3 ms·
>Rape doesn't apply only to humans. Yes, and society generally doesn't find it acceptable to rape animals, either, which was my point. As a counterpoint, try t
by stone-monkey 8y ago
>Rape doesn't apply only to humans.
Yes, and society generally doesn't find it acceptable to rape animals, either, which was my point. As a counterpoint, try to think of the most contrived example where rape can somehow be justified. My argument is it doesn't exist in western society, whereas this isn't the case for killing and stealing.
>>Nobody's thinking of self-defense when they say "we absolutely massacred them."
My point is that there are other cases where the of killing people is justifiable in some way. Self defense may not apply, but that phrase could be used when both parties are complicit in the killing. Generally, you'd use the above phrase in competitive events - that is, two parties fighting each other and one side winning in a landslide. Same difference in warfare - what separate it from murder is the complicity of both sides. Murder keeps getting thrown out there, but again, the analogies are more in line with general killing than murder.
- simmanian 8y ago> Same difference in warfare - what separate it from murder is the complicity of both sides. I'm a little shocked that you think warfare has two sides that are complicit when in reality it's full of young clueless kids who don't know what they're doing. Are you implying that soldiers are like UFC fighters on a ring? That there's some competitive element to killing in war and that makes rape worse than murder? I'm going to argue again that your argument is self-deprecating. Rape happens a lot in war too, for strategic reasons. Are you going to argue that rape in war is also competitive?
- stone-monkey 8y ago>>Rape happens a lot in war too, for strategic reasons. Are you going to argue that rape in war is also competitive? I'm honestly baffled at how you came to any of these conclusions. I don't condone war at all. I don't condone murder or rape either. Like I said earlier, my point is that there are certain scenarios in which western society rationalizes killing as acceptable. There is no equivalent for rape.
- panzagl 8y agoWell, technically rape is a property crime, and the victim is the man whose woman was damaged, but that's beside the point? It's funny how we seem to be sliding back to the manners of the Edwardian age, after so much energy was spent discarding them over the last 2 generations. We'd rather quit than wear a tie to work, but we'll all sound like a Masterpiece Theater drama before long. Not that that is wrong necessarily, just interesting.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Well, technically rape is a property crime, and the victim is the man whose woman was damaged, but that's beside the point? Technically, it's not. Historically in some places and tubes it may have been, but “was” and “is” are different things.
- will4274 8y agoWhile I'm not deeply familiar with the legal systems of all of these countries, I know at least one, and probably several, or the countries that maintain 'sharia law' still define rape as a property crime. "Was" here is restricted to only certain parts of the world.
- will4274 8y ago> technically rape is a property crime No. Not in most of the Western world it isn't today.
- panzagl 8y agoI was trying to show how usages change, I shouldn't try to be clever after business hours. But at one time the loosening of norms around language and women was seen as a progressive thing, a breaking down of barriers and back room type behavior, but it seems like we've run up to the limit of how far it can go.
- dang 8y ago> the victim is the man whose woman was damaged Please don't troll HN. The last thing we need on divisive topics is people stirring up worse flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html