The Danes really have it going for them

[Blake]

I don't understand sin. I do understand cause-effect.

[DanS]

More's the pity.

[Blake]

Ah, I see you belong to a ideology which doesn't promote explaining things to those who profess to not understand.

[onodera]

Actually, breasts are pretty much desexualized in different savage tribes of Equatorial and New Guineas. I mean, how can long droopy sacks be sexual?
And people who took part in the Burning Man festival where toplessness is common report that they stopped getting aroused from seeing so many (perky and full in that case too) breasts on their second day there.

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

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.)

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.

A problem is something with a solution.

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.

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.

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.

There is no solution for things which happened in the past, they've already happened, are in the past, are not problems.

I don't understand sin. I do understand cause-effect.

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

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. 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.

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

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.

[Blake]

Aeson,
I simply don't bother with "blame" at all. I simply take the approach of understanding what happened, the cause and effect.

I seek to understand the cause and effect both from the angle of the rapist and the angle of the young woman.


Now lets get something straight.

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

If I spend energy making it my problem, I'm just wasting that energy. I'm wasting that thought needlessly, when I could be using it constructively.

Here is how rape is a problem for me.

I sometimes offer attractive young women advice. I often offer people the advice of "Go for long walks alone to sort out your thoughts in an environment free of distraction"
When I talk to young women, the fact that they are attractive targets for rapists is on my mind, and I exercise restraint when offering this advice. I don't feel it is safe for a young woman to walk alone so I reaffirm her own view that it is unsafe to walk alone at night and such. But I do think it's quite safe to walk alone in a city during the day time and to walk alone in wilderness areas very far from people.
When offering a young woman advice, I make a best faith effort to ensure that my advice (if she follows it) will reduce the possibility that she comes to harm, and rape is one of the biggest harms which can happen to a young woman.
Do you understand how that is my problem in that case? It's my advice, if my advice could lead to her being raped, that would be bad advice and a problem for me.

How exactly would it be useful for me to tell a young woman that she should do what she likes and if she happens to get raped, she can just blame the rapist??? How is that useful to me or her?

Don't you understand how important it is that young women conduct themselves in a way which reduce the probability of them being raped? It's very important to them! And if it's a female I care about, it's important to me too.


I do talk to some criminals too (this is like a hobby, it's what i do in my spare time instead of playing video games). However, I don't suspect any of them as being potential rapists. Were I to get in touch with someone who I suspect at being at risk of committing rape, I would use all my wisdom to guide them away from that path, to help them overcome such overbearing desire. It may not work, but I'd do what I'm able.

How can I do more than that?

You may feel free to "enlighten" me, on how it is useful to worry myself about things which aren't my problem, when I'm quite busy enough as it is applying my effort where it actually does real good...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Btw, it's not that funny to be a dane especially if you are a politician - last week the news went bezerk just because a member of the social democrats had sex with a 15 year old girl

Well, for once the medias made a fault - both opposition politicians and the public supported the guy, so there are still hope that society won't be controlled by journalists.

And what was the age of the politician? Even if not illegal, if he's not a guy below his mid 20s, I consider this behavior pretty sick and semi-pedophile.

[Winston]

Ankles

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

If I spend energy making it my problem, I'm just wasting that energy. I'm wasting that thought needlessly, when I could be using it constructively.

So you don't consider it your problem that people are conducting crimes, perhaps even in your general area?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Winston

Ankles

I'll pander to your fetish.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


And what was the age of the politician? Even if not illegal, if he's not a guy below his mid 20s, I consider this behavior pretty sick and semi-pedophile.

He's 34. Eeeew, huh?

But he could easily be as young as ... um, 28. Never mind.

I don't think it's fair to accuse the man of 'semi-pedophilia' from the little information we have though.

[Winston]

Well, he is a Social Democrat. Who's to say what's fair.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
I simply don't bother with "blame" at all. I simply take the approach of understanding what happened, the cause and effect.

Understanding that something is a problem is not blame. Ascribing responsibility for the problem is blame. You are blaming the victim with your claims that a woman is responsible for being raped.

The rape itself is not the victims fault. It is a fault within the rapist. This is illustrated clearly by observing that not everyone rapes a woman who is dressed provocatively. It is a degenerate condition within the rapist that takes otherwise harmless input and generates a harmful response.

I seek to understand the cause and effect both from the angle of the rapist and the angle of the young woman.

That is fine. You are just screwing up somewhere along the way and coming to an asinine conclusion that the victim is to blame for looking attractive or not hiding away in a box.

Now lets get something straight.

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

If I spend energy making it my problem, I'm just wasting that energy. I'm wasting that thought needlessly, when I could be using it constructively.

As a society we form legal systems to protect ourselves. Rape is an affront to what we have deemed our legal rights. As such it is everyone's problem, an assault not only on the person themselves, but upon our society as a whole. This is why we have made laws to prosecute those who rape. As a deterrent to those who would rape, and a recourse for protecting society from future attacks by those who would ignore our rights. By "making it your problem", we are standing together against a common enemy.

With a logical implementation of your line of thinking we would have no laws. It would not be your problem until it had happened to you or someone you knew, at which point it would be in the past and thus not a problem anymore.

Do you understand how that is my problem in that case? It's my advice, if my advice could lead to her being raped, that would be bad advice and a problem for me.

That would certainly be a problem. But since your advice would be in the past, shouldn't you be claiming that it isn't a problem?

How exactly would it be useful for me to tell a young woman that she should do what she likes and if she happens to get raped, she can just blame the rapist??? How is that useful to me or her?

You do not have to tell a woman how to act. Adults have minds of their own. (You may be responsible for certain dependents, like a daughter until she is old enough to make her own way in life.) People should be free to act the way they want so long as they are not hindering the rights of others.

Rape is hindering the rights of others.
Dressing provocatively is not.

Feel free to give advice to help prevent problems from occurring. Realize that women have a right to go out in public even if it increases the danger that they will be assaulted. Your argument is a futile one, as it's natural conclusion is that we all have to hide ourselves away and not take any risks.

Don't blame the victim.

How can I do more than that?

By not blaming the victim. By admitting that those who you don't know have rights and that it is in all our best interests to protect the rights of everyone, not just our own.

You may feel free to "enlighten" me, on how it is useful to worry myself about things which aren't my problem, when I'm quite busy enough as it is applying my effort where it actually does real good...

It is useful to join together in common causes, as individually we are weaker than we are united.

It is useful to identify problems so that they can be addressed and prevented. You yourself are doing this, but in a completely inane way where you pretend the act you are trying to prevent is actually not a problem at all if it doesn't affect you directly, and even if it did affect you directly, that it would not be a problem as it is in past.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Monk


He's 34. Eeeew, huh?

But he could easily be as young as ... um, 28. Never mind.

I don't think it's fair to accuse the man of 'semi-pedophilia' from the little information we have though.

You're right, the accusation of semi-pedophilia is wrong in a way: probably the girl has actual breasts and triggered "normal" sexual appetite.
Still, he's more than double her age! 15 years old girls are definitely not among my prey, even if she was a bomb, simply because of the immaturity, they're still in development, half children, and you notice it in everything they do. It smells like exploiting, teens should explore with teens, not with elected representatives who get bored of their wives.

@Winston: If he was a conservative, this would be about a 13 years old boy.

[onodera]

Ew, that's some ugly ankles.