Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Even if true (and the idea of 'human' rights comes into this I guess) that claim isn't any less disturbing.
Why do you find it disturbing?
Also, you and I may have very different ideas about what rights are and what it means to say a thing has rights. I have studied the law, and possibly have a better understanding of the implications of these statements than you do. Trust me, the implications of ascribing personhood before birth are far, far more disturbing. For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
So you studied a double degree in Arts/Law. Which University?
Shoreline Community College.
Secondly, the implication of declaring that children under 18 have no rights under the law is far, far more disturbing. And I don't know where you're getting this biological slavery argument from.
See above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/27 03:41:19
Gailbraithe wrote:
First of all, I never said that a child of 18 months is not human. Saying a infant has no rights implies that it is not a person under the law, not that it is not human.
Even if true (and the idea of 'human' rights comes into this I guess) that claim isn't any less disturbing.
That's exactly why what he's saying is, if you'll allow me to use the expression, cobblers.
Of course they have human rights.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2010/09/27 03:45:08
Subject: Re:With apologies to the bullying thread...
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Gailbraithe wrote:
RustyKnight wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote: For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
How so?
All of the available science indicates that a woman's health and fitness three months prior to conception is one the greatest contributing factors to the viability of a fertilized egg, which means that if we treat developing blastocytes as humans with full rights, then a woman who does not keep herself in good physical condition, refraining from alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, etc, is guilty of criminally negligent endangerment of another person. It means that miscarriages are manslaughter.
Because of this, and because no woman can ever know for certain whether she will become pregnant within the next three months (especially given the possibility of rape), it can be (and has been) argued that all women of breeding age must always treat themselves as pre-pregnant. In other words by asserting that a blastocyte is a human with the rights of a human, you have created all the legal groundwork necessary to draft laws that strip women of the right to engage in a huge range of behaviors that men won't be denied, all in the name of protecting a "person" who doesn't even exist yet.
Here's more on the subject of pre-pregnancy. Under current law, while doctors recommend that all women of childbearing age treat themselves as pre-pregnant it is not criminal negligence to do so, because a fetus has no rights, and thus its death due to accident or negligence on the part of the mother (i.e. a miscarriage) is of no concern to the law. Grant that fetus rights, and suddenly the law is obligated to step in a protect those rights.
You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
You would have to be able to legally prove that the woman had a reasonable assumption that she would get pregnant within 3 months. Contraception and other preventative measures would be the equivalent of taking reasonable measures. It is not reasonable for a woman to assume that she will get raped in the next three months, and you should know better than to suggest that. It is also not reasonable to make the assumption that every preventative measure will fail. If a woman was to drink, do drugs etc before having sex with protection she would not be held liable for criminal negligence as assuming the protection would work is a reasonable assumption. If you have studied law you really should know this.
If however the woman drinks, smokes, does drugs and has repeated unprotected sex over a period of three months it is reasonable to assume a high chance of pregnancy. Then it becomes a problem.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
2010/09/27 03:51:17
Subject: Re:With apologies to the bullying thread...
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
2010/09/27 04:12:19
Subject: Re:With apologies to the bullying thread...
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Or you could take reasonable preventative measures. That is what reasonable people do after all.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
2010/09/27 04:37:26
Subject: Re:With apologies to the bullying thread...
Gailbraithe wrote:[That rape is always violent] is the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.
"Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces..."
The obvious implication of this statement is that rape is inherently violent.
Yes, it is. Pretty much by definition. Rape is an act of force against consent, which makes it violent. Violence does not have to involve something like battery, which is what you seem to be assuming.
Gailbraithe wrote:
You're right, but that's not the point. The point is that correlation (which you haven't proven) is not proof. The point is that you can't prove a rape has occurred by this means.
Yes, correlation is a type of proof. That's its purpose in statistics. Can the presence of a correlate prove, on its own, that a certain thing has occurred? No, but I didn't argue to that fact. I said that rape is relatively easy to prove because there are many easily discernible correlates, the issue, from the perspective of criminal law, is that very few of those correlates are useful in the course of identifying a perpetrator.
Gailbraithe wrote:
dogma wrote:That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment. A failure to say no is not consent.
Nor did I say that it was. I said that not demanding something is not the same as not consenting to it. To illustrate, I would absolutely consent to someone giving me 2 million dollars, but I'm not demanding that they do so. More directly, a person may consent to sex without demanding it, in fact its fair to say that most instances of sexual consent do not involve a demand for sex on the part of either party.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Consent can never be assumed, and if you are operating under the assumption that consent can be assumed without being expressed, then there exists the possibility that you have raped someone by assuming consent where it was not given. This sort of comment is disturbing because if one acts on this maxim, then one will do harm.
Again, I didn't say anything like what you're describing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Is this another test to see if I'll actually click the link? Because that doesn't support your claim either.
It discusses the role that fear plays in determining genital response; where response is defined by increased blood flow and vaginal contraction (in women only, obviously). The emotional significance of this is a well documented cause of vaginismus, which allows vaginismus to be regarded as a reliable predictor of rape specifically, and sexual assault in general.
If you have access to JSTOR, or something similar, I can find more.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Evidence in support of your claim that the NCVS data used as the basis of DoJ crime statistics is collected by observing the number of persons seeking rape counseling. You have presented nothing that supports this claim (or any of your claims), and are attempting to shift the goal posts here.
No, that's not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts requires that one party to the argument dismiss a given type of evidence in the course of demanding greater evidence.
Offering something in evidence that you do not feel is valid is not moving the goalposts. Fallacies have very specific definitions.
In any case, you're correct, the NCVS does not include data derived from the observation of people who seek rape counseling.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Either provide evidence that the DoJ monitors patient intakes for rape counseling or retract the claim.
It looks like you're correct, the DoJ doesn't collect those statistics. I was thinking of the CALCAS survey, and some of the other research on sexual victimization.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is a very different claim than your original claim.
My original claim was in regard to the NCVS, not the NVAWS. Methodologically they're the same, they only differ in the way that methodology is executed; though that is only due to their varying scope.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Consider the possibility I was dismissing you because I think you're an argumentative twit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
If that's the case, then why didn't you say that the first time? It would have saved us both some time, and you wouldn't have been forced to demonstrate a poor grasp of what constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The doctrine of natural persons defines you and I as persons under the law. I learned that in college.
The doctrine of natural person is not statutory. Its an assumed property, which was the thing I was attempting to illustrate.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Or you could take reasonable preventative measures. That is what reasonable people do after all.
You seem to be missing the point.
Currently a woman who doesn't take reasonable preventative measures and has a miscarriage is not guilty of any crime. Grant the fetus rights, and now she's guilty of manslaughter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
dogma wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:[That rape is always violent] is the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.
"Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces..."
The obvious implication of this statement is that rape is inherently violent.
Yes, it is. Pretty much by definition. Rape is an act of force against consent, which makes it violent. Violence does not have to involve something like battery, which is what you seem to be assuming.
'kay. Feel free to join us in the 21st century any time you like, where rape doesn't require any act of force, only a lack of consent.
Gailbraithe wrote:You're right, but that's not the point. The point is that correlation (which you haven't proven) is not proof. The point is that you can't prove a rape has occurred by this means.
Yes, correlation is a type of proof. That's its purpose in statistics. Can the presence of a correlate prove, on its own, that a certain thing has occurred? No, but I didn't argue to that fact. I said that rape is relatively easy to prove because there are many easily discernible correlates, the issue, from the perspective of criminal law, is that very few of those correlates are useful in the course of identifying a perpetrator.
Yes, actually, that is exactly the fact you were arguing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
dogma wrote:That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment. A failure to say no is not consent.
Nor did I say that it was. I said that not demanding something is not the same as not consenting to it. To illustrate, I would absolutely consent to someone giving me 2 million dollars, but I'm not demanding that they do so. More directly, a person may consent to sex without demanding it, in fact its fair to say that most instances of sexual consent do not involve a demand for sex on the part of either party.
Splitting hairs.
It discusses the role that fear plays in determining genital response; where response is defined by increased blood flow and vaginal contraction (in women only, obviously). The emotional significance of this is a well documented cause of vaginismus, which allows vaginismus to be regarded as a reliable predictor of rape specifically, and sexual assault in general.
What? No, vagisimus is not a reliable predictor of rape.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Evidence in support of your claim that the NCVS data used as the basis of DoJ crime statistics is collected by observing the number of persons seeking rape counseling. You have presented nothing that supports this claim (or any of your claims), and are attempting to shift the goal posts here.
No, that's not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts requires that one party to the argument dismiss a given type of evidence in the course of demanding greater evidence.
Whatever you pedantic little freak.
In any case, you're correct, the NCVS does not include data derived from the observation of people who seek rape counseling.
Oh my god, someone alert the media, after a half dozen messages, dogma finally admits he's full of gak.
Gailbraithe wrote:Consider the possibility I was dismissing you because I think you're an argumentative twit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
If that's the case, then why didn't you say that the first time? It would have saved us both some time, and you wouldn't have been forced to demonstrate a poor grasp of what constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.
Because normal people would recognize that without needing to be told it.
Apparently you're socially maladjusted brain can't comprehend normal human interaction, Probably why you're such a pedantic and obnoxious little freak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/27 06:36:57
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Or you could take reasonable preventative measures. That is what reasonable people do after all.
You seem to be missing the point.
Currently a woman who doesn't take reasonable preventative measures and has a miscarriage is not guilty of any crime. Grant the fetus rights, and now she's guilty of manslaughter.
No, Gailbraithe, YOU are missing the point. It would be impossible to manslaughter or ciminal negligence in most cases of miscarriage, becuase most women do NOT try to purposefully get pregnant and have a miscarriage. In addition to this, your previous arguments on the threat of "biological slavery" and "stripping women of all rights" holds no weight at all. So far I have been content to give you a chance to extrapolate your arguement and try to justify them. Having done that, I can only come to the conclusion that you are either talking out of your arse, have a warped sense of logic or both.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
2010/09/27 08:59:51
Subject: Re:With apologies to the bullying thread...
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
