The Danes really have it going for them

[Blake]

Aeson, I quoted more for just a reason, and I asked you to search for what I said for a reason.

You claimed that there were NO qualifications.

But my very next sentence was a qualification. I qualified what I said at significant lengths.

You heard one thing I said - but you didn't hear the rest of it, you willfully ignored it and dismissed it as gibberish. Why did you ignore it, did you just not LIKE it, so you ignored it? Or did you ignore it because you agreed with it?
I don't know, it's your mind...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
You claimed that there were NO qualifications.

There were no qualifications in the statement you made. "The rape is not a problem". Given the wording of my question, that was obviously a "no" response. Everyone who read it seems to have read it so. You made no objections at the time to my assessment, and continued to reiterate your stance that it was not a problem.

You are pretending the rest of that post are qualifications, when they are either irrellevent to the question (eg. prevention is important), or even confirmations of the sentiment that the rape is not a problem.

It wasn't until much later in other posts than you admitted that the rape was a problem in some regards. Even then you came right back and said the rape was not a problem, and have many times confirmed your stance that something that happened in the past is not a problem.

Also there is this gem, don't forget about it, showing the great compassion of the Buddha (as well as the textual hysterics I was referencing earlier):

"IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR ME, WHEN A MAN I DON'T KNOW RAPES A WOMAN I DON'T KNOW." - Blake

But my very next sentence was a qualification. I qualified what I said at significant lengths.

You confirmed several times that you think the rape is not a problem. You argued that because it was in the past, it was not a problem. You said that the problem is keeping the rape from happening again, which is not a qualification on "the rape is not a problem". You simply dismissed the past (as you have confirmed over and over is your wont to do) as not a problem.

I don't see why you are making such a fuss about this now, since you were only too willing to reiterate over and over how you think things that happened in the past are not a problem.

You heard one thing I said - but you didn't hear the rest of it, you willfully ignored it and dismissed it as gibberish.

I responded to your post and touched on most of your points. That is not ignoring or dismissing it out of hand. Here was my response in full: (and in later posts I addressed even more of those issues)

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5248731#post5248731

Why did you ignore it, did you just not LIKE it, so you ignored it? Or did you ignore it because you agreed with it?
I don't know, it's your mind...

The simple truth... as you profess to esteem such... is I did not ignore it.

You are the one trying to misrepresent what has occurred here Blake. I did not ignore your statements. I have responded to far more of your statements in precise detail than you have in return. The only statements I haven't responded to specifically are those which had nothing to do with what I've said (though even some of those I've responded to), those that I agreed with and didn't feel needed to be discussed further, or those that that make points I've already address enough times already.

[Blake]

Here's the basic thing.

Context is SO important.

Rape is a word which is tossed around willy nilly.

As a kid I heard my dad say that the neighbors dog raped our *****. Was that rape a problem? You could say, the rape was a problem for my Dad, it was a problem for the owner of the dog.
I don't think it was a problem for the dog and the ***** though.

A problem is something which someone thinks is a problem, nothing more and nothing less...

When you say "A man raping a woman, is that a problem?"

What I am saying, is that it's only a problem to the people who make it a problem.

And I qualify that, with saying that it tends to be a problem for the rapist, the victim and everyone who knows them, the consequences are a problem. At least if it's a real rape.

Something can be a problem without being a problem. For example, from my Dad's case with animals. The ***** was perfectly willing of course, my Dad was the one who made it into rape...
Some rapes really are rape and some rapes aren't really rape.

Sometimes a woman is perfectly willing at the time, then the next day changes her mind, and calls it rape. That's the whole "no means no" and "yes means no" controversy.

Sometimes a woman will even claim she is raped in order to ruin a man's life, because she holds a grudge against him.

That's rape which is a real problem for people without there actually being any rape in reality .

I wouldn't be me, if I didn't point out that a man can't get into such trouble if he is Celibate!


But the point is, context matters. If a wolf rapes a wolf in the forest, is that rape a problem?

Rape is a problem when someone makes it THEIR problem, that is when rape becomes a problem.

It is possible for a father to say his daughter was raped, when the daughter herself would disagree! I've heard that one!
It is possible for a woman to say she was raped, when her boyfriend was certain she was willing... How do you know whether those are her real feelings, or she's lying to ruin his life?


With that example I said, of the older woman who was raped as a girl. She told me that she has also been raped by her husband. Is that rape a problem? It's certainly a problem for her, but I can also see how a husband might think he has some kind of entitlement to have sex with his wife, at least ocasionally... I think I can understand that man has some serious sexual frustration. I'm not saying he's justified in forcing his wife to have sex with him, but I can certainly emphasize with why he would do that, he's a freaking human male who has a wife and there are societal expectations there, so I'm hardly going to judge him as evil.
And that woman, she was raped by her father as a teenager, THAT rape remains a problem for her, it's a problem for her and it's a problem for her husband. SHOULD it be a problem for them, or should she let go of it? I think she should let go of it, stop making it a problem, and start having a loving relationship with her husband. I think that would be best - she should stop making her rape a problem.

I think my "A problem for who" angle is very, very legitimate.

Something is a problem, when someone makes it their problem... for as long as they make it a problem...

Something should be a problem, for just long enough to find a solution, or to find their is no solution. Sadly sometimes people can spend a lifetime making something a problem, when there is no solution... what solution is there for a rape which happened 20 years ago? The only solution, is to stop making it a problem. Would you agree with me?

A problem can't exist in a void. That is why when you say "Is XYZ a problem", without context, I say "It is not a problem" because it's a statement made in a void. The context is what makes something a problem (as you provide more context, I provide more detail).

If you make things a problem heedlessly, you can create enormous amounts of harm and suffering... that's a warning which should be heeded.


Look at nature.

Animal kill and rape animals, trees fall down and smash other trees, hurricanes lay waste to coastlines, volcanoes smother vast swathes of forest. Is any of that death and dying and destruction a problem?

It's a problem if you make it a problem...

[Blake]

Since you want me to discect one of your posts, I will do so:

Originally posted by Aeson
Blake,

In another thread I cautioned you about how your ideology pushes blame onto the victims and justifies the crime. I see at least you are consistent in this regard.

And I simply don't bother with blame, period.

You may think you are enlightened, but your ego has clearly blinded you, and lead you to accept atrocities as justice.

I should take the time to explain what enlightenment means. Okay, that's pretentious. But the term "enlightenment" can sound pretty pretentious.

I've found the most useful explaination to me, is this one:
Look at the word enlightenment. The opposite of "light" is "heavy", and something which is heavy is a burden. Enlightenment can thus mean unburdened.
In a Buddhist context, an enlightened being is unburdened by the fetters of greed, anger and delusion.
They are not all-knowing or all-powerful or anything like that, they are simply not greedy, don't get angry, and their perspective is never warped by things like fear.
That is what it means to be enlightened...

I'm someone who is a little bit enlightened. I've let go of some greed, hatred and delusion. I know this because I used to be a lot greedier, I used to get a lot angrier about things, I used to be a lot more deluded about things. So I do know I'm a little bit enlightened. But I still suffer from greed, I still get angry, I still see delusion at work (in retrospect), so I am very far from being fully enlightened...

Your blatant oversimplification of the types of situations where rape occurs shows an extraordinarily sexist bias. Nuns have been raped, women have been raped in their own homes by assailents they've never before had any contact with, children are raped by those in authority positions over them. It is not just those who flaunt their sexuality. (Which itself is not a crime.)

*sigh*. I simply point out one kind of circumstance where rape can happen. It's one of the most AVOIDABLE form of rapes. It's much more difficult to stop poor fathers from raping their daughters than to stop attractive young 20 year olds from getting date-raped. A 20 year old woman, these days, or in buddha's time, has self-determination, she can go where she wants and do what she pleases.
In contrast, a poor father can't really abandon his daughter, and the daughter can't really escape. Furthermore with the father-daughter case, precedent is a difficult thing. The rape happens once, and the daughter is scared for life and their relationship ruined. The punishment can't undo that... and the punishment isn't enough to deter it either, a father has to be THOROUGHLY screwed up to rape his daughter, and mere threat of worldly punishment will NOT deter that. I'm sorry, but it's just true... punishment will not deter the first instance of rape, because the natural punishment is overwhelmingly larger, the father KNOWS he's doing a terrible, terrible thing and is going to burn in hell if there is a hell - he's just become a slave to his desires and that enslavement cannot be broken through threat of punishment.
If punishment did work, there would be so much crime in society.

Yet you pretend the victim is to blame. You try to justify that by pigeon-holing rape victims to try to pin it on their actions. You are absurd and disgusting.

You don't have to believe me, but I don't think in terms of "blame", it simply doesn't enter my head.

That is an idiotic definition. First of all it simply fails as a misuse of the term "problem". A problem does not require a known and/or applied solution.

There are an extraordinary number of examples of problems that persist without solution (whether there are known solutions or not). Open your eyes and look around you. They are everywhere.

Please enumerate the problems you see, and also get 4 other people to enumerate the problems they see. Now compare notes. You will find the lists are not the same - how can you reconcile that?

What I simply say, is a problem is something someone makes a problem...

Even if we ignore that reality though and allow that a "problem" is something with a solution, you would have to be omniscient to say something doesn't have a solution and thus is not a problem.

You can make a good faith effort to find a solution, and if after making that good faith effort (and I MEAN good faith! Not a half-hearted effort) you fail to find a solution, you may morally say "This is not my problem, because I can't do anything about it for the time being". That doesn't mean you can't revisit it later of course.

Problems generally have many solutions varying in their aptitude (towards a given end), and it is extremely rare outside mathematical equations to find a solution perfectly suited for a problem.

It's true that problems generally have many solutions, and solutions generally create many new problems .
If you're going to make something a problem, then pick the best looking solution - ensure you have good motivations and good intentions, and get to work on it. Then it is no longer a problem.
If you do make sure you have good motivations and good intentions, the chances of creating more problems is greatly reduced. If you try to implement a solution motivated by greed or anger, you will find you will create many new problems...

You obviously do not understand cause and effect. You pretend that once the initial act has passed, so too do it's effects.

The effects are a problem, but the initial act isn't a problem anymore. Or you could say the initial act has become the effects.

(eg. "The [problem] is in the past") Effects of actions are not one-and-done. They can persist, and can even become their own cause producing more effects. A true understanding of cause and effect is to realize that our actions echo into perpetuity, and so can continue to be benefits or problems long after they occur.

That is a good understanding of Karma. But again, the original act itself is not a problem - there's no use in looking at the original act and complaining about it. It is the effects which are a problem, but all you need to do is solve those problems so they aren't problems anymore.

The woman who's rape you think is not a problem may carry the scars (physical and/or emotional) for the rest of her life.

Unfortunately this is a case where her rape is a problem as long as she makes it a problem. Once she lets go of it, then it's no longer a problem, then she can get on with life.

That kind of letting go is exceedingly difficult, so in Buddhist circles we tend to try and avoid women getting raped.

But it IS possible to let go of such a problem through self-determination, AND it is beneficial to do so.

In many cases, such a problem can be fully let go of long before dying.

Not only will it affect her life, but often has implications on those around her and those who care for her. There may be solutions to the continuing effects. Counselling, medical care, hell... even Buddhism itself aspires to be such in regards to many problems.

Once again, the rape is a problem for other people, if they make it their problem (like seeking retribution), or if SHE makes it their problem. For example, from my example of the lady who wont have sex with her husband because she was raped as a girl. She is making that rape her problem, and making it her husbands problem...
Life would be easier for both of them, if she let go of the problem.

There are solutions to things which have happened in the past.

They cannot be undone. It's the EFFECTS for which there are solutions.

This is readily apparent by simply thinking through what would happen if solutions couldn't address past problems. If you disallow solutions to things which have happened in the past, you disallow all solutions but one... the passage of time, which suddenly becomes the solution to everything, since the moment something happens, the next moment it is in the past and is not a problem. That change in moments thus "solved" the "problem", and we have relegated those two terms meaningless (along with everything else).

A problem is a problem for as long as something makes it a problem.
It will keep echoing, for a very, very long time, time WONT actually erase it, if a woman keeps obsessing over the fact that she was raped as a girl, then time wont erase that problem. The only thing which will make it not a problem, is letting go of it....
You can view letting go of a problem as solving it, or making peace with it. Solving it is simple. Making peace with it, can be understanding that actually, there is no solution at the moment.

That you are here expressing your views, that you eat/drink/breath to subsist, that you clothe yourself and seek shelter, that you play/work on Civ... everything you do belies that you do not truly believe that problems cannot exist in the past. Because if the passage of time solves all problems, you don't have to act, you only have to wait a moment (in fact, a far shorter amount of time than it takes for you to address the issue yourself) and it will no longer be a problem.

Your actions refute you. Literally.

I am not a fully enlightened one, thus I am not refuted .

A fully enlightened one's does tend to have that kind of view towards problems - they are extremely efficient with their minds and solve problems very quickly, they thus have very few problems, and at most only one problem at a given time - the problem they are working on solving. All other problems are "not my problem at the moment".
That is efficient use of mind, using it exclusively to solve problems, without engaging in worry or complaining.

That style of rebuttal is so tiring t.t

[Blake]

Heheh! I just thought of a really absurd example.

Imagine that aliens come along, read the bible, and think "Hey cool! That sounds like a fun experiment!", and so, they kill all the humans except two, and put them in a garden.

Mr WTF just happened and Miss WTF just happened are debriefed by the aliens.
"You are now the only two humans on the planet, we've killed all the rest. We'll pop in ocasionally to see how your race is doing".

Now the man and the woman didn't know each other beforehand. The woman immediately decides she wants no part in repopulating the planet, she would rather the human race dies out, and she'd rather not have sex with the man.
The man on the other hand, has always dreamed of being the only man on earth and having to do his part to repopulate the earth. And he is insistent that repopulating the planet is VERY important, and he's horny.

So he rapes her.

Is that rape a problem?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Blake
Um...
And in New Zealand there is no law saying people have to have car insurance, no law whatsoever.

I call BS. I'll check when I get to work.


Blake - You are doing a poor job of convincing me buddhism is some sort of "enlightened" position. If all buddhists believe what you believe then it is a pretty ******-up mindset.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Blake
Um...

I talk from my OWN experience.

And in New Zealand there is no law saying people have to have car insurance, no law whatsoever.

So there are quite a few people who don't have car insurance, and don't break law of the land in doing so.

With the large number of motor vehicles in relation to population in New Zealand, motor-vehicle insurance (third-party risks) is perhaps of particular interest. Under the Transport Act 1949, all owners of motor vehicles are required to insure against their liability, through their negligence, to pay damages on account of the death of or bodily injury to another person. The insurance premiums are paid at the same time as the annual licence fee, owners being required to nominate each year the company with which the insurance contract is to be made.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/I/Insurance/AccidentInsurance/en

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Since you want me to discect one of your posts, I will do so:

I do not particularly care what you do. I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy in the matter.

And I simply don't bother with blame, period.

"Blame" is ascribing responsibility for a situation (generally a negative one). When you say "a problem is not a problem unless you make it one" you are ascribing responsibility for the problem onto the person experiencing the problem.

That is blame.

I should take the time to explain what enlightenment means. Okay, that's pretentious. But the term "enlightenment" can sound pretty pretentious.

In a Buddhist context, an enlightened being is unburdened by the fetters of greed, anger and delusion.

Still pretentious.

Please enumerate the problems you see, and also get 4 other people to enumerate the problems they see. Now compare notes. You will find the lists are not the same - how can you reconcile that?

Because people are affected by different problems.

A problem is an inadequecy in a situation. You can chose to ignore it, but it doesn't change the state of the situation (unless the state of the situation being refered to is yourself).

I think that people in poor conditions who do not have sanitary drinking water is a problem. There's not a whole lot I can do about it, but I don't pretend it's not a problem. I don't waste my life worrying about it, but it's still a problem.

And it's not just a problem because the people without drinking water make it a problem.

What I simply say, is a problem is something someone makes a problem...

As I said, you cast the blame onto the victim. A child is starving to death because in a war torn country? Not a problem. Or perhaps it is a problem since the child is making it a problem. Stupid child, should be more enlightened like Blake, who doesn't think it's a problem that you're starving.

You can make a good faith effort to find a solution, and if after making that good faith effort (and I MEAN good faith! Not a half-hearted effort) you fail to find a solution, you may morally say "This is not my problem, because I can't do anything about it for the time being". That doesn't mean you can't revisit it later of course.

You keep changing contexts. "Not my problem" or "other people's problems" is not equivalent to "not a problem". The first two may be accurate assessments, but the third is not.

The concept that other people's problems are not problems is an egocentric world view. Not very enlightened at all.

The effects are a problem, but the initial act isn't a problem anymore. Or you could say the initial act has become the effects.

The cause of the effects is a problem. The effects present a problem of their own, but understanding that the effects had a cause leads one to the conclusion that the problematic effects are the result of the problematic cause.

That is a good understanding of Karma. But again, the original act itself is not a problem - there's no use in looking at the original act and complaining about it.

False dichotomy. You do not have to "complain" about a problem.

There is great use in identifying problems that have occurred, as it is the way we can make assessments about the value of future acts.

It is the effects which are a problem, but all you need to do is solve those problems so they aren't problems anymore.

The proverbial, "treat the symptoms" outlook...

Unfortunately this is a case where her rape is a problem as long as she makes it a problem.

No. If the woman has a problem with the rape, it is one the rapist has created. If you understood causality as you claim, you would realize that the rapist acted in a way that created the problem for the woman. The woman existed in a state which being raped would be a problem for her (lets call this... NBIS... the not bat**** insane state) and the rapist acted in a way that would cause anyone in the NBIS state a problem.

That kind of letting go is exceedingly difficult, so in Buddhist circles we tend to try and avoid women getting raped.

Again, if you understood causality you would realize that it is not just "exceedingly difficult" but rather "impossible given the current situation" for those people to whom it is a problem.

They cannot be undone. It's the EFFECTS for which there are solutions.

You ignore the proper definition of "problem". The problem is what causes the negative effects.

A fully enlightened one's does tend to have that kind of view towards problems - they are extremely efficient with their minds and solve problems very quickly, they thus have very few problems, and at most only one problem at a given time - the problem they are working on solving. All other problems are "not my problem at the moment".

But do they say "it is not a problem"?

(You are adding more qualifications here than previously. At least you are accepting that it is a problem even if it's not imminently addressable or affecting you.)

That is efficient use of mind, using it exclusively to solve problems, without engaging in worry or complaining.

The human mind has the ability to store away information that is not currently being utilized consciously.

Pretending other people's problems are not a problem is in and of itself is a mental act of creating a problem from nothing. You are taking issue with the fact that a person would consider a circumstance a problem, and making a judgement that that act is the problem. Essentially, you are calling finding problems a problem. It is an inherently self-defeating stance to take as you are undertaking the act you find problematic.

A person can accept something is a problem, and not waste time dealing with it unless it is imminently possible to deal with efficiently. It is the most efficient way to act, because the assessment of the problem must happen for you to confirm that it's "not my problem". And if a problem presents itself in a manner which it can be dealt with, why go over it again to recognize it is a problem? That information could have been saved from the first assessment which was required to first realize it was a problem, before realizing it was not solvable at the current time.

It also will help you identify similar problems that may occur in the future. It is silly to throw away valuable information.

That style of rebuttal is so tiring t.t

Stop complaining about it. It's only a problem because you make it so.

(off to work, so apologies for any glaring mistakes, I haven't the time right now to proof what I've said...)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

whoa... a lot of writing here since yesterday, so just to come back to this one...

Originally posted by Blake


To the contrary, it is vitally important to write from your own point of view. People are often CAREFUL not to challenge another persons world view, they try to make what they say "fit".

Ideally what I want to be doing is invoking the response of:

That's WRONG!.... but for some reason it makes sense

When I interact with people, my basic goal is to blow their mind..

Yes the objective is good, but I got the feeling that earlier in the thread (previous to this earlier post of mine) it went astray

But I should explain why I have a great disdain towards blame and punishment.

I have never once in my life, encountered a single instance, of blame and punishment doing the least bit of good.

Now I don't say it isn't possible for blame and punishment to do good, I've just never experienced or encountered it. I thus do not devote any of my effort to looking for blame which does good, in the words of Ajahn Chah, that would be like looking for the a tortoise with a mustache. Maybe there really is a tortoise with a mustache, but you're a fool if you devote your life to trying to find it. So I've given up on trying to find an instance of punishment which does good.

OK that is a fair point of view, but it is taking the discussion in the different "stream", ie the main problem previously was apparent "equivalence" of the victim and the perpetrator, which I am pretty certain is not the case from your point of view, but it came across that way... this is what I was referencing as "semantics"...

... punishment discussion...

not too quote it all

on punishment - to go with the nun example - that I can agree with for her as she is at that level, but as a main idea that blame and punishment do not do good, as it seems to happen anyhow - is valid in it's base, and I agree on personal level, but disagree on "social" level

On forgiveness and kindness - again, agree on personal level, but what do you do on a social level - semantics... and in my opinon two vastly different topics...

on the point that there is no kindness for even the victims, in our societies, yes I agree, that is often the case, and this should be worked on, but again on personal level... and it is as well on personal level that you are helping to your friend/interact here with us etc... but to blow her mind it was enough to show her who you are, and what I was implying to "blow the mind" of someone here, it would be good that the others understand what concepts are you exploring before getting into them... otherwise you just draw antagonism starting from a poorly understood premise.

What use is an egg to a hungry ferret if it thinks it's a stone... it will never go and try to crack it up, and get the food... the same here, if you talk about "food" for the mind, but the hungry one sees a stone, he will walk away, it's good for the reader to understand where are you coming from...

The greed, hatred and delusion in society runs deep and is all-pervasive....
And it's so damn easy to counter. Just be nice, be kind and caring, to everyone, regardless of what they've done, the past is the past, learn from it and let it be.

this statement is true, but I'd differentiate personal and social... as one day you nice guy will encounter a bully and he will murder you, and than the next nice guy and so on... and than you get "society" to either defend itself or die and only bullies remain... (sort of what happened to the US government over last generation or two... ) it is good fighting for a good cause as well, and "socially" that means restraining "evildoers" and letting the "good" prosper... surely it is never as easy to create a society where this will work perfectly well, and we in the west are getting worse at it as the time goes by it seems, but still punishment for the crime has a point in any society which wants to continue to exist (on this earth) otherwise it is just overrun in real life as it is in Civ by barbarrians without phalanx in the city

Abandon judging and blaming and punishment because even if it ocasionally does some good, even if there is the tortoise with a mustache, there's already a whole planetfull* of people devoting their energy to judging blaming and punishment...

* Actually according to Lord Buddha, there are multiple planetfulls of beings doing just that. Something like 20 planets.
Just thought I should mention that.

Yes on the personal level, but not on the social level. perhaps try to change how it is delivered, so that "restraint" for the crimes is not a punishmen, but "forced development" or at the very least, protection of the ones who chose the "good" path... but in the end there is a place for it...

I hope you are getting what I am onto in point 1 -namely trying to clear the topic so that the other side gets what is being talked about, and 2 - on topic of punishment, my position at least is "good needs to be defended, but the defense should be meaningful, and constrictive"... while modern society stands for that, it miserably fails to make the "defense" meaningful for the perpetrator, and even less constructive for the victim or anyone else involved, but that is something to "work on", just another topic to raise and influence when possible as we live our years here...

btw "healing" and helping others - much more satisfying way to live than being self-centered...

*now off to read where the thread has gone since *

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Blake
Heheh! I just thought of a really absurd example.

Imagine that aliens come along, read the bible, and think "Hey cool! That sounds like a fun experiment!", and so, they kill all the humans except two, and put them in a garden.

Mr WTF just happened and Miss WTF just happened are debriefed by the aliens.
"You are now the only two humans on the planet, we've killed all the rest. We'll pop in ocasionally to see how your race is doing".

Now the man and the woman didn't know each other beforehand. The woman immediately decides she wants no part in repopulating the planet, she would rather the human race dies out, and she'd rather not have sex with the man.
The man on the other hand, has always dreamed of being the only man on earth and having to do his part to repopulate the earth. And he is insistent that repopulating the planet is VERY important, and he's horny.

So he rapes her.

Is that rape a problem?

surely not for me but for her... to get on that question for me...

that rape is none of my problem as I am killed by the aliens

but in principle "according to my morality" it is a problem for her (and thus a real problem) as he is violating her will & her physically despite of the situation... species to go extinct or not, it is still wrong in the big scheme of things (according to venerable OneFootInTheGrave ). in the end responibility for extinction of the species lies with the Aliens as her refusal to procreate is ultimately a personal choice... just putting a stamp on what Aliens started but it is for her to chose, as it's her body, to do one or the other.

the act destruction is not equal to the act of "refusals to be harmed" in my book, even though she would be guilty of "not giving the best chances" to the species to survive, it is her "right" to do with her body as she sees fit, thus it is within her "personal responsibility" (and not his) to procreate or not... and in the end she can just chose to refuse it

and for the record she was 7 feet and he was a 4 ft tall


edit: and if he actually somehow sneakily managed to do it... well I think it would be her right to kick his ass and to put him on a leash, make him wash & cook till he repays her for the stress caused after she releases him in 5 years (even though she did not get a baby), he can than be a man, forgive her, be a good neighbor and die in peace and there will be no future problems.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Here's the basic thing.

Context is SO important.

Rape is a word which is tossed around willy nilly.

The context of the question was dealing with a man raping a woman.

You said the rape was not a problem. So none of this bull**** obfuscation about dogs doing dogs, wolves doing wolves. (In which case it's difficult if not impossible to determine whether consent is there or not.)

It's a man raping a woman. That is the context. Stop trying to twist it.

A problem is something which someone thinks is a problem, nothing more and nothing less...

I think a man raping a woman is a problem. Thus by the quoted logic we have established that the rape is a problem. You can say it's not your problem, but you cannot deny that it is a problem.

What I am saying, is that it's only a problem to the people who make it a problem.

No, you quite clearly stated that it isn't a problem, in no uncertain terms. You went on to try to justify your answer by saying that a problem cannot exist in the past.

Something can be a problem without being a problem.

Not if you're using consistent definition of the terms. If you are using inconsistent definition of the terms to make such a statement, you are being obtuse. The only thing you accomplish is to obfuscate what you are trying to say and confuse the reader.

Some rapes really are rape and some rapes aren't really rape.

No. If it isn't rape, it isn't rape. If it is rape, it is rape.

Sometimes a woman is perfectly willing at the time, then the next day changes her mind, and calls it rape.

It is not rape. Just because people do not use the proper description does not make their improper use of terms truth.

Sometimes a woman will even claim she is raped in order to ruin a man's life, because she holds a grudge against him.

That's rape which is a real problem for people without there actually being any rape in reality .

You deny rape is a problem, but say a false accusation of rape is "a real problem". There goes every argument you've made... right out the window. If you were consistent you would say that the false accusation of rape is not a problem.

I wouldn't be me, if I didn't point out that a man can't get into such trouble if he is Celibate!

That is a ludicrous statement. A woman can falsely claim she is raped by a celibate man as well.

How do you know whether those are her real feelings, or she's lying to ruin his life?

"He said she said" is a difficult issue. (That is to say, they are a problem.) Generally speaking our system of law requires proof of misconduct, under the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty, though that's not always how it turns out. There may not be an easy answer in every case, but that doesn't mean there is no problem.

When a woman claims a man raped her, there is a problem there. Either the rape occurred, and is the problem, or the rape did not occur, and the claim is a problem.

She told me that she has also been raped by her husband. Is that rape a problem?

Yes.

It's certainly a problem for her, but I can also see how a husband might think he has some kind of entitlement to have sex with his wife, at least ocasionally... I think I can understand that man has some serious sexual frustration. I'm not saying he's justified in forcing his wife to have sex with him, but I can certainly emphasize with why he would do that, he's a freaking human male who has a wife and there are societal expectations there, so I'm hardly going to judge him as evil.

Saying that the rape is a problem is not equivalent to judging him as evil. The man in that case is guilty of wronging his wife. The rape is a problem.

"Evil" and "good" are moral terms. They are unnecessary to determine fault. He is at fault for raping her.

That you see her inability to feel comfortable with having sex as a problem, while pretending the rape is a problem she made, is inexcusable. It's contradictory and sexist.

SHOULD it be a problem for them, or should she let go of it?

It is obviously a problem. You are trying to find a problem with the fact that it is a problem for them. There is no need for "should". Accept that it is a problem (specifically, for them) and then you can perhaps help them see that it is a problem (if they are in denial), or address it in a useful manner. (Or you can just ignore it as not your problem.)

One of the first steps to solving any problem is to admit the problem. Understand what is causing it, and then and only then can you really hope to solve it. The woman is not causing the problem. Past (and perhaps present) experiences are.

I think she should let go of it, stop making it a problem, and start having a loving relationship with her husband. I think that would be best - she should stop making her rape a problem.

She is not making her rape a problem. The man who raped her (and her husband who raped her) are the cause of her distress. She can forgive them, but she is not to blame for the rapes, or the natural consequences of them. Those that raped her created this situation, and are to blame, but you are excusing them and placing the responsibility on her.

That is the definition of "blame". To place responsibility for an act or situation. She is the victim, and you are blaming her.

I think my "A problem for who" angle is very, very legitimate.

It ignores the reality that a problem for someone else is still by definition a problem.

Something should be a problem, for just long enough to find a solution, or to find their is no solution. Sadly sometimes people can spend a lifetime making something a problem, when there is no solution... what solution is there for a rape which happened 20 years ago? The only solution, is to stop making it a problem. Would you agree with me?

The solution is for her to find a way to be at peace with what happened. There are many ways that can happen. Her husband continuing to rape her is almost surely not one of those methods.

In any case, the rape clearly is a problem.

A problem can't exist in a void. That is why when you say "Is XYZ a problem", without context, I say "It is not a problem" because it's a statement made in a void. The context is what makes something a problem (as you provide more context, I provide more detail).

When a statement is made without qualification, it applies without qualification. I asked if a man raping a woman is a problem. You replied it is not. That answer signifies that you think it is not a problem without qualification. Meaning you were saying that it is not a problem even if the woman and the man and everyone else on earth thinks it's a problem.

You've since added qualifications, which themselves are nonsense for the most part. But still you refuse to accept that the rape is a problem. You keep saying it is not a problem. That a problem is not a problem. That something that happened in the past is not a problem.

You just keep digging. The inane thing is you try to pretend you aren't saying what you keep repeating ad nauseum.

If you make things a problem heedlessly, you can create enormous amounts of harm and suffering... that's a warning which should be heeded.

I am not making rape a problem heedlessly. I have described to you why it is important that society view rape as a problem.

You should heed reality.

Look at nature.

Animal kill and rape animals, trees fall down and smash other trees, hurricanes lay waste to coastlines, volcanoes smother vast swathes of forest. Is any of that death and dying and destruction a problem?

I can't speak for the animals, but I would assume there are some problems involved with their pain. At the very least there is potential there for such to be a problem.

It's a problem if you make it a problem...

No. You are blaming the victim. It is the cause, the actor, that is to blame for whatever problem arises from that action. That is causality.

[Blake]

First off, I apologize for getting argumentative. I'm not meant to do that. But it was April Fools day, and it's nice to make a fool of oneself occasionally, reminds one why one shouldn't do so...

Actually I need to be striving to not offend anyone, it's difficult to understand why that's important, since everyone offends people but it's true. A monk strives to teach without offending and there's a very important reason for that...

So I'm learning to not argue, hahah.

But I want to try and explain WHAT exactly forgiveness means, WHAT it does, WHAT it doesn't and can't do, and WHY it's vitally important for a happy life...


The victim in this story, is a 15 year old girl, furthermore she's a girl whose conduct cannot be faulted by wise men, that doesn't mean immaculately virtuous conduct, but she certainly does the best that anyone could expect of a girl!

This girl IS blossoming into a stunningly beautiful young woman, but she's humble, she like wears jeans and a t-shirt and no makeup, she's not actually even that interested in boys, sure she daydreams about them a lot but she isn't serious about attracting attention, she's a virgin and plans to stay that way for the forseeable future - no sex without true love type morality. She's romantic in that way too. She's a morally outstanding young woman who just happens to be genetically attractive.

She loves the outdoors, she loves walking. She lives in a fairly safe city and often goes for walks through the city parks, sometimes with a friend but more often alone, because her friends are too lazy and don't really understand the point. She walks, daydreams, ocasionally climbs up a tree just for fun.

To be honest, this DOES worry her parents, and even her a little bit, the possibility that she could be assaulted is a real one, but she can run fast and scream really loudly and the city is a fairly safe one and everyone agrees it's better for her to be sitting with her butt in a tree in a park, than with her butt parked in front of a TV or computer. She's getting exercise and fresh air and not rotting her mind.

One day, she attracts the attention of a troubled young man, who is instantly captivated by her beauty and carefree spirit...
Now an important note. In samara (the realm of unsatisfactoriness we live in), a basic rule is you can't win. This girl is obviously going to get raped because she's beautiful. But an ugly girl could get raped because she looks like she has no self-esteem and wont admit to being raped, a girl wearing a burka could get raped under the expectation that shes too oppressed and powerless to say anything. A girl can not win.

The important aspect here for this story, is the man takes ALL the initiative, the girl herself is not taking any initiative at all to attract sexual attention - she's just being her (albeit quirky) self and cannot be faulted.

The man, who also frequents the parks to try and clear his stormy head, can't get the girl off his mind. And he keeps seeing her again and again. Sometimes they even smile at each other, but he doesn't talk to her.
The man is truly smitten by her, that's what beauty can be like - it possess the mind. He fantasizes about her and masturbates a lot.
His feelings keep growing stronger and darker, the autumn fades into winter and the days get shorter, even fewer people are out walking. The girl sticks to her habit of walking home from school through some of the parks, even though due to the high latitude it's nearly dark when she arrives home.

One stormy day, the man makes his move. They pass by each other on the path, he spins around, clubs her over the head and drags her off into the bushes and gags her with ducttape, she struggles fiercely as he tries to undress her, so he kicks her until she stops resisting, then rapes her, afterwards, while she's lying half-naked on the frozen ground, sobbing, her face contorted with pain, he stammers "I could have killed you but I didn't, don't tell anyone", and runs off.

Now stop. If you feel like assigning blame and causality and all that kind of thing or saying what the girl or rapist did wrong (for example, the rapist should have kidnapped her and taken her to a cabin in the woods then killed her afterwards), please do so now. But it's now irrelevant because the rape has happened, it's in the past, and the story is really about forgiveness and not blame.

The girl, distraught, stumbles out to the road (she does pull her pants back on!) and is picked up by a passing motorist and taken to hospital. Amongst other things, she's an artist and when interviewed by the police, draws a perfect sketch of her attacker (whom she had seen plenty of times). He is quickly picked up by the cops and is positively identified by DNA evidence.

The girl spends about a week off school, spends it alone in her room, mostly being very miserable and afraid of the world, people try to comfort her but can't do much. Her parents feel terribly guilty, her friends feel terribly guilty, everyone feels like they COULD have done something, or SHOULD do something now, but no-one can really do much.

Now the girl has a choice: She can forgive, or she can not forgive...
She's a goddamn 15 year old girl. She has no legal influence, with regards to the fate of the rapist, it doesn't matter whether she forgives him or not. If she forgives him, it doesn't mean he gets off scot-free, regardless of what she does, he gets tossed into the slammer for 10 years (or however long it is) all the same. She is UNABLE to change his fate, he chose his fate when he raped her, there is a guarantee that people do bad things to people who do bad things. (even if it's not the only cause of bad things happening - it's not! But it is a big one)
Forgiveness does not change the rapists worldly fate, in the least!!!!

What DIFFERENCE does it make then....?

If she doesn't forgive him, if she hates him forever, if she keeps dwelling on the fact she was raped as a girl, had her virginity stolen from her...
Every time she gets angry that he violated her, he violates her mind again! It fills her mind with pain and suffering. She can spend a lifetime being violated by him, again and again and again...

There is only ONE good reason for her to forgive him, for her to NOT make the rape a problem...
Forgiveness, not making the rape a problem, makes it possible for her to have a happy future...
That's the one and only good reason to forgive. To have a happy and free future.

In this case, the girl is a contemplative! So after a week of misery, she stops to think and realize some things.
Firstly, she doesn't WANT to be afraid to be outside the house! She enjoyed walking around the city, and dammit, she wants to keep on doing and enjoying just that! It shouldn't be any less enjoyable just because she got raped!
Secondly, she doesn't WANT to be afraid of men and sex! She still likes boys, she still has a head full of romantic dreams.
She doesn't WANT to feel like a victim! Dammit, she doesn't want anyone getting in the way of her dreams.
She develops RESOLVE to make peace with her problem.

Just two weeks after being raped, she demands to see and talk to the rapist. A week later she gets her request.
She walks into the room, lets the massive attack of fear subside, and says "Um... I really hate what you did to me, I wish you'd never done that, and I hope you never do anything like that again!
But... but I forgive you, I'm not going to spend my life hating you"
The rapist stares at his hands and doesn't say anything. She pauses uncertainly for almost a minute, then pushes something onto the desk and walks out the room. It's a piece of art she made for him, a rendering of a park in a storm, with the words "PLEASE NEVER AGAIN".
Note: Forgiveness does not necessarily have to be to the perpetrators face. If for example, he had immediately run away, out onto the road and got squished by a 10 ton lorry, then that kind of forgiveness would never even be possible. There are women who never forgive, even after the attacker is long dead, they still don't forgive. The louder you forgive, the more powerful it is. The loudest form of forgiveness is that spoken and heard meaningfully...
But if needed, forgiveness can be an internalized thing instead. It depends on the circumstances.
But it's vitally important it be done, if one wishes to have happiness.

The girl, being a contemplative, does force herself to question if anything she did help lead to her being raped. She's forced to admit that it happened because she walked alone - but she couldn't deny that it was WORTH IT, the walking and climbing trees thing! She wasn't going to stop walking alone just to avoid the possibility of being raped. She also realized that any other activity carried dangers, like driving a car involves car crashes, sitting in front of a computer, obesity, that kind of thing.
She decides that her being raped was a freak occurrence more than anything, that no precedent had been set, and she really has nothing to afraid of.

STILL, despite that, and partly to make her parents a little bit happier (really, she hates how much she worries her parents even when doing what they approve of, it's all very confusing!), she takes a self-defense course and later enrolls in martial arts too. She figures if she's more aware, more confident and has a greater ability to fight, she'll be much, much safer walking alone. She excels in these lessons and it does bring a lot of comfort to her parents and lots of confidence to her.

The rape, does still remain a problem for her, ocasionally. When she first walked back through the parks, a lot of fear rose up inside her, a crippling pain kind of like having a poker stabbed into her guts and stirred around in there, she could barely take a step forward! She stopped and sat down, and thought "It's only fear, there's nothing to be afraid of, I don't have to let it control me...", she sat until it subsided, and got up and kept walking, it was not going to control her.
When she was 18 years old and in her first really serious relationship, her boyfriend (a boy she met at marital arts class) was undressing her, she had an attack of fear, the memory of a man's hand pressing hard into her naked resisting body, the convolutions and the terror. She asks her boyfriend to slow down, while she lets the fear subside, saying firmly "mind, it's not a problem anymore, I'm safe now". They take it slowly, she had chosen her boyfriend sensibly, he was a young man capable of restraint.
These were by no means the only instances of panic-attacks, but she never let herself be a victim to her past, she dealt with the effects as they came up and let go of them. They could never control her happiness.

The rape had one other major consequence. She had always dreamed of being an artist, that was like a constant dream, what she always wanted to do. But she ended up working as a therapist instead, to help rape victims make peace with what had happened to them. One thing she realized, is that while being an artist would have been nice, while art is nice, what she was doing was not only nice, but actually important too! (but she did of course do art as a hobby!)
In her role as therapist, she drew a lot from her own experience, especially in how she coped. In particular, she advised and encouraged her patients to take self-defense courses and other lessons which improve self-confidence and assertiveness, which while unable to change the past, do make for a much easier future, make it much easier to deal with the aftereffects of trauma. She did not in general make it a point to encourage her patients to forgive their perpetrators, while it was valuable for her, she recognized that most of the girls did NOT have the balls-out courage to do that, so she worked on cultivating that kind of confidence and courage.


That MAY express what I mean by "rape in the past is not a problem unless you make it a problem", and my assertion it is BEST to not make it a problem.

If the girl in the story DID make it a problem, she would not have been able to leave the house, she would have kept worrying her parents and friends sick (because they continue to blame themselves for not being able to do something, until she recovers), she would not have been able to have a happy and healthy sexual relationship, or enjoy a lot of things in life.
That is why it's VITALLY important to only make things in the past a problem, when you're doing something about it. For example, taking self-defense and martial arts, was clearly doing something about it to make it not a problem, so when I say that rape should be not a problem, I say it is best for rape in the past to be not a problem, that is what the victim MUST strive for, for the rape to be not a problem, and she can do that by doing something about it or by making peace with it.
Making the rape a problem, hurts everyone, it hurts her, it hurts her family, it hurts her friends, it hurts her boyfriend. It makes her a problem for them. That is the nature of problems, they multiply and proliferate, not just in your own mind, but in other peoples minds too.
You can't (morally) punish someone for making something a problem, it's not wrong in the sense it must be punished, if you punish someone for making something a proiblem, it just creates lots more problems. They aren't making it a problem because they want to, but because they don't have the skill to solve it or make peace with it! You should never punish someone for doing something they don't want to be doing... it is much better to simply encourage them to stop doing it.
Making things a problem needlessly, is just wrong in the sense that it doesn't lead to happiness, it doesn't lead to freedom from suffering.



There's one final thing I want to say. Usually when attacking someone, you try to find a chink in their armor, and then press the attack there.

That's not how Buddhism works, Buddhism is NOT perfect and is never meant to be so you will easily find weak points to assault, if you look for them. Every single buddhist who is not an Arahat, still has the weaknesses of greed, hatred, delusion, pride etc etc. Even arahats still have the weakness of a frail body, the weakness of having to use language which will not be comprehended perfectly...
If you look for weaknesses, you will find them.

The question is, whether you are seeking to understand, or seeking to win.
My life improved immeasurably, when I stopped seeking to attain some kind of victory, and started seeking to understand. There is so much satisfaction to be found, in understanding stuff, whether that understanding comes through learning something new, or unlearning something which turned out to be false.

Victory is very transient, once you get it, you quickly lose it, you have to keep fighting, and that is very tiring, you end up having little energy for anything else.

Getting along with people, involves understanding them. Conflict with people, involves attaining victory over them.

[Aeson]

Blake,

No one in this thread [so far] is saying that forgiveness is a bad thing. Check my sig in fact... "To understand all, is to forgive all." While I can't understand all, I can at least understand the abstract concept that there are reasons for any action, even those I can't understand. I can understand that negative thoughts are not productive. Forgiveness is both useful and a honest end to accurate analysis. I've posted about this quite a bit before.

But forgiveness does not mean ignoring reality. You cannot forgive if you don't think there was responsibility in the first place. You hide away from "blame" as if it were a terrible thing, but being able to accurately assign responsibility for acts is the key to all understanding. This is what "blame" is when dealing with a negative act or circumstance. (Certainly blame can be misused, and very often is. Any inaccurate assessment is a problem.)

Forgiveness is not apathy, it requires addressing the issue directly. Moreso than hatred or fear, or any other instinctive reaction to a wrong committed. The same understanding that helps lead to forgiveness also identifies what went wrong, and so hopefully you can better prevent the problem from occurring again. Any accurate assessment of an act or situation is a benefit. It can still be misused, like any tool, but understanding is important. (Even forgiveness can be misused. When you stop trying to understand what you are forgiving, it can gloss over problems that need to be addressed, so they keep arising again and again.)

In the case of rape, the decision to rape is where the blame for the act lies. Not the inputs, as they will effect various outputs from person to person. Understanding why the rape happens requires understanding the fault which lies within the rapist. The inability, or unwillingness to control their sexual instincts. The factors that go into creating those types of faults are myriad.

But the way a girl looks, or where she chooses to go, is not one of them. That is just the input that the fault eventually works off of (generally speaking), and sometimes the opportunity for it to express itself.

The rape is purely a product of the nature of the rapist. It is by definition their choice (or nature) that will determine if there is a rape [attempt] or not in a given situation.

You can understand that nature, and see that it really isn't their fault that they've become that way, in effect, forgive them their fault... but it doesn't lessen the damaging nature of the act, or the need to protect ourselves from such acts which infringe upon the rights of others.

I don't think jail should be about punishment. I've stated so many times on these boards. Jail is about society protecting itself from those who have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to refrain from harming those around them.

Now stop. If you feel like assigning blame and causality and all that kind of thing or saying what the girl or rapist did wrong (for example, the rapist should have kidnapped her and taken her to a cabin in the woods then killed her afterwards), please do so now. But it's now irrelevant because the rape has happened, it's in the past, and the story is really about forgiveness and not blame.

He raped her. That is ultimately what he was at fault for. This was (in part) the result of previous things he was at fault for... obsessing over her.

It is not irrelevant because only by understanding what was wrong can you hope to prevent it from happening again in the future. The girl enjoying the outdoors is not a fault. being able to choose where you go and what you do is a basic and fundamental right that all people have to have protected. Otherwise we all become slaves.

Forgiveness does not change the rapists worldly fate, in the least!!!!

And that is because there is a very real need for people to protect themselves from those who do not respect their rights. Protecting society does not mean you cannot forgive. It means you understand the threats that are present. It means identifying problems that need to be addressed. It means having codes of conduct which will be enforced.

The question is, whether you are seeking to understand, or seeking to win.

This is the type of pretention than gets you in trouble. The good ideas you have are not exclusive to Buddhism. (Nor are the bad.) But you present Buddhist thought as something better than what everyone else thinks, the way, rather than simply rely on the subject matter.

If it is a question of rape, you make it a question of Buddhism. If it is a question of healthy eating, you make it a question of Buddhism. If it is a question of anything... you make it a question of Buddhism. It is a failing to do so. The answers are correct in and of themselves without reliance upon the ideologies (as they are many and varied in most cases) that encompass them. There is no need for trying to "claim" those ideas to a certain ideology. When you do, you end up arguing with those who you agree with about the subject matter, or needing to twist the definition of words to pretend like you are saying something wise and enlightened that other people don't understand. When in reality you are making absurd statements like "a problem is not a problem". That type of expression is a problem for anyone seeking understanding, because it is obtuse. (A trick "wise" men try to use to distance themselves from the "mundane"... instead of actually saying what they mean, they say it in a difficult to comprehend way, and come off looking like fools to anyone who sees through it. It's also a good trick for forum trolls )

You say you are seeking to understand, but you sound like you are seeking to teach us. In effect, "win" by showing off some "enlightenment".

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson
But forgiveness does not mean ignoring reality. You cannot forgive if you don't think there was responsibility in the first place. You hide away from "blame" as if it were a terrible thing, but being able to accurately assign responsibility for acts is the key to all understanding. This is what "blame" is when dealing with a negative act or circumstance. (Certainly blame can be misused, and very often is. Any inaccurate assessment is a problem.)

Blame isn't a terrible thing, it's just useless...

It might be semantical squabbling but I don't think so.

In Buddhism (I mean, in Buddhist understanding, it's NOT invented by buddhism or monopolized by buddhism ), people tend to do things because they are CONDITIONED.

I see this in the father Kane, and his son. The son imitates his father, it's uncanny. The father yells at the dog and calls it a bastard, the son yells at the dog and calls it a bastard.
The father takes something of his son and yells at him, the son takes something of his little sister and yells at her.
This conditioning runs deep....

In buddhism, we understand the conditioning and we break the conditioning.

If you please, you could say we blame peoples conditioning, then we work to uncondition them.

Unconditioning cannot be done through punishment, it simply doesn't work. In fact, conditioning is mostly done through punishment. As in:
"The father takes something of his son and yells at him, the son takes something of his little sister and yells at her."

The father punishes his son due to conditioning, and the son punishes his little sister due to conditioning.

When you start looking at this, you see it's very, very true. People are conditioned by reward and punishment.

You can condition people to do some really screwy things, that's what army training is. It conditions people to kill. People can be conditioned into becoming slaves, there's all sorts of ways you can condition people to do things and act in certain ways.

Buddhism un-conditions people of illwill, and conditions good will in them. This is DIFFICULT to do, because people are very, very easily conditioned to act in unskillful ways

The same understanding that helps lead to forgiveness also identifies what went wrong, and so hopefully you can better prevent the problem from occurring again. Any accurate assessment of an act or situation is a benefit. It can still be misused, like any tool, but understanding is important.

You're right. It's always important to understand what's going on, to attempt to understand what's going on. But a lot of people just look at what happened, and don't ACTUALLY look at what's actually going on.

They just say "That is what happened".

They don't try and investigate WHY it happened...

Blame is saying "That is what happened"...

Investigation is learning "Why it happened"...

(Even forgiveness can be misused. When you stop trying to understand what you are forgiving, it can gloss over problems that need to be addressed, so they keep arising again and again.)

There is such a thing as empty apology, empty forgiveness. I'd actually say it's very EASY to misuse them, some people are conditioned to just say sorry every time they do something wrong. And they think that someone absolves them of doing the wrong thing.

Someone on the Buddhist path is guaranteed to do wrong things sometimes (I'm not claiming Buddhism monopolizes doing wrong things!!!)... and when they say sorry, they say it with the resolve to NEVER repeat that wrong conduct. If they don't they're just falling victim to the conditioning of empty apologies...

That is what is expected of Buddhists - and it is not monopolized by Buddhism nor does Buddhism want to monopolize it. Buddhism just enshrines that kind of honesty.

In the case of rape, the decision to rape is where the blame for the act lies. Not the inputs, as they will effect various outputs from person to person. Understanding why the rape happens requires understanding the fault which lies within the rapist. The inability, or unwillingness to control their sexual instincts. The factors that go into creating those types of faults are myriad.

They are so many that you would go crazy trying to understand them.
It turns out that it's a lot easier to unravel them to understand them.

But the way a girl looks, or where she chooses to go, is not one of them. That is just the input that the fault eventually works off of (generally speaking), and sometimes the opportunity for it to express itself.

It is one of the factors, you may not want it to be one of the factors, but it is. A man rapes a woman because he desires her, and that desire stems in part from how she looks.

That is what investigation says is a simple fact. You know you could just agree with me here .

I'm not saying that a man is justified in raping a woman because of the way she looks - a man is NEVER justified in raping a woman, but the way she looks does form a part of his desire and it's important if you wish to understand how desire works, how a man is led to rape.

He see something he likes (a woman) and thinks "I want that", and something inside forces him to try and get it, sometimes that something gets so strong, it compels him to act.

That "something" can't be suppressed by punishment because it can just keep getting stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger until all the willpower in the world can't hold it back, all the fear in the world can't hold it back....

The rape is purely a product of the nature of the rapist. It is by definition their choice (or nature) that will determine if there is a rape [attempt] or not in a given situation.

A rape is created by a combination of choice and conditioning.

A man will ALWAYS resist the urge to rape, part of human nature is the will to do good, the will to not cause harm. That resistance is his "free will" or "conscious choice", the thing which he is resisting against, is his conditioning. The conditioning has taken a long time to build up.

You can understand that nature, and see that it really isn't their fault that they've become that way, in effect, forgive them their fault... but it doesn't lessen the damaging nature of the act, or the need to protect ourselves from such acts which infringe upon the rights of others.

Forgiveness is for the victim, but for the rapist, he needs guidance in breaking down his conditioning. That is how re-offending is avoided.

The conditioning which causes an act, is not weakened by punishment for the act. That is why punishment doesn't work.

In some cases you can condition someone with something even stronger than the original conditioning. I certainly noticed that in myself!
As a kid I would sometimes do "bad things", that is things other people didn't want me to do. So they conditioned me not to, they conditioned me by instilling fear in me, until the fear-conditioning overcame the desire-conditioning.
The problem was, I was then afflicted both by desire-conditioning, and fear-conditioning. I still wanted what I desired, but I also had to deal with the new fear conditioning.
So this is a cruel but sadly not unusual way, to prevent people trying to get what they are conditioned to desire - condition them with enough fear to override it!

The problem with this approach (BESIDES screwing up peoples heads in horribly anguishing ways), is some desire is just TOO strong to override that way. Lust is THE strongest form of conditioning of them all. You CANNOT condition a rapist to not rape through fear of punishment, because Lust > Fear, lust is simply a stronger emotion than fear. So when lust has grown monstrously powerful in a man, when he sees a woman he lusts after, that conditioning takes control and compels him to get her. There will be fear saying "But I'll be punished" and somewhere will be this little voice saying "but it's not right", but the lust conditioning will overpower all of that.

There is sufficient punishment to prevent a man raping again, it's called death penalty. Altough the reason he doesn't rape again is because he's dead, not because of fear of punishment.

But the humane way, is to weaken the conditioning. Realistically speaking, lust can't be broken by mortals. Lust is just such a powerful form of conditioning because much of it comes from the body itself - it comes from evolution, that command to have sex with everything which moves in order to maximize genetic success.
But it can certainly be weakened!

The way to do that is firstly to keep the man far away from the object of desire, once the object of desire is in his face, the lust takes control, and he basically BECOMES his conditioning, it takes control of him. So he needs to be removed from it, that is important.

Then he needs to weaken the conditioning, when it rears up and commands him to find women to have sex with, then hopefully in the absence of "fuel" he will be able to hear the voice which says "That's not right", and he needs to prefer that voice over the one which says "find women to have sex with!".
As he preferentially listens more to the "be nice and gentle" voice, and less to the "if it moves, have sex with it!" voice, the conditioning to rape (have sex at any cost) will weaken, and the conditioning to be nice will get stronger. It's really pretty much that easy - what you listen to, you get better at hearing...

After spending a long time doing that kind of contemplation, NOT listening to the voice which tells him to rape, the conditioning which tells him to rape, then eventually when he sees a women, his conditioning to rape, wont be able to overpower his desire to treat people with respect.

There is a catch here - you can't FORCE someone to weaken their conditioning, forcing only ever conditions, and never weakens conditions, and there's no exceptions to that. You can't force a conditioning to weaken...

That means it is something THEY themselves must do, other people can only provide guidance and help keep them away from the object of desire - that's all....

Well actually, other people can also offer inspiration. Inspiration is basically, the realization that there is another way.

That is why SHOWING an abused or abusive person some kindness, can be very powerful. When I myself first saw that powerful kind of good-will, I looked inside myself and found it inside me - I'd been neglecting the voice of good-will in favor of my conditioning to be apathetic.

Rehabilitation thus requires:
Inspiration, guidance and a good environment (distance from object of desire)

I don't think jail should be about punishment. I've stated so many times on these boards. Jail is about society protecting itself from those who have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to refrain from harming those around them.

Well at least we agree that punishment solves nothing.

But obviously I think that a Buddhist Monastery model of prison, would be much more effective than a Punitive model of prison.

For example, in a Prison, there is TV and magazines. A rapist gets to see pretty girls, as many pretty girls as he desires, as often as he desires. He has no distance from his object of desire and thus cannot weaken his conditioning.
He can't actually HURT those objects of desire because they are just ink blots and pixels...
But nor can he help himself in that environment.

So I think that Prisons should be much harsher in some ways (separation from what you desire), but much kinder in other ways (not being treated as a bad person).

He raped her. That is ultimately what he was at fault for. This was (in part) the result of previous things he was at fault for... obsessing over her.

It is not irrelevant because only by understanding what was wrong can you hope to prevent it from happening again in the future. The girl enjoying the outdoors is not a fault. being able to choose where you go and what you do is a basic and fundamental right that all people have to have protected. Otherwise we all become slaves.

Bah, we are slaves to conditioning anyway.

And that is because there is a very real need for people to protect themselves from those who do not respect their rights. Protecting society does not mean you cannot forgive. It means you understand the threats that are present. It means identifying problems that need to be addressed. It means having codes of conduct which will be enforced.

Buddhism has a great many codes of conduct, but no enforcement whatsoever.

This is the type of pretention than gets you in trouble. The good ideas you have are not exclusive to Buddhism. (Nor are the bad.)

Sorry if it sounded like that, I didn't mean it. I just mean that Buddhism enshrines those kind of values, they are central to Buddhism. They are what Buddhism is built around.

But you present Buddhist thought as something better than what everyone else thinks, the way, rather than simply rely on the subject matter.

well, the thing is, it does lead to freedom from suffering, it does lead to happiness... so *shrug*, from my perspective and experience it is better. But I do acknowledge that's subjective, you may take it or leave it.

If it is a question of rape, you make it a question of Buddhism.

I'm a buddhist

If it is a question of healthy eating, you make it a question of Buddhism.

I'm a buddhist

If it is a question of anything... you make it a question of Buddhism.

I'm a buddhist

It is a failing to do so.

Maybe you just don't understand what Buddhists tend to do
It is a failing in your eyes... but I am not trying to please you, so it is not a failing in my eyes.

The answers are correct in and of themselves without reliance upon the ideologies (as they are many and varied in most cases) that encompass them. There is no need for trying to "claim" those ideas to a certain ideology.

I apologize if it seemed I was claiming them and saying no-one except Buddhists are allowed to use them. The Buddha didn't "invent" good will or virtue or anything, he just made it very, very important.
And I am a buddhist

When you do, you end up arguing with those who you agree with about the subject matter, or needing to twist the definition of words to pretend like you are saying something wise and enlightened that other people don't understand.

I'm not trying to make other people not understand, sorry!
If I make people feel stupid, I'm doing a very poor job :sad:.

When in reality you are making absurd statements like "a problem is not a problem". That type of expression is a problem for anyone seeking understanding, because it is obtuse. (A trick "wise" men try to use to distance themselves from the "mundane"... instead of actually saying what they mean, they say it in a difficult to comprehend way, and come off looking like fools to anyone who sees through it. It's also a good trick for forum trolls )

Actually, you're right...

I call that "Zen Style", and it's very annoying....

Forest Monks do NOT do that, but Zen Style is obviously an easy trap for Buddhists to fall into, else there wouldn't be Zen Buddhism!

You say you are seeking to understand, but you sound like you are seeking to teach us. In effect, "win" by showing off some "enlightenment".

Well, it's a tricky thing. I am trying to both teach and learn. That is - I am trying to teach, and I'm trying to become a better teacher.
I am not ashamed of that, nor ashamed to admit it.

Remember that I believe that inspiration is vitally important - someone CAN NOT inspire, without appearing, at least to some people, to be showing off....
In fact, the girl who inspired me to start "breaking my conditioning", induced two voices in me:
"Who the hell is she to pretend she is wise enough to say that sort of thing?! How pretentious!"
and
"Wait... she's right"

In the end I listened to "Wait... she's right", and that was my inspiration.
I think about 1000 people listened to what she said... and maybe 1 or 2 were actually inspired . I think the other 998-999 just thought she was arrogant.

I am thus not afraid of being accused of being pretentious, in fact I acknowledge I will be accused of being pretentious, probably by the vast majority of people.

I may be entirely failing to inspire - but do remember, I was serious about what I said, about experimenting. I experiment, most early experiments go badly but I swear I do learn from them and I value the results, whatever they may be.

I hope that as an old monk, only about 50-90% of people will find me pretentious. That would be a good target.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Blame isn't a terrible thing, it's just useless...

No, blame is important in being able to understand why negative issues occur. You pretend you aren't blaming, trying to twist the meaning of the term to something more akin to "condemn for being evil", but blaming is what you are doing when you ascribe responsibility for a problem onto the one "making it a problem".

If you please, you could say we blame peoples conditioning, then we work to uncondition them.

"Blame is useless"? Now you outline a method of blame that you use. You seem to delight in contradicting yourself.

Blame is saying "That is what happened"...

No, blame is attributing responsibility for an action or circumstance (generally negative) to a cause. It is "That is the reason it happened"...

Investigation is learning "Why it happened"...

The natural outcome of which is to understand what happened and assigning responsibility (that is, "blame" if negative) to the factors involved.

It is one of the factors, you may not want it to be one of the factors, but it is. A man rapes a woman because he desires her, and that desire stems in part from how she looks.

You weren't listening to what I said. I specified that the factors I was refering to were those that lead to the inability or unwillingness of the man to control his sexual instincts. That is what rape stems from. Nothing more.

What a person looks like is data, not a proceedure. The rape stems from a faulty proceedure.

The way someone looks is a factor in attraction, but attraction is not rape. Attraction is not a problem. The rapist takes something benign, and through a fault within themselves, chooses to rape.

That is what investigation says is a simple fact. You know you could just agree with me here .

I would be incorrect if I did so. You are incorrect that the responsibility for the rape lies with the victim. You blame the victim. You are incorrect.

A man will ALWAYS resist the urge to rape, part of human nature is the will to do good, the will to not cause harm. That resistance is his "free will" or "conscious choice", the thing which he is resisting against, is his conditioning. The conditioning has taken a long time to build up.

I don't think it is correct to say that a man will always resist the urge. Some are born (or develope very early in life perhaps) a complete disregard for the rights of others. Others will adopt those views later. (As some can overcome it.)

You CANNOT condition a rapist to not rape through fear of punishment, because Lust > Fear, lust is simply a stronger emotion than fear.

That is a value judgement that will vary from person to person. There are actually people who do not have sexual impulses (or negative ones), as there are people who are completely overwhelmed by their sexual impulses. There are people who do not fear much, if anything. Then there are others who quiver in terror even when there is nothing to fear at all.

(That is not to say punishment is a good conditioning, as I don't think it is either. I am just pointing out a flaw in what you are supporting it with. And as I have already stated my stance on this issue, and forgiveness in general, I have no idea what your purpose is trying to convince me of the truth of what I've already stated I think. Are you still trying to teach me what I already know?)

Bah, we are slaves to conditioning anyway.

That is just a weak attempt to obfuscate the issue by insinuating that one restriction being present means all restrictions would be fine. It fails utterly. It would disregard the sex trade and say it is ok. It would disregard a return to slavery. It would disregard any infringement on people's rights and say it's ok.

"Bah, we are slaves to conditioning anyway."

How enlightened

Sorry if it sounded like that, I didn't mean it. I just mean that Buddhism enshrines those kind of values, they are central to Buddhism. They are what Buddhism is built around.

You claim that you are trying to learn, but you ignore every opportunity. You apologize for what it sounded like, and then go on to sound exactly the same.

well, the thing is, it does lead to freedom from suffering, it does lead to happiness... so *shrug*, from my perspective and experience it is better. But I do acknowledge that's subjective, you may take it or leave it.

Drop the word "Buddhism" and all such references from the ideology and your arguments. Is it then any less effective? If not, you agree with my point that you do not need to bring Buddhism into a debate. (In any case you certainly do not need to do so in virtually every paragraph like you do...)

I'm a buddhist

We know that. It's like you won some medal for enlightenment and can't help yourself from brandishing it about regardless of the issue at hand. The majority of your posts read as, "Look at me! I'm Buddhist and you should try to be enlightened too! Oh, did I mention that I'm Buddhist?"

I'm not trying to make other people not understand, sorry!
If I make people feel stupid, I'm doing a very poor job :sad:.

I was not saying you make people feel stupid. That you read it that way belies your egotism and the derogatory nature you assume of the reader.

I was saying you may confuse people about what you are actually saying (they will probably think you sound stupid), and you make yourself look inane to those who see through what you are saying, as all you are doing is trying to twist truths to deny them and sound enlightened. "A problem is not a problem".

Actually, you're right...

I call that "Zen Style", and it's very annoying....

It is what you have been resorting to very frequently.

Well, it's a tricky thing. I am trying to both teach and learn. That is - I am trying to teach, and I'm trying to become a better teacher.
I am not ashamed of that, nor ashamed to admit it.

I do not need a teacher, thanks. When you come here and address me (and I would assume others have a reaction) with the intent to teach, you are going to come off as pretentious. That is because you are starting from a pretentious position that I need your teaching, and that you are capable of teaching me. I neither want nor need your teaching about how rape is not a problem, problems are not problems, rape is not rape, and other inane things you are trying to pass off as enlightenment.

If on the other hand you are willing to discuss issues simply as people offering their thoughts to each other, and not need to keep pointing out your Buddhism as if it's somehow relevent, then perhaps learning will be better served all around. All I see you doing here is alienating people from the concepts you ascribe to Buddhism. You understand this will be the effect (as later noted) and yet continue to act in the manner you know will not be very effective. This goes back to refute your whole train of thought about how someone should be efficient with their efforts. You are intentionally being ineffective at your "teaching" methods.

Remember that I believe that inspiration is vitally important - someone CAN NOT inspire, without appearing, at least to some people, to be showing off....

It is pretentious and showing off to point out your qualities that you hope will inspire others. As is refering to what you are doing as "inspiring" others.

A person who lives their life in such a manner that they inspire others without having to draw attention to what it is that inspires... that is inspiring.

In the end I listened to "Wait... she's right", and that was my inspiration.
I think about 1000 people listened to what she said... and maybe 1 or 2 were actually inspired . I think the other 998-999 just thought she was arrogant.

That you insinuate that your actions here equate with her's (which I can't comment on since I am not familiar with her, but that you call inspiring) shows that you are arrogant. If you are right, you don't have to say that you are right. If you are inspiring people, you don't have to tell them you are inspiring them. You certainly don't need to add passive aggressive statements to the effect that, "Oh, if only you would listen to the voice in your head saying that what I have said is right... you too could be enlightened like me!"

That is a common theme with discussing anything with you these days. Instead of just dealing with the issue you start talking about how what you are saying "just makes sense to people" and that's why it's true, ignoring that it doesn't make sense to most anyone you are talking to.

The truth, or lack thereof, of what you say will be apparent enough. If the message isn't getting through, perhaps you should re-evaluate the message and/or it's delivery, because it clearly isn't achieving your stated purposes.