darkfox85 said:
I feel much of your ire against my post is essentially repeating the virtues of a preventative measure in the form of a public service. Now, the OP?s advert will definitely do more harm than good.
Now, see this right here -- you just said, "I know you just made a big old argument about how this won't do more harm than good, and rather than actually address your points, I'll simply say it
definitely will do more harm than good."
That's called "begging the question" or "claiming the consequent," or what you like. It's when one person makes claim A, supported by evidence... A. That's right, the proof for their claim
is the claim itself. And when someone shoots down evidence A, here's claim A to act as a... counter argument?
No, it doesn't work like that. You've claimed "it will do more harm than good." I provided a thorough analysis of why that is not, and indeed
cannot be the case, complete with sound reasoning... and your response? "Well, it will definitely cause more harm than good."
These signs do not suggest that in failing to do these things it?s your fault and it can be used in court against you (however, admittedly tangentially.) I do think this advert is a bad thing because these are not the same things. I?m sorry but you ARE over simplifying.
1. You're not sorry. 2. You're wrong. You're putting intent where there is none, and you're ignoring the intent that is there.
This ad does not, in any way/shape/form/perception, make the claim that if bad things happen, it is the FAULT of the victim. The ad simply points out that there are some things we can do, as friends, to help keep bad things from happening to each other.
Why?
Because we're friends, and will listen to each other. What am I going to do, follow you and politely ask the rapist not to rape you (You know, to avoid "putting the blame on you")? No. Because he won't listen to me.
He's a rapist.
So, before you can go any further,
you need to provide clear support for your claim that this advertisement specifically and directly states that any resulting rape is the express fault of the victim. If you can provide no such support (spoiler alert: You can't.), this claim is inadmissible.
... but in this case, with this crime, the crime of sexual assault; it will do more harm than good.
This claim is still completely and totally
unsubstantiated. You've provided no evidence and no clear rationale. You've simply said this over and over.
Rape is a much thornier issue than theft or burglary or many others.
So? It doesn't exempt the
handling of rape from "reason" and "logic." An ounce of prevention is worth
an infinite amount of prosecution.
It?ll make people not want to report the rape because the advert indirectly implies that it?s the victims fault for not taking the proper precautions. This won?t happen with other crimes. Not to mention, this crime is as personal as you can get.
Again, a false claim, made with no evidence or support. It'll "make" people do nothing. It'll show them something they might consider when they're out with the girls -- Hmm, Jenny's pretty drunk, and she's looking like she wants to go home with that guy. Let's go talk her out of this, because I know I would
feel awful if that guy did anything bad to her.
Nowhere in this process does anyone say, "What? You got drunk and went home with him, you deserve what you got." In fact, the ad specifically makes it clear that, in this hypothetical, she was
unable to fight him off. She was
powerless in that situation. That's often how rape occurs, after the attacker somehow incapacitates the victim.
So the advertisement is saying, "Rather than waiting until you're in a situation where all your power has been removed, wouldn't it be
better to take some steps while you still can?" If someone rapes you, he's still a filthy rapist that deserves everything the law can throw at you --
but no one is debating that.
What we're all saying is, "You can send the guy to the goddamned electric chair, but that
won't make the rape victim any less RAPED." So our energy is better spent showing the reasonable, law-abiding folks what
they can do, rather than waiting for the crime to occur simply because we're too weak-willed to say, "Here's some stuff you can do to prevent it."
Throughout your repetitive rebuttal...
Hypocrisy is a drug. Kick the habit. My response wasn't a
tenth as repetitive as your original diatribe.
... you danced around the fact that most rapists are already known by the victim but instead seem to assume they are all the psychotic type that I have mentioned.
How, where, and when? You can't provide a single bit of evidence to support this claim. You can't quote a single passage from my response that would indicate that I'm even
considering the "psychotic type."
You?re still not seeing the full picture of rape.
The kind of person who thinks
they know what a person is saying or thinking or believing or "seeing," that's exactly the kind of person who thinks it's okay to rape someone. Just so you're aware. This isn't even nearly the first time you've told other people what
they think or what
they know.
But you?re right when saying that ?This particular ad campaign isn't aiming to prevent every type of rape ever.? But it fails to address the vast majority of rapes which makes the damn ad pretty damn ineffective.
Again, no sources to back up your claim. No logic or reason to support what you're saying. Rape during which one person takes advantage of a drunk other person is
extremely common. In fact, if you'll do your own research, it's one of the most common types among the unreported rapes, because the victim feels it could be "impossible" to prove.
Women don't generally go home from a bar/club/house party with a stranger. They do so with someone they are acquainted with, someone with enough familiarity to
be able to take advantage of the situation. That's exactly what this ad is dealing with.
I?ve supported preventative measures like this against the psychotic type but ultimately adds like this don?t do much good except tell anyone who reads them that thanks to the circumstances not being followed it?s the victims fault.
Eighth time you've made this claim, without any evidence of any kind to back it up. Repetitive?
I?m thinking of the sheer volume of rapists that don?t meet punishment or are even ever held accountable for their heinous crime.
If someone is
charged and acquitted, guess what?
They are not a rapist. If they are found not guilty, they are
not guilty in the eyes of the law. You can't just take it upon yourself to say, "Of
course he did it, just look at him!" Again, that mentality of being able to assume "what type" of person someone is with minimal evidence... well, that's exactly how the rapists act, isn't it? ("Oh, she's a total slut, she totally wanted it, no matter what she says.")
But if I want to scuttle myself I do know a way. How many wrongful convictions are worth risking in an attempt to get as many smug opportunistic violators to respect the law? This part of my argument can be shaken here and if you want to hammer the point home in a way I haven?t thought of, this is an opportunity. I welcome it.
Cute attempt at a reverse strawman, but this is far from the only hole in your reasoning. You still base your entire case on two completely unsubstantiated claims:
1. That this ad is specifically and directly blaming the victim.
2. That this ad "will do more harm than good."
It?s been stated over and over that most rapists might not understand what they?re doing is rape.
It's also been "stated over and over" that the chupacabra terrorizes Mexican goat flocks. But we tend to ignore such claims
because no evidence has been provided to substantiate it. We're not here to do your homework for you.
Okay I will admit I used the word ?evidence? when I should?ve used the word ?support? (or perhaps something else.) All those circumstances that surround a rape could cast suspicion on the victim. This doesn?t happen with other crimes. Hence the low conviction rate. Rapists are walking out scott-free and all we?re doing is making potential victims more paranoid they did something wrong.
1. Yes, it happens with other crimes. If you kill a man, but it comes out in court that it was in self-defense, that's putting the "suspicion on the victim." Stuff like that happens
all the time. It's called
digging for the truth. Without tough questions like this, our court system would simply be an "Accuse and Send to Jail" system.
2. If they are not found guilty, understand this,
they are not rapists. Otherwise, you're basically under the belief that our legal system means NOTHING -- and that would include when it works in
favor of your position.
You want a REAL preventative measure in a public service advertisement? It would be saying things a long the lines of telling potential victims that saying no even to your spouse or partner means no and refusal to hear it is rape,
Process this for a moment:
1. If a rapist is aware that what he is doing is rape, he won't give one dirty damn that a poster says, "Don't do it." He'll just go about his business because he already doesn't care.
2. If a rapist is not aware that what he is doing is rape, he won't give one dirty damn that a poster says, "Don't do it," because he'll assume that poster must be talking to someone else. Why? Because "Hey, I'M not a rapist."
or that you shouldn?t let someone subtly bully, threaten or pressure you into doing something you don?t want to.
Oh, I see. So if I'm bullied, threatened, or pressured into doing something I don't want to do, I "let" it happen? How dare you blame
me for what they made me do?
It?s a fake term to counter all these ridiculous digs at such a complex and varied ideology as feminism. Hell I disagree with most of it myself but I?m not gonna slide the whole thing into the abyss. Further, I really don?t understand how you think I think people are secretly hoping to get raped from that section.
1. The title says "according to
some feminists." And the site being linked? FEMINISTING.COM. Not an inaccurate statement. Indeed, some feminists (namely those behind this site) apparently think this campaign is sexist, or at least "anti-victim."
2. What else could you have meant by saying "who are so very quick to remind everyone that women can rape (before wetting their lips)?" Don't insult our intelligence, we know exactly what you were saying with this.
And those ?conjectures? about sexual assault playing differently on the minds of different genders? They are not conjectures. They are facts. Talk to men. Talk to women. It comes out very easily and openly and honestly.
Conjectures don't become facts until evidence is provided. You're assuming you know the minds of all, or at least most, men and women. Assume. Conjecture. Empty claims.
For the TL;DR:
1. You still have not supported your claim that this ad will specifically "do more harm than good." You've been nursemaided through the good it can do, and have yet to provide any
specific example of harm it could cause.
2. Simply saying, "It'll make the victim feel blamed," is not "support." It's an assumption based on your personal feelings on the matter, which you are projecting onto the whole of the human race. Nothing in the ad says the least little thing about blame, but simply says, "Here's something to think about while you're out with friends, because it's totally possible to prevent SOME awful things by thinking ahead."
3. Your "good rapists" don't realize they are rapists, right?
So they are going to ignore posters that are talking to rapists, because they think you're talking to/about someone else. Such posters would be wasted effort, and would serve no purpose whatsoever.
4. Telling someone what they can do to prevent bad things from happening to them is
never, ever, ever, ever, ever the same thing as blaming them when bad things happen. They are not the same, and you haven't provided the slightest bit of support for your claim that they are.
Address these four things, and maybe you can keep up the appearance that you're looking for any sort of discussion that uses logic or reason. Fail to address these four specific flaws in your post, and you don't have a leg to stand on. Best of luck.