6 ms·
> That's nonsense. that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds. on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed
by mkramlich 14y ago
> That's nonsense.
that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.
on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.
- philwelch 14y agoCriticizing people for being impolite when you're all but justifying raping women isn't exactly arguing from a moral high ground.
- vidarh 14y agoThis is the second comment by you where you are accusing someone of misogeny or justifying rape without basis. I think you should be careful about talking about moral high ground.
- mkramlich 14y agothank you
- jlgreco 14y agoFunny how those who suggest that there is a smear campaign in progress are themselves then smeared.
- philwelch 14y agoConspiracy theories are usually self-reinforcing that way.
- jlgreco 14y agoHow so? I'm not saying that anyone is correct because they are being smeared. I assert no connection between your smears and the alleged smear campaign against Assange, and I certainly am not saying that your smears in any way vindicate the accusations of those who you are smearing. I'm just saying it is amusing. Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.
- philwelch 14y agoThere's nothing amusing about the remark that "one could argue that 'sex without a condom' with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape". The notion being put forth is a justification of rape, and "one could argue" is a way of rhetorically evading responsibility for putting the notion forward.
- jlgreco 14y agoI am going to have to agree with Steko here. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4389438 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4389438) That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification. Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.
- philwelch 14y agoMaybe "justify" is too strong a word. The central principle is that having sex with someone who does not consent is rape. It doesn't matter if their clothes are on or if you're in bed with them. It doesn't matter if they consented to protected sex, but you chose to have unprotected sex with them instead even though they didn't consent to it. It's still rape. To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape. To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)
- droithomme 14y ago