There was no begging of the question in my opening statement because it was just a statement at the beginning of my post. It is at worst an unverified claim (according to you.) I stated what I felt but if you don?t feel I gave enough evidence to support said claim I will try again.
And you then go on to simply
assert the same thing again. That's exactly what "begging the question" is. You make a "claim," and someone says, "On what grounds?" And you say what amounts to "Because it's true." And they ask, "But what
makes it true? What evidence do you have that it's true?" And your reply is "Because it's true."
Why do I think this advert will do more harm than good? ... However, I feel it contributes to placing blame on the victim in a way other cautionary ads against crime (mugging/burglary) don?t. ... The ad itself doesn?t say these bad things in certain clear terms, it?s very subtle.
If it's really that "subtle," perhaps you're reading it
into the ad, no? But still, you say, "I think the ad will do more harm than good by putting the blame on the victim." And we all ask, "What
specifically is this ad saying that puts
blame on the victim?" And you say, "Well, it's very subtly blaming the victim."
Begging the question again.
You're talking in circles. "The ad will do more harm than good." How? "By putting blame on the victim." The ad isn't putting blame on the victim, it's giving them a preventative step
they can take to
avoid becoming a victim. "Yes, but it's doing more harm than good." How, though? "By putting blame on the victim." But it's not. "Still, it's doing more harm than good." How? "By putting the blame on the victim." It's ridiculous at this point -- your posts are entirely broken-record.
I?ve said this a few times but it gave no satisfaction. Let me try to contrast this with an advert that I do like. It?s a common one advising people not to get into unlicensed taxis. The information this hypothetical ad would give is more useful and specific. But why would I think this new hypothetic ad wouldn?t also cause this ?blame? I seem to regard as such a problem? Well, a rape in an unlicensed taxi I think is more clear-cut ? the attacker would very likely be a predatory rapist and if the victim is absolved of the blame to a better degree which is always called into question regarding sexual assault and not other crimes (mostly.) With the ad of the OP though, although the information is largely virtuous its execution and its unintended message are harmful. Booze, stupid decisions, even the friends of victim are implicated.
Wow, where to start? We've got "Special Pleading," in which you insist that rape must be treated as different on
every single level from every other crime (like mugging, etc.)... yet you provide no grounds other than that
you believe it's far worse. It's just your way of saying, "Yes, preventative ads make sense.... uuuuunless I don't personally like them, and then I can dismiss logic entirely, citing that rape is different."
And we've got "No True Scotsman." You keep redefining what
other people are talking about when they talk about rapists, insinuating they're not talking about the "right" kind of rape.
We still have our old friend the Strawman. You put words in the mouth of the ad writers, and in the people responding to you, and then easily shoot down
these arguments that no one is making.
I said this in my first post: ?Directing anti-rape ads (like the one presented by the OP) at the victim (as opposed to the perpetrator) indirectly suggests the attack is largely the victims fault which is false and unfair. This point is indirectly presented to both potential victims and potential attackers.? But perhaps I should have been more specific. The hypothetical unlicensed taxi advert does something similar, but it?s not the same. The last sentence is where the backfire occurs. All of society looks at the poster and draws a subtle conclusion.
(Emphasis mine.)
And yet you're incapable of telling any of us
how it is "not the same." It just isn't, because you say so. And the original ad? Same thing -- it misleads everyone, simply because you assert that this is so.
It?s not the fact that she didn?t say no that?s the issue of rape, it?s the fact that she didn?t say yes.
It's called "rhetorical device." It's meant to play upon the old saying "just couldn't say no." The emphasis is on
couldn't. The rapist, whether friend or stranger, is (intentionally or not) taking advantage of the fact that she is unable to give informed consent (or non-consent). Or worse, they're
ignoring her statement of "No," simply because they can overpower her -- you know that acquaintance rape is still very often
forced, don't you? If this is the nit you're picking, you're grasping at straws and nothing more.
I also agree that it?s a rather erotic portrayal (nice legs/underwear matches tiles etc) but these points are both minor and distracting from the bigger picture of how we as a society view rape.
And see, to me, the imagery being used are the only really valid criticism of the ad campaign. If you're going to plant your protest flag, that's really the only reasonable spot to do it. The argument, most likely, is that the point is to draw attention to the poster
first with the image, and
that is what gets people to read the message -- and this argument is sound, given what we know of human psychology. But we could argue that any implied "sexuality" could be toned down out of respect for the message.
But that's not what you've been arguing.
Consider this poster
http://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/anti_rape_ads_m.jpg
I think this a more effective poster because it directly addresses the nature of rape and might well help the more common would-be rapist consider their actions are wrong. Getting to them before they become rapists ? which you say can?t be done.
Because clearly we're only allowed to let
one campaign exist at a time. We can't find cocaine, because we're still fighting heroin. We can't fight murder, because we're still fighting kidnapping. We can't direct one campaign toward would-be attackers and another toward potential victims. That would just be absurd.
Oh, and I never said it "can't be done." I said that these would-be rapists are probably not reading ads about "not raping,"
because they do not see themselves as potential rapists. And those that do? They already know it's wrong and don't care. So such ads are, in general, preaching to the choir
or falling of deaf ears. They are well-meaning(less).
I want to know if the response I?m foreseeing is correct. Is it the same as point 3 from the TL;DR section?
Maybe stop "foreseeing" responses. Try reading and responding to them, and you'll have better luck.
I don?t like that implication of me being ?weak-willed.? Don?t do that.
Get over yourself. It's a generalized statement, and I'm under no obligation to put fifteen disclaimers in front of every statement I make. This is just you posturing, playing indignant so that you can make an exit on your high horse.
Just so you're aware.? This isn?t the first or last time you?ve compared me to a rapist. Don?t do that. Whatever I infer from what you say in an attempt to better understanding and draw conclusions is done with deliberation and care.
You consistently, and openly, try to "guess" or "foresee" what you think someone's response will be. That foresight is tainted by your biases toward that person, based on how you feel about the fact they disagree with you. It means you're not carefully reading and responding to what they
actually say, but rather what you
feel they said.
But again, I haven't indicated anything about
you. I've pointed out similarities between some of the communicative (or non-communicative) techniques you're using and certain psychological justifications common in the perpetrators of the crimes being discussed. The idea here being if someone really hates those people so much, it would stand to reason they'd want to avoid imitating them in any way.
With this paragraph, you are inaccurately assuming what I think.
Please.
I?m not familiar with a ?reverse strawman,?
See, that's when the first person creates a strawman of
their own position, insisting that this is what the
other person thinks the first person is saying, and then "defeats" the view of the first person's side being attributed to the other person. It's a direct result of you, once again, assuming you know what the other person "meant," and going from that rather than what the person actually said.
And your tendency to so heavy-handedly infer (or one might say "insert") things about what others are saying is exactly why you're able to put all of these dire "implications" into the original ad.
It?s just not the same as other crimes.
(See a few paragraphs above, re: special pleading)
Now I?m done. I?ve typed too much and I?m tired. Thank you for sharing your points of view with me and please reply if you want. I?ll respond if you do, but I won?t type more than 200-odd words. But if you do, kindly knock off the italicised and bolded text. It?s unnecessary and patronising.
Hardly unnecessary, as it serves to clarify inflection and emphasis, so as to make it far, far clearer what I'm actually saying. This serves, ironically, to make it less necessary for you to do so much assuming and "foreseeing." You don't like it because it gets in the way of that process, which you seem to enjoy so much.
You can make your exit, and you can use all the "Don't do that" and "Kindly knock offs" you want -- talking about "patronizing," no less -- but you do so in the silent knowledge that you've made no points that stood the test of logic and reason.
I?ll sign off with a quote from Julie Mastine:
?Instead of teaching people how to make sure they?re properly getting consent from someone they?re hooking up with, our society perpetuates a mindset that makes people feel guilty for a crime committed against them.?
Proving my previous statement, you "sign off" by posting a transparent false dichotomy. "Rather than?" This ad campaign uses one approach (of providing suggestions to would-be victims to lower their chances of victimhood), and other campaigns are free to (and do) take other approaches. Basic strategy tells me the more approaches you use, the better your coverage and chances of successfully affecting change.
But your greatest failure here hasn't been
what you've been trying to argue, but rather
how. Do more reading and comprehending, and try a little less "foreseeing" and assuming.
That right there is the opitimy of sexism, not this add. It what world is it fine to simply take the opinion that all guys enjoy all sex with every person? And whats to say that can't be turned on its head? Do girls never enjoy sex? Is it no longer rape if you enjoy it at the time, regardless of intoxication etc? And whats to say a guy cant be ligitmately raped, given that intoxication works both ways?
