Joined: Aug. 2013
|Quote (Driver @ Aug. 14 2013,23:25)|
|Quote (Glen Davidson @ Aug. 15 2013,05:02)|
|These two fill in most of the story after the "grenade" post:|
David Silverman tweeted:
I list his twitter source of the youtube (at least the top one works) because Silverman is president of American Atheists. The shots taken at Myers by Mr. Deity begin a little after the five minute mark.
Brian Dalton should know better than to present false equivalences. Rape is not an extraordinary claim, let alone a miraculous one! Idiot.
Is he also implying that PZ made it all up? To what end?
Myers is not trying to get Shermer convicted. Also pretty sure he would have known that if he gets sued, he will almost certainly lose.
With his "personal responsibility" remark, what is Dalton saying? It is okay to have sex with women who are too drunk to consent? Women shouldn't drink at all? Both?
Contrary to received wisdom, women do not generally lie about rape and sexual assault.
|But most important of all, a victim's choices are NOT the point. To see this, think of anyone who commented on a murder or non-sexual assault charge with criticism of the victim's intoxication level. Irrelevant victim blaming isn't it?|
Whilst bad choices do not exonerate blame from a perpatrator, ignoring the bad decisions that someone made that lead them to be vulnurable to a perpatrator is not very smart. Mentioning that a victim was intoxicated and that it may have contributed to their likliehood of being a victim on that occasion isn't victim blaming. Victim blaming actually exists and when people misrepresent stating a fact such as "the victim was drunk" as victim blaming which would look more like "she deserved it because she was drunk", it invalidates the cases where victim blaming is actually an issue.
|Whenever it comes to any other type of assault, people's first response is not to speculate on what the victim might have done to facilitate the attack. Think about that. We don't do this for any other crime, I don't think, let alone assault.|
Every time a child is kidnapped/murdered we do the exact same thing. We want to know who was responsible for looking after this child. When someone gets burgled, we ask how they got in, we talk about how we can be "safer" next time. IF someone physically assaults you in the street, we immediately ask what led to them taking this action. We never (or the rational never) say that justifies the action, but we look for reasons why that person became a victim, probably to minimise the risk of it happening to us.
|Most accounts of rape are not lies.|
I'm sure that this is true, just because I find it difficult to believe that the majority of people who claim they have been raped would make it up knowing the consequences for the other person as well as themselves. However, I don't know this to be true. It would need some pretty awesome research methods to ascertain how true this is. I'm unsure how you could say this with such absolute certainty.
|Where "leaving your doors unlocked" is drinking wine at a conference. |
What people seem loathe to understand is that consuming alcohol makes everyone more susceptible to being a victim of a crime. Anyone getting so drunk that they lose their inhibitions/are unaware of their surroundings/cannot remember what happened becomes more likely to be in an accident or the victim or perpetrator of a crime. This isn't specific to gender, biological sex or even rape itself. If someone went out, drinking enough alcohol that they were oblivious to the fact that the people he saw as new drinking buddies were actually stealing his wallet, people would criticise his behaviour as well as condemning the thieves. In fact, they would be more likely to dismiss the actions of the thieves as opportunistic behaviour rather than malicious larceny. The principle remains: some people are criminals - they seek to commit crime. There are steps we can all take to reduce our chances of being a victim to their crimes.
|You know what is most wrong about this "if only she had not done X" stuff? It helps perpetuate the perception that women can always avoid rape if they are "sensible". This is patent bullshit.|
You are less likely to be a victim of any crimes if you take some precautions that make you less vulnerable to being a victim of crime. Of course, that doesn't mean you will never be a victim of crime, but there are ways of minimising risk. Dismissing this concept actually "helps to perpetuate" the idea that people should not make responsible decisions because nobody should take advantage of their vulnerabilities anyway. An idea that belongs with the unicorns.
|Where if we tell of a man who goes out to a bar and gets drunk and then is followed home and assaulted for his wallet, the overwhelming reaction is condemnation of the assailant not "men shouldn't go out to pubs and get blind drunk" or "I don't believe it happened". Of course, because it is fucking ridiculous to be hyperskeptical about someone getting assaulted. However, the same people, good people too, react to testimony of rape with victim blaming and denial.|
As I said earlier, this isn't my experience at all. People will even go as far as to say he probably wasn't mugged at all and lost his wallet/fell over drunk.
|However, nothing you said is evidence.|
And this is the key point. What I want to know from people on this side of the argument is whether they want the evidence needed to take someone to court/convict them of rape should be of a lesser standard than that of other crimes? Ie you need pretty good circumstantial evidence to secure a murder conviction, should you need "okay" circumstantial evidence to convict someone of rape?