3 ms·

But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? This is strangely reminiscent

But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? This is strangely reminiscent of a lot of arguments that men's rights activists make. Namely, they'd rather be raped than lose 50% of their income to paternity fraud. They even attach a prefix to the word rape - "divorce rape" instead of "white collar rape". I take it you also support their arguments, right? Or if you don't, you've got some clear principle separating the two cases? (Note: I'm taking no position on any of this, just pointing out a possible inconsistency.)

Dylan16807 12y ago
Where the hell did you get that. rayiner is only comparing punching vs. firing. They're making a point entirely about coercion, not directly about rape. If those guys were talking about getting punched in the face vs. paternity, then you might have a good comparison.
jrochkind1 12y ago
One involves sexual coercion, the other does not, that's the clear principle 'separating' the two, since rape means coercing someone to have sex. I'm surprised that's not clear. I understand that criminal law appropriately distinguishes between different levels of severity in harmful and socially undesirable behavior, one way or another. But when people start trying to finely parse what kinds of sexual coercion are 'really rape' and what kinds aren't... it's awfully creepy, and sounds like they're looking for an excuse to justify some kinds of sexual coercion. Why would you want to support, justify, or perpetrate (even accidentally), any kind of sexual coercion? Wouldn't you want to try and prevent it from ever happening? You're sounding kind of creepy, friend.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Your post completely misses the point, but I guess ad hominem attacks are easier than actually using reason. If you reread what I wrote, you'll discover I'm merely pointing out either a) an uncomfortable implication of a line of reasoning or b) a logical flaw in said line of reasoning or c) an unstated premise. I took no actual position myself.
  - foldr 12y ago
    jrochkind1 correctly pointed out that divorce doesn't involve sexual coercion, which seems a good reason not to regard it as an instance of rape.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      The issue is not whether the label "rape" should be applied. The issue is whether this line of reasoning is a valid argument for why something should be a crime: "If you $X that's clearly $CRIME. If you $Y, some people wouldn't call that $CRIME (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get $X then $Y. So why do we consider the latter not as bad?"
      - foldr 12y ago
        I don't think jrochkind1 was appealing to any kind of universal principle, he was just pointing out that there are many ways of coercing people to have sex, and some of the violent ways of doing it aren't obviously worse than some of the non-violent ones. That certainly raises the question of whether we'd want to make a sharp legal distinction between violent and non-violent coercion in the specific case of rape. As some other people have pointed out, it's important to distinguish times when it is and isn't useful to go into a philosophical discussion. If you want to figure out some kind of moral axiom system that makes it possible to "prove" that one form of forced sex is or isn't as bad as another, then that's best saved for a philosophy seminar. In practical terms, it's obvious that there's a danger of minimizing the significance of non-violent forms of sexual coercion due to the view that these don't count as rape.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        That certainly raises the question of whether we'd want to make a sharp legal distinction between violent and non-violent coercion in the specific case of rape...times when it is and isn't useful to go into a philosophical discussion. Take it up with rayiner then. Once you stop discussing what the law says in favor of what it should say, you've already gotten into moralizing. But when it's pointed out that the moralizing is probably flawed, it's no longer the time for moral philosophy? I.e., I need to turn off my mind the minute it goes against your emotional conclusions. "Won't someone think of the children/women?"
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Dylan16807 12y ago

Where the hell did you get that. rayiner is only comparing punching vs. firing. They're making a point entirely about coercion, not directly about rape. If those guys were talking about getting punched in the face vs. paternity, then you might have a good comparison.

jrochkind1 12y ago

One involves sexual coercion, the other does not, that's the clear principle 'separating' the two, since rape means coercing someone to have sex. I'm surprised that's not clear. I understand that criminal law appropriately distinguishes between different levels of severity in harmful and socially undesirable behavior, one way or another. But when people start trying to finely parse what kinds of sexual coercion are 'really rape' and what kinds aren't... it's awfully creepy, and sounds like they're looking for an excuse to justify some kinds of sexual coercion. Why would you want to support, justify, or perpetrate (even accidentally), any kind of sexual coercion? Wouldn't you want to try and prevent it from ever happening? You're sounding kind of creepy, friend.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Your post completely misses the point, but I guess ad hominem attacks are easier than actually using reason. If you reread what I wrote, you'll discover I'm merely pointing out either a) an uncomfortable implication of a line of reasoning or b) a logical flaw in said line of reasoning or c) an unstated premise. I took no actual position myself.
- foldr 12y ago
  jrochkind1 correctly pointed out that divorce doesn't involve sexual coercion, which seems a good reason not to regard it as an instance of rape.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    The issue is not whether the label "rape" should be applied. The issue is whether this line of reasoning is a valid argument for why something should be a crime: "If you $X that's clearly $CRIME. If you $Y, some people wouldn't call that $CRIME (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get $X then $Y. So why do we consider the latter not as bad?"
    - foldr 12y ago
      I don't think jrochkind1 was appealing to any kind of universal principle, he was just pointing out that there are many ways of coercing people to have sex, and some of the violent ways of doing it aren't obviously worse than some of the non-violent ones. That certainly raises the question of whether we'd want to make a sharp legal distinction between violent and non-violent coercion in the specific case of rape. As some other people have pointed out, it's important to distinguish times when it is and isn't useful to go into a philosophical discussion. If you want to figure out some kind of moral axiom system that makes it possible to "prove" that one form of forced sex is or isn't as bad as another, then that's best saved for a philosophy seminar. In practical terms, it's obvious that there's a danger of minimizing the significance of non-violent forms of sexual coercion due to the view that these don't count as rape.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        That certainly raises the question of whether we'd want to make a sharp legal distinction between violent and non-violent coercion in the specific case of rape...times when it is and isn't useful to go into a philosophical discussion. Take it up with rayiner then. Once you stop discussing what the law says in favor of what it should say, you've already gotten into moralizing. But when it's pointed out that the moralizing is probably flawed, it's no longer the time for moral philosophy? I.e., I need to turn off my mind the minute it goes against your emotional conclusions. "Won't someone think of the children/women?"

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]