 'never' is really restrictive, it's like saying "lying is never justified", "stealing is never justified" or "murdering is never justified". I can think of many situations where it would be justified or even good to do so (for instance: lying about the location of innocent people against a person who wants to kill them, or stealing food to survive), I can't see why rape would be different from murder or theft.

(note that I'm not saying rape is good or it shouldn't be illegal, or that any justifiable case of rape ever occurred, I just think it's stupid to say that a certain action is always wrong separate from it's consequences)

I am from the USA and the worst that can be said for us is that we had some pretty bad friends during the Cold War. You cannot say that any let alone every Western country was as vile as Nazi Germany.

Scale has nothing to do with it. Atrocities are atrocities, regardless. You cannot legitimately selectively punish one nation's population for atrocities without punishing them all.

snip

(note that I'm not saying rape is good or it shouldn't be illegal, or that any justifiable case of rape ever occurred, I just think it's stupid to say that a certain action is always wrong separate from it's consequences)

Is it not what Kant (and many others) believed? Are they all simply "stupid"?

Since I think there are greater evils than rape, there's the chance, though a low one, that it could be a lesser of two evils choice.

If it came down to some improbable horror movie "rape-this-person-or-we-kill-your-family" situation, then I'd agree. It still wouldn't be right, but it would be understandable.

Is it not what Kant (and many others) believed? Are they all simply "stupid"?

well yes, I believe that's what deontologists believe (although the way I put it is overtly simplified). I used the word stupid to say that I don't agree with it, not to say that he or his followers aren't intelligent. He was probably a lot more intelligent than me, but I don't like his view on ethics. This could be because I don't know enough about it.
Personally I think it's better to judge acts on their consequences (or on their intended consequences when looking back) than making rules based on the action alone.

well yes, I believe that's what deontologists believe (although the way I put it is overtly simplified). I used the word stupid to say that I don't agree with it, not to say that he or his followers aren't intelligent. He was probably a lot more intelligent than me, but I don't like his view on ethics. This could be because I don't know enough about it.
Personally I think it's better to judge acts on their consequences (or on their intended consequences when looking back) than making rules based on the action alone.

With Kantian deontolgy, intent does matter. Remember, it is not the action per se, but the maxim of action that is used to evaluate the morality of an action. Thus, if I help a poor person for the sake of helping a poor person, that is good. But if I help someone just because it will make me look better, then I've violated categorical imperative because my maxim of action was bad, and I treated a person as a means to an end.

no false dilemma, and there's always more options in a scenario like that (unless you're in a film).
Even assuming the options you offer are the only ones, rape would not be justified, neither action would be in the true sense "justified", rather forced to choose one evil over another.
Just not realistic try another one.
I dont believe it is a false dilemna. Stranger crimes and people exist. And what is the third option in this case? Take the gun away from him? That is not always possible.

Did another poster really say he'd rather be shot and let another person be shot rather than rape some one? Do you not think the victom of your rape would be understanding if they knew?

I do think I agree with the person who said that the man with the gun is the real rapist.

Soviestan asked: If there is a woman who is the last on the planet, but refuses to have sex, is it wrong to rape her to maintain the species?

Okay, say you rape the Last Woman on the Planet. First, how do you know she's the last one? It's a big planet.

Two, even if she is and you impregnate her by rape, what the hell makes you think she won't take wormwood, hellebore, slippery elm or red clover and induce miscarriage?

And three, what's to stop her from bashing its head in once it's born?

In answer to the question: no, rape is never okay. It makes a mockery of sex and turns it from Heaven to Hell. Sex is sacred and viciousness, greed and cruelty have no place there.

Okay, say you rape the Last Woman on the Planet. First, how do you know she's the last one? It's a big planet.

Two, even if she is and you impregnate her by rape, what the hell makes you think she won't take wormwood, hellebore, slippery elm or red clover and induce miscarriage?

And three, what's to stop her from bashing its head in once it's born?

In answer to the question: no, rape is never okay. It makes a mockery of sex and turns it from Heaven to Hell. Sex is sacred and viciousness, greed and cruelty have no place there.

Of course it isn't. I asked the question to provoke those who would justify rape to defend their positions. So don't hate me, mkay?

No, I'm talking about actual American opinion as reflected on TV.
No, what you are talking about is your own personal opinion that people who enjoy some things in fiction/art must necessarily enjoy it in real life, too. You have offered absolutely NO evidence to support that assertion as a fact. Because you are trying to assert it as fact, without support, that makes your argument BS.

Actually, it you want a more direct source, look at the polling http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/index.html that shows a large number of Americans supporting use of waterboarding, a form of mock execution that's both psychological and physiological, on prisoners.
That article shows that 69% Americans think waterboarding is torture, 29% think it isn't, and 40% of Americans think waterboarding should be used in interrogation. It does not show how that 40% breaks down between people who think it is torture and those who think it isn't. It also does not mention anyone's television viewing habits at all. Unless a significant number of '24' viewers are ALSO members of whatever percentage is represented by the overlap of people who think it is torture and it is ok, then your claims that '24' reflects a pro-torture viewpoint among Americans and that Americans watch '24' because they like torture are bullshit.

Do you think that many would say okay to rape?
And this question is even more and purer bullshit.

You have asserted an American mindset that you cannot prove exists. Then you asserted support for a given kind of criminal and immoral behavior in that mindset, again without any proof. And now you are ready to assert support for another kind of criminal and immoral behavior based on nothing but your previous unsupported assertions.

The term "house of cards" comes to mind.

Both. If my argument was merely based on the presence of a torture scene, it would just be the latter, but the fact that torture is performed by a protagonist and is part of the thematic narrative means that the former is also true of viewers who reap dramatic enjoyment from the show.
Utter and complete bull. Your entire argument is based on your a priori assumptions of why people watch the show and how they are responding internally, emotionally, which you cannot know.

I've provided a logical argument premised on the nature of drama, the reasons most people watch drama, and the fact that 24 is a popular show.
Paranoid schizophrenics are also able to construct logical arguments in support of their assertion that the CIA is using their fillings to beam messages to Venus. The fact that the construction of your argument follows the forms of logic does not make it a logical or good argument for one simple reason: There is no fact behind it. You are talking about real life, but nothing you are saying about it is true.

But is your enjoyment restricted to a merely academic appreciation? Dramatic enjoyment requires immersive verisimilitude - if you were really enjoying your Poe, then your values were plenty accomodating to notions of violence in the convenient absence of physically nauseating imagery.
And yet more bullshit. You must have bought the giant economy pack for this discussion.

Not content to impose your assumptions on generic groups of Americans, you are also willing to tell me what my moral values are based only on the fact that I think "The Pit and the Pendulum" is a good story.

Really, there is very little point in having a discussion with someone who just enters the conversation with an assumption of which they are so absolutely convinced that no argument will be given any credence and who, rather than actually think about what other people are saying, will simply plaster their pet assumption over anyone and anything whether it fits or not and call that debate.

Exactly! The violence of 24 isn't the entertaining, satisfying thing - but the context in which it is played. Killing a random person is no fun, but killing a terrorist who makes your blood boil is satisfying as fuck for people who do that for a living in the CIA, and satisfying to watch on TV. You know, maybe 24 can be the show that breaks the rape barrier on TV. I'll bet that would really get people up and help erase the shameful double standard in society as well.

That's only because the fiction leaves out the inconvenient aspects of reality. The reason many people don't kill and torture each other in reality is largely because of fear of getting caught and laziness.
Oh, really? You not only know precisely what it is about '24' that viewers find entertaining and why, you also know the inner mindset and emotions of CIA agents, and you know that there is a "rape barrier" that can be broken by a television show in America because you know that the only reason people aren't killing and torturing (and presumably, raping) constantly is because they're lazy cowards.

And your proof of any of this is -- what again? Oh, that's right, it's you -- your ineffable rightness about all this utter, brainless, worthless, pointless bullshit.

Enlighten me then! Why do people enjoy drama?
Go read Aristotle if you want to learn about drama.

Well then you're just some pussy Euro-aussie-whatever! (Disclaimer: I haven't watched a single episode of 24 and I'm just going on what I've heard.)
And finally, the bolded sentence is the real proof that I am right and that you are just blowing smoke up everyone's ass here. The bolded sentence invalidates every claim you have made. You have discredited yourself. I am done with you.

Scale has nothing to do with it. Atrocities are atrocities, regardless. You cannot legitimately selectively punish one nation's population for atrocities without punishing them all.

I honestly do not know if the mass raping of German women by the Soviet soldiers was an atrocity in the sense of soldiers following orders to rape the women. It could have been a matter of the Soviet soldiers taking out their rage spontaneously. Nonetheless, I doubt that the Soviet military commanders were too sympathetic to the plight of the raped German women and either turned a blind eye to it or were instructed by the high command to encourage it.

I am pretty sure that many of the women who were raped were not Nazis however, the whole "willing executioners" argument is pretty compelling thay most of Germany supported the concentration camp policy and I have no sympathy for the majority of women who were raped who were probably Nazi supporters. It is all together fitting for a male genocidal supporter to be killed in battle or shot by a vengeful conqueror like the USSR who, as evil as the USSR was, nevertheless had their POWs treated almost sort of as badly as the Jews. It is similarly altogether fitting for the female equivalent to be raped on average of 7 times by these Soviet invaders.

The only people who the US government authorized attrocities against were certain Indian tribes. Maybe, they might be entitled to do a little raping if they defeated us but I think this is too far removed historically. Nobody alive to day had anything to do with massacres of Indians or other 19th century attrocities. Also, to be fair, many Indian tribes' hands were too dirty by their own records of attrocities to have the right to comnplain.

There have been and always will be isolated situations where soldiers do bad things in war time against orders and regulations. The Mai Lai massacre is such an example.

Apart from the treatment of Jews and Gypsies, the Slavic Russians bore the most of the Nazi attrocities. Yes, some American POWs were massacred and underground guerrillas were tortured. However, Germany did not treat Soviet soldiers with any of the respect and humanity that they were famous for showing the British and American POWs. Furthermore, they dispatched SS death squads to kill Soviet civilians. Why should the Soviets have shown any mercy to any Germans after the way that Germany treated the USSR?

I think that the Soviet troops were entitled to get revenge on the Germans for the horrible way that Germany treated the Soviet POWs and civilians. Although, I do not think that anyone should ever be tortured, I do not see a problem with a short term revenge policy of rape and pillage by a conquering army that experienced the mistreatment of their POWs and who vanquished an enemy that purposefully sent out death squads to kill their civillians. I am not a commie sympathizer and I have no love for the USSR, but I still do not think that the Soviet POWs or civillians should have been treated the way that Germany treated them.

Well, I can think of a few instances in which it might be morally justifiable...but they are all extreme cases, such as "Rape this person or I nuke City X", and they would probably all involve a third party forcing the situation though the threat of harm upon others.

In a 1 to 1 situation, I cannot think of any reason to justify rape.

Well that's the point- the question was "IS rape ever justified" and not "could you imagine some absurd, far fetched, highly implausible situation in which it could possibly be". The "IS" forces us to deal with actual conditions- if someone asked you "is this train ever on time?" when in fact it has never been on time, they are not asking you to devise some strange circumstance in which, hypothetically, the train might actually run on time. The correct answer is simply "no".

With all due respect, Freedonia, you should think about current events. The worst that can be said about your country isn't the bad friends you had during the Cold War. Think about what your president has done to Iraq, think about what your war-machine has done to the Middle East and Japan. The world watches, and it frowns. Of course, I'm not blaming USA citizens for the attrocities of your government, but I do accuse you of living in a bubble and perpetuiting this throughout the ages.

As for all Western Countries, no, we're not as horrible as the Nazi. Those were on a level all of their own.

I assume that you are referring to the torture of Iraqi insurgents and the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Japan when you referred to what is being done to Iraq and the Middle East and what we did to Japan.

Although as a lawyer I understand the legal arguments that justify torturing terrorists, it does not mean that I think it is a policy that the USA should have anything to do with. Torture is not in sync with any American ideal. It simply is not. It is a stain on our national honor. There is no prevention of loss of life that is worth a stain on our honor. I am appaulled by it.

I believe that in addition to any other rule of war that the international community agrees upon, we should also adopt as a minimum standard the rules of war found in the Koran which I have only heard about but sound good. One of these rules is that fire may never be used as a weapon of war. I agree 100%.

However, the japaneese seemed to be pretty darn committed to fighting to the last man, woman, and child. The use of nuclear weapons was not unjustified. Also, I do not doubt for one second that the Japs would have done the same to us if they could have.

With all due respect, Freedonia, you should think about current events. The worst that can be said about your country isn't the bad friends you had during the Cold War. Think about what your president has done to Iraq, think about what your war-machine has done to the Middle East and Japan. The world watches, and it frowns. Of course, I'm not blaming USA citizens for the attrocities of your government, but I do accuse you of living in a bubble and perpetuiting this throughout the ages.

As for all Western Countries, no, we're not as horrible as the Nazi. Those were on a level all of their own.

I think that history proves that the middle east doesn't need any help to be ten times worse to itself than US involvement has been to any country there, the only difference is that when a country like israel isn't involved, and the flow of oil is consistent, no one cares. Regarding the issue of torture, that is regrettable, but it's really not like we're the only government that does it, it's just that we're the best publicized.

As for Japan, the war was not going to end well for the US in the pacific if they didn't find a way to:

1. End the fighting before the Russians entered the arena (which they did August 8, one day before second a-bombing), preventing them from staking a claim in the post-war oversight of Japan/other territories involved in fighting which Russia had a strategic interest in. As we can see in Europe, the major powers were interested in getting their piece of the pie, and that directly led to the Cold War. The US could see this happening in West and didn't want the same thing in the East.

2. Prevent horrific US causalities in further attacks on Japan's home islands, which would have been necessary had they not surrendered. The Japanese had already proved on many occasions that they would not surrender willingly, and this was a way for the US to convince the Japanese that their situation really was untenable and that it would be best for everyone if they just surrendered. Would it have been possible to do a test-drop off the coast to show the junta in control of the country the power which the US wielded? Yes, but it may not have convinced the leaders of Japan that the US would've actually used the weapon on civilians, and it took the leaders of Japan 9 days after the first bombing to actually surrender anyway. Also, as I mentioned, the Russian involvement was causing the US to accelerate whatever timeline they had for victory.

However, Germany did not treat Soviet soldiers with any of the respect and humanity that they were famous for showing the British and American POWs.

Aha. Someone is actually aware of this odd little historical trivia. Isn't it strange? And isn't it strange that the one nation, out of all the enemies that the US and UK have over the last century, that came the closest to upholding the Geneva Conventions at least as regards US and UK POW's just happens to be the one nation that was also the most obvious paragon of genuine Evil?

However, the japaneese seemed to be pretty darn committed to fighting to the last man, woman, and child.

But they DIDN'T fight to the last man, woman or child. They surrendered. This mere fact is clear demonstration that this "They weren't gonna surrender!" argument is flawed.

Also, I do not doubt for one second that the Japs would have done the same to us if they could have.

What exactly does that have to do with anything? If the Japanese *would have* done something, it's OK for the US to do it? Two wrongs make a right?

But they DIDN'T fight to the last man, woman or child. They surrendered. This mere fact is clear demonstration that this "They weren't gonna surrender!" argument is flawed.

The US wasn't trying the Japanese people to surrender, but their rulers. The Japanese people were fanatic about following what their leaders told them, and thought that they had a mandate from heaven to achieve hegemony over the Pacific. The Japanese were in the middle of melting down all the metal not used by the military as ordinance to produce primitive weapons for the populace to use against any US forces they encountered. As anyone who is familiar with the material will tell you, it wasn't that the people weren't willing to die, it was that the leaders, who would be held responsible afterward for what happened either grew a conscience or some perspective and decided that killing most of their country off to prove a point wasn't a good idea.

But they DIDN'T fight to the last man, woman or child. They surrendered. This mere fact is clear demonstration that this "They weren't gonna surrender!" argument is flawed.

?

No, it isn't, because the implicit condition in "they weren't gonna surrender!" is "barring some extraordinary change in circumstances". The Enola Gay's bombardier provided that. Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki dismissed the last call for a Japanese surrender in July 1945, but then, after the bombs, reflected that it was atom bomb that gave the Japanese the freedom to surrender. This was possible because, to a degree, the atom bomb was not seen, psychologically, as a Human enemy, but rather as an unstoppable force. While it was a Japanese virtue to fight to the death in a Human battle, the idea of fighting to the death against an inhuman force like a Tsunami, Volcano, or Atomic Bomb would be seen as strange. Thus, it enabled mental shifts allowing for a surrender, that would not have occurred in its absence.

Aha. Someone is actually aware of this odd little historical trivia. Isn't it strange? And isn't it strange that the one nation, out of all the enemies that the US and UK have over the last century, that came the closest to upholding the Geneva Conventions at least as regards US and UK POW's just happens to be the one nation that was also the most obvious paragon of genuine Evil?

Well, I wouldn't see it as all that strange, the German people had a very low opinion of Slavic people as a whole, which is shown in their treatment of both Polish and Russian people and soldiers. The US/UK soldiers were probably seen as more closely resembling the Germans themselves and therefore worth more ethnically.

Well, I wouldn't see it as all that strange, .

Valid point, but I was considering the irony here.

The one nation/culture/ideology most universally despised as "evil" is Nazi Germany. Yet, in their behavior as individuals towards American individuals, they were definitely better than the Japanese, Communist Chinese, or North Koreans, or Viet Cong, and even Serbs, which were ALL much better than the current crop of enemies. Treatment of American POWs by the north Koreans was incredibly brutal, but "commie" doesn't generate anywhere near the visceral response of "nazi".

However, the japaneese seemed to be pretty darn committed to fighting to the last man, woman, and child. The use of nuclear weapons was not unjustified.

There use against civilians was entirely unjustified. You can not justify the slaughter of children.

Also, I do not doubt for one second that the Japs would have done the same to us if they could have.

Any particular reason for the racial slur there?

The US wasn't trying the Japanese people to surrender, but their rulers. The Japanese people were fanatic about following what their leaders told them, and thought that they had a mandate from heaven to achieve hegemony over the Pacific. The Japanese were in the middle of melting down all the metal not used by the military as ordinance to produce primitive weapons for the populace to use against any US forces they encountered. As anyone who is familiar with the material will tell you, it wasn't that the people weren't willing to die, it was that the leaders, who would be held responsible afterward for what happened either grew a conscience or some perspective and decided that killing most of their country off to prove a point wasn't a good idea.

Yes, they might've wanted Japanese leaders to surrender, but it wasn't the leaders who suffered. It was the common folk. And to this day, 21st.century, those who are unfortunate enough to be born in the prefectures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still suffer from the injustice that the US war-machine brought to them in the 40s, even if their leaders "grew a conscience", as you so aptly put it, and decided to surrender.

And let's not forget the Asian concentration camps the president opened to the enjoyment of Japanese-Americans. Does that behavior ring a bell? Wasn't this the exact same thing the Germans did to the Jews, Gypsies and other people during WWII? These arguments fall short, it's still like trying to justify rape when we all know very well there's no moral/historical justification.

And let's not forget the Asian concentration camps the president opened to the enjoyment of Japanese-Americans. Does that behavior ring a bell? .

I don't know, was there also a German equivalent to the Nihau Incident? Surely you remember, yes? That was where, on the return back to the carriers after bombing Pearl Harbor, a single Japanese pilot crash landed and was captured by Hawaiian civilians. Here's the chilly part; The two Japanese-Americans who encountered the pilot SIDED WITH THE PILOT!

On the heels of that, following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, simultaneous attacks elsewhere in the Pacific, facing a war of unprecedented scope in which your whole civilization might fall, and NOT KNOWING THE FUTURE, what would do you think Roosevelt would do? Or any president?

Ask yourself also, why no one knows that Italian Americans were ALSO put into camps. Everyone knows about the Japanese Americans, but not the Italians. Why?

Yes, they might've wanted Japanese leaders to surrender, but it wasn't the leaders who suffered. It was the common folk. And to this day, 21st.century, those who are unfortunate enough to be born in the prefectures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still suffer from the injustice that the US war-machine brought to them in the 40s, even if their leaders "grew a conscience", as you so aptly put it, and decided to surrender. I know it was the common people who surrendered, I never meant to justify the actions of their rulers. If you got that impression I'm sorry. And I never said that the actions that the US took had no consequences, however in the minds of Truman and the other military chiefs in charge of the situation it was a better alternative for the US than sending in their troops to be slaughtered, or continuing conventional bombing, which had continued for years without any appreciable affect on the moral of the Japanese. It is obviously horrible that Japan had to suffer through the effects of nuclear bombs being dropped on population centers, but using current evidence to vilify the actions of people 60 years ago who had no idea that the consequences would be so far reaching isn't fair or justified.

And let's not forget the Asian concentration camps the president opened to the enjoyment of Japanese-Americans. Does that behavior ring a bell? Wasn't this the thing the Germans did to the Jews, Gypsies and other people during WWII? These arguments fall short, it's still like trying to justify rape when we all know very well there's no moral/historical justification.
No, there is almost no comparison to be made here. It was a poor decision on the part of FDR to move those citizens to the camps, but in no way were they maltreated once they got there. There were undoubtedly economic consequences for those people who were force to leave their homes, as well as the emotional betrayal that they felt (though is questionable if they wouldn't have faced worse consequences from soldiers/citizens on the west coast as "payback" for Japanese actions during the war), that is all. Since then the American government has apologized and made reparations payments to those people who were forced to live in the camps, something which they haven't done for slavery, which undoubtedly had worse and longer lasting consequences.

The use of nuclear weapons was not unjustified. Also, I do not doubt for one second that the Japs would have done the same to us if they could have.

I do take offense in your racial slur. The nationality is JAPANESE, not JAP or JAPS, because I know for a fact your countrymen absolutely hate it when other nations refer to them as Gringos.

Ask yourself also, why no one knows that Italian Americans were ALSO put into camps. Everyone knows about the Japanese Americans, but not the Italians. Why?

Hmm, I've never heard anything about this. Do you have a source? At very least it was a small number of Italians who were held, possibly still Italian nationals? I really don't know, but that would make the most sense.

I do take offense in your racial slur. The nationality is JAPANESE, not JAP or JAPS, because I know for a fact your countrymen absolutely hate it when other nations refer to them as Gringos.

Actually I have very little problem with being called a gringo.

I do take offense in your racial slur. The nationality is JAPANESE, not JAP or JAPS, because I know for a fact your countrymen absolutely hate it when other nations refer to them as Gringos.

I suppose "Nips" is right out, then?

I do take offense in your racial slur. The nationality is JAPANESE, not JAP or JAPS, because I know for a fact your countrymen absolutely hate it when other nations refer to them as Gringos.

I know that "Jap" has been used in conjunction to make some pretty ignorant remarks or stereotypes about the Japanese, but seriously, it's a shortened version of your nationality's proper name, how bad can it be on its own?

Hmm, I've never heard anything about this. Do you have a source? At very least it was a small number of Italians who were held, possibly still Italian nationals? I really don't know, but that would make the most sense.

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

Yes, I know wiki sucks as a source, but the page does list a number of more authoritative sources.

Since then the American government has apologized and made reparations payments to those people who were forced to live in the camps, something which they haven't done for slavery, which undoubtedly had worse and longer lasting consequences.

Then perhaps they should apologize for everything they've done (slavery, war, racism, ect.) since the birth of your country in order to better their image in the eyes of the rest of the world. And again, I do not blame the people. But I do frown at your inability to choose wisely. Ford, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and now Bush Jr., TWICE? Learn the lesson already.

Also, this isn't directed at you personally, Honsria. If I have come across as rude and prejudiced, I humbly apologize.

I do take offense in your racial slur. The nationality is JAPANESE, not JAP or JAPS, because I know for a fact your countrymen absolutely hate it when other nations refer to them as Gringos.Actually, "Si, el Gringo no comprende" was my way of breaking the ice with Mexicans during the world cup...

I know that "Jap" has been used in conjunction to make some pretty ignorant remarks or stereotypes about the Japanese, but seriously, it's a shortened version of your nationality's proper name, how bad can it be on its own?

"Japan" is not the nation's proper name, it's Nippon, sometimes Nihon. Japan is western name taken from a Chinese name meaning "Eastern Country".

Hence there is nothing racial about "Jap." At most, you could say it's directional. East.

But, us Westerners are pretty clueless about that.

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

Yes, I know wiki sucks as a source, but the page does list a number of more authoritative sources.

huh, well that's interesting, and obviously sucked for them. It was on a much smaller scale and much more targeted than the Japanese internments though. Still sucks.

Then perhaps they should apologize for everything they've done (slavery, war, racism, ect.) since the birth of your country .

Coming from Spain, this is quite funny.

Tell you what, you go first. You can have a free pass for everything before the Spanish Inquisition, but you have to include electing your current president.

anyway i just thought i should point out the fact if there were only two people left on the planet it would be highly likely that they were trapped on faraway places seperated by water/mountains and would never make it to one another and would therefore die before the human race could come back

Then perhaps they should apologize for everything they've done (slavery, war, racism, ect.) since the birth of your country in order to better their image in the eyes of the rest of the world. And again, I do not blame the people. But I do frown at your inability to choose wisely. Ford, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and now Bush Jr., TWICE? Learn the lesson already.

Also, this isn't directed at you personally, Honsria. If I have come across as rude and prejudiced, I humbly apologize.

Oh, I'm not offended, it's just that I feel that sometimes people attack the US for past decisions merely because they can and because hindsight has shown us that those decisions weren't the best (I personally don't believe that in this case, but there are certainly others).

And I mentioned the reparations merely to underline how seriously the US government takes this situation, and that they fully realize that they screwed up.

And beyond that, some Americans have the unfortunate tendency to be swept up in rhetoric (which can be said about any representative nation really), and if you look at the alternative in a few of those races, they weren't much better. As it stands I wouldn't be so quick to say that the US is in a horrible position because of our past presidents, but certainly there are things which haven't gone well for us.

Coming from Spain, this is quite funny.

Tell you what, you go first. You can have a free pass for everything before the Spanish Inquisition, but you have to include electing your current president.

eww, I hate to start a conversation like this, but if I were you Nanatsu no Tsuki, I'd take that offer.

eww, I hate to start a conversation like this, but if I were you Nanatsu no Tsuki, I'd take that offer.

Trust me, I'm not trying to block the Sun with just one finger. The election of Zapatero was a horrible mistake, and I know. And the Spanish Inquisition, well, we're guilty of that too.

(A few logical fallacies and a lot of anger)Okay then, why do you think people enjoy watching 24?

Okay then, why do you think people enjoy watching 24?

To watch Jack Bauer do bad-ass shit like rip a terrorist's jugular vein out of his neck with his teeth while tied to a chair. Like he did last season.

With Kantian deontolgy, intent does matter. Remember, it is not the action per se, but the maxim of action that is used to evaluate the morality of an action. Thus, if I help a poor person for the sake of helping a poor person, that is good. But if I help someone just because it will make me look better, then I've violated categorical imperative because my maxim of action was bad, and I treated a person as a means to an end.

Ok, I still think it's all the (intended) consequences that count though. Having the intention to make yourself looking better isn't good imo, but when, in the end, that causes many good to be done (helping the poor in this case) I don't see why this action would be bad. You feel better because of the social status you gained and the poor person feels better because he can eat: everybody is happy. Following the same reason helping the poor because you consider it your duty is good to.
What for instance if I could use one person as a means to save several thousands? Or what if I could choose between saving 1 person and saving 100 persons, if I intend to save 1 person would that make it good to let the others die, even if I didn't use them as a means to save the lonely person? Or what if I intend to do something good, but as a consequence do something far worse?