The Danes really have it going for them

[Monk]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
@Winston: If he was a conservative, this would be about a 13 years old boy.

...like it happened just three years ago. Except he was a liberal, but I'll grant you the difference is so-so in today's politics. Have you been paying attention or is this a freak coincidence?

[Winston]

15, 13.. It's kind of refreshing though that politicians have an eye for buggering other people than just the voters.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Monk


...like it happened just three years ago. Except he was a liberal, but I'll grant you the difference is so-so in today's politics. Have you been paying attention or is this a freak coincidence?

Pure coincidence, but this stuff always seems to happen.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson
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.

It is verifiably useful to abandon concepts of "blame" and "deserves".

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.

And assigning blame helps to correct this condition how?

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.

Aeson, lets look at this carefully.

I maintain, that through skillful guidance, the probability that a young woman can be raped is greatly reduced.

These advices would mainly be:
1) Avoid walking alone at night.
2) Avoid the party scene.

Of course the advices have to be given in a sufficiently skillful way that they are actually taking on board. It has to be solicited advice.

Now if you accept that it IS possible to reduce the probability of a woman getting raped by helping her to develop responsible conduct (ie avoiding putting herself into harms way for a bad cause), then you have to acknowledge that when a woman gets raped, the cause/conditions are partially her conduct. If this wasn't true, then there wouldn't be anything you could teach a young woman you care for to reduce the probability of her being raped.


It is partially her conduct and partially the rapists conduct. You can't have a rape without two parties. Wait a second: Rape is a party for two. No, that's just terrible! Moving on.

I don't see where it is helpful to assign blame, when you can simply look at what happens, what causes harm and suffering, and avoid those causes.


Imagine you are the father of a very attractive young lady. Would you put all your faith in the legal system of assigning blame to rapists and punishing them, to keep her safe from being raped?
Or would you much rather help her to develop the wisdom to avoid putting herself into the set of circumstances where women tend to get raped?

As a father, concerned for the welfare of your daughter, would you have more luck in keeping her safe, through changing the legal and judicial system, or by teaching her responsibility?

Would you take the stance "My daughter should be able to go where she pleases and do what she wants, and if she gets raped, we'll just blame the rapist and make sure he's properly punished". Would you HONESTLY ever take that stance? Or would you discourage her from doing foolish things?

There's a lot of high-minded idealism which sounds wonderful and "Wouldn't it be lovely if the world worked like that, lets make it happen!". But if you ever try to apply that kind of idealism to your life and to people you love, you simply find it reprehensible.

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?

You need to understand what a problem is.

Lets say that a man rapes an Arahat Nun - an Arahat is a Buddhist "Fully enlightened one", someone completely free of greed, hatred and delusion.
This is not a problem for the Nun, not in the least. Because suffering just doesn't stick to an Arahat, she's incapable of hating the rapist because she's an Arahat. She just gets up, forgives the rapist and gets on with doing what an Arahat does (Meditates and teaches wisdom to others).

The rape is a HUGE problem for the rapist. Because only Arahats are fully forgiving. Arahats are always much beloved by their disciples and the community, so the rapist will encounter an awful lot of hate for what he has done, people will want to lynch him!
Even when the Nun encourages forgiveness, some people wont be able to forgive the rapist and they'll punish him.

So the rape, is a problem for the rapist. It creates huge suffering in his future. The least of it is he's never allowed to ordain as a Buddhist Monk, because a man who has raped a Nun is not allowed to become a Monk (this should not necessarily be viewed as punishment, but rather as maintaining the integrity of the sangha)


A problem, is always a matter of "A problem for who". When an Arahat Nun is raped, it's not at all a problem for the Nun, but it's a huge problem for the rapist, because he simply couldn't have chosen a worse target to rape.

When an innocent girl is raped, it's a huge problem for both the girl and the rapist. Both have huge problems in their life as a result. I know a middle aged woman who has a deep fear of all men because she was raped as a girl and the psychological damage found in a rapists mind is also very great, rape victims and rapists both have huge self-worth issues and rape is always caused by low self-worth on the part of the rapist, and often on the part of the victim too (because a woman with high self-worth wont be going to party scenes to act mindbogglingly stupid)

But the question still needs to be asked "A problem for who?". Rape is a problem for the victim and the rapist, and while it's still a "future problem", something should be done to advert it. It doesn't matter whether you help the victim or the rapist of a potential future-rape, it's a problem either way, and it can be solved either way.



Now why would bad advice be a problem for me? Because it would create suffering in my future. It would reduce my credibility and self-esteem as a wisdom teacher. If I gave bad advice, especially advice which is so bad it leads to a girl getting raped, then I would have serious self-confidence issues. It would be a huge problem for me.

And so I avoid giving bad advice. It's easier to not give bad advice than to deal with the consequences of giving bad advice.


Something which has already happened is not a problem. Something which wont happen is not a problem. Problems are things which "might" happen in the future, but through your actions, through your self-determination, what happens can be changed, the probabilities can be changed.

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.

Sadly, you are wrong here.

Let me tell you about my friend Kane, who is a grown man. Last year in a drunken rage he threw his girlfriend through a window, she's a tough broad so she was okay but he of course ended up in jail. It's not the first crime he's committed.

Yesterday, Kane took the Buddhist Five Precepts (refrain from killing, refrain from stealing, refrain from sexual misconduct, refrain from false speech, refrain from intoxication). He in fact challenged me to challenge him - and that was my challenge to him. Follow the five precepts.

In the span of a year, something has changed in Kane, and that change is simply due to the guidance I have giving him. If Kane manages to keep the five precepts then he will make his own life and the lives of his family, so much easier and happier. He has genuine enthusiasm for improving his condition but that needed to be kindled. Until I came along and forgave him for the wrongs he had done me personally and started helping him, he had never known what "virtue" is, he'd never encountered it before in his entire life. He's fascinated by this new concept of being responsible for his actions and his conduct, and so that why he challenged me to give him a challenge.

I myself needed guidance in order to become the kind of person who can "uplift" someone like Kane. I received that guidance from Ajahn Brahm primary. Obviously I myself had to do a lot of hard work, I had to do the hard work to become genuinely forgiving and helpful and kind and caring and that kind of stuff. But I needed the guidance too.


Now please explain to me why I should have just blamed Kane for being a bad person and made him responsible for his actions. Instead of forgetting about blame, deserves, fair, unfair etc etc, and helping him develop good conduct?

The idea that people don't need guidance, is just a brutal and cruel form of fatalism; that people are fated to be hurt by their foolishness. It's a deeply immoral stance to take.


I'll ask you a question:
Lets say you know both some extremely attractive young women, and some deeply disturbed young men.
You have the wisdom to guide them, to guide the women away from needlessly putting themselves in harms way, and to guide the men to managing their overbearing desires.
Who is it more right to help? The potential victims or the potential rapists?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

to the one you are closest to is the right person ;-)

but... here goes & I suspect this is a language problem, you being Buddhist, it's the same language but people read it differently -

most of the readers have the issue with you "equivalizing" the action of "walking naked" and action of "rape" ... now would you say that they are the same?

If so why?

Otherwise one act is normally perceived as "worse" than the other as physical violation is considered worse than just pure mental tease. As for "giving advice" surely it is a good advice to give to any woman you care about...

even though that you need two for an act, and while one could be an "attractor" still it is upon the other to use restraint and not do physical harm... women are also attracted to jewelery/shopping but only some steal, and such is present life you have things you want and just are there to look at, but in the end you have to deal with enjoying what you have as opposed to what you don't have... and there are many other reasons to do so in addition to "not to do harm to others".

plus

People should be free to act the way they want so long as they are not hindering the rights of others.

is not to mean "people do not need guidance", but "people are free to take guidance or refuse it if they wish so" as long as they do not impede on the rights of others... which is in essence freedom to do what you want as long as you do no harm...

and this detail

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...

and to do get the effort to the next level you have to apply the language that the readers will understand, so write from their point of view as much as possible so that your idea comes across, that is often wrong with honest appraisals coming from "other point of view"

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
It is verifiably useful to abandon concepts of "blame" and "deserves".

You are blaming people for whatever happens to them, and then pretending that you are not blaming anything.

And assigning blame helps to correct this condition how?

Someone who has shown a wanton disregard for the rights of others has to be held accountable for that disregard. This is how society protects itself from complete and utter chaos.

Eliminating that accountability means eliminating justice. It means increasing the risk to everyone in society given a lack of protection by law.

Now if you accept that it IS possible to reduce the probability of a woman getting raped by helping her to develop responsible conduct (ie avoiding putting herself into harms way for a bad cause), then you have to acknowledge that when a woman gets raped, the cause/conditions are partially her conduct.

False dichotomy.

Rape is not a given. You are blaming the victim for a transgression made against them, something they do not choose. To illustrate this, consider a woman who goes to a dance club. She enjoys a night out, and leaves without incident. Now compare that to a woman who goes to a dance club. She enjoys a night out, and while returning to her car she is attacked and raped.

In both cases the woman is "guilty" of going to the dance club. That is all. The rape in the second scenario is entirely the doing of the rapist. Pretending otherwise is to justify rape.

I don't see where it is helpful to assign blame, when you can simply look at what happens, what causes harm and suffering, and avoid those causes.

Would you put the rapist in jail? How about after a second offense? How about after a third? How many times would a person have to rape before you feel they present a problem to society?

The same could be said for murder. How many people would someone have to kill before you would hold them responsible for their actions and imprison them so they couldn't kill again?

I ask this to illustrate that (hopefully) you have some limit where you would agree someone has to be restrained. (It is possible you are so far gone you would allow someone to kill/rape every living being on earth and just shrug and say "not my problem"... but I hope not.)

Imagine you are the father of a very attractive young lady. Would you put all your faith in the legal system of assigning blame to rapists and punishing them, to keep her safe from being raped?
Or would you much rather help her to develop the wisdom to avoid putting herself into the set of circumstances where women tend to get raped?

Nowhere have I said that advice shouldn't be given. You are barking up the wrong tree.

As a father, concerned for the welfare of your daughter, would you have more luck in keeping her safe, through changing the legal and judicial system, or by teaching her responsibility?

Both paths help improve safety. If I felt the law was disregarding the safety of children, I would want to improve it. If I felt that there were situations my daughter was at risk in, I would hope to help her avoid them.

They are not mutually exclusive goals. They are the same goal. Her safety.

Would you take the stance "My daughter should be able to go where she pleases and do what she wants, and if she gets raped, we'll just blame the rapist and make sure he's properly punished".

Yes, once she has reached a level of maturity where she can choose for herself. I would still advise her as best I could, but I understand that ultimately it is her choice how to live her life, and that she can't be expected to live in a manner which reduces risk to a minimum.

I would support her right to live her life as she chooses, and try to protect her rights from being infringed upon. Again, they are not mutually exclusive, they are the same goal. To protect her rights.

No matter what she chooses, she doesn't deserve to be raped. The fault of the rape is entirely upon the rapist.

Would you HONESTLY ever take that stance? Or would you discourage her from doing foolish things?

False dichotomy. You seem to be under the delusion that allowing people to chose for themselves is not an option, or is incompatible with offering advice.

There's a lot of high-minded idealism which sounds wonderful and "Wouldn't it be lovely if the world worked like that, lets make it happen!". But if you ever try to apply that kind of idealism to your life and to people you love, you simply find it reprehensible.

You are a hypocrite. It is you who pretend that you're "enlightened" and that other people's problems are not problems. If civilized society suddenly switched to your world view, it would be utter chaos as those who choose to infringe upon the rights of others would suddenly have no opposition except their current victim (if even that).

You wouldn't be advising your female friends not to walk alone at night so as not to be raped, because they'd be raped anywhere they went, or even if they stayed at home, and have no legal recourse. And you could sit around and congratulate yourself about how enlightened you are to not care about other people's problems.

You need to understand what a problem is.

I know what a problem is. You clearly do not. You have said a problem cannot exist without a solution. Patently false. You have said nothing that happens in the past can be a problem. Patently false.

Instead of addressing your failed arguments and their refutation, you are now trying a third time to redefine what a problem is, saying it can only be defined in regards to "who". Thankfully, most of society has realized that rape is a problem. Not just their own rape, but any rape.

Rape is a problem.

The rape is a HUGE problem for the rapist.

The rape happened in the past at this point (when it's done with and the villagers lynch the rapist). You say it is a problem. You have refuted your claim that something that happened in the past cannot be a problem. You have refuted your claim that rape is not a problem.

When an innocent girl is raped, it's a huge problem for both the girl and the rapist.

"So Blake, you are saying that a man raping a woman is not a problem?" - Aeson

"The rape is not a problem." - Blake

Notice you offered no qualifications. You simply said that a man raping a woman is not a problem. Now you admit it is a problem for everyone involved. What you don't understand is that the crime not only involves the man and the woman, but society as a whole. It is an affront to the law of the land, to order within society, and to the safety of every member of society. It cannot be allowed as "not my problem".

Rape is a problem for the victim and the rapist, and while it's still a "future problem", something should be done to advert it.

No one is claiming otherwise. Except whatever figment of your imagination you are drawing this from to refute.

It doesn't matter whether you help the victim or the rapist of a potential future-rape, it's a problem either way, and it can be solved either way.

Ok. Solve the rape of a child by one of their parents by advising the child as to not be such a slut. Good thinking!

The problem is that some people are willing to infringe upon other people's rights. Law is there to help prevent that, and offer recourse if it does happen. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than not having any laws to protect us.

Now why would bad advice be a problem for me? Because it would create suffering in my future. It would reduce my credibility and self-esteem as a wisdom teacher. If I gave bad advice, especially advice which is so bad it leads to a girl getting raped, then I would have serious self-confidence issues. It would be a huge problem for me.

Your priorities are completely out of whack here. You are more worried about your ego than the safety of innocent people.

Something which has already happened is not a problem.

You just got done refuting your claim that past problems are not problems.

Problems are things which "might" happen in the future, but through your actions, through your self-determination, what happens can be changed, the probabilities can be changed.

There are many types of problems. There are problems that persist. There are problems that are solved. There are problems that could arise. It is a fallacy to pretend that a problem can only be only a future event which can be avoided.

Sadly, you are wrong here.

The part of my quote you cut out and ignored:

"Feel free to give advice to help prevent problems from occurring."

The rest of your post is some failed attempt to pretend that I didn't say the above.

Who is it more right to help? The potential victims or the potential rapists?

It is good to help anyone. But if the someone shows that they are not willing to observe the rights of others, they have to be restrained from infringing upon those rights.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by onodera
Ew, that's some ugly ankles.

I'm not the one with the fetish.

[Blake]

and to do get the effort to the next level you have to apply the language that the readers will understand, so write from their point of view as much as possible so that your idea comes across, that is often wrong with honest appraisals coming from "other point of view"

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.

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.

It is helpful to explain, why there's no need for punishment.

Take the man who rapes a great Nun example. No-one can save him from his fate. Through his actions, he generates a whole lot of ill-will towards him, and it will take him more than a life time to lose that ill-will. No-one can save him from that, even the Great Nun, with all her enlightenment and influence, can save him from the consequences of his actions. There's no need to punish him because he's punished himself a thousand times over, he didn't even hurt the Nun but he's thoroughly screwed himself. Why punish him for doing something so senseless for such little gain?


One way to look at this; is why engage in blame and punishment when there are plenty of other people willing to do that? Someone who does something reprehensible will have truckloads of blame and punishment dumped on him, he'll have convoys of trucks lining up to dump it on him. So why waste YOUR energy on blame and punishment? Even if it is possible for blame and punishment to do some good, there is already so much of it flying around, that your blame and punishment will be just a little fleck of poo in a vast ocean of ****.

Meanwhile, there is virtually no genuine forgiveness, virtually no kindness and caring directed towards people who have done bad things.

Even a single instance of kindness and caring, can change someones life forever, simply because they've never once known what genuine kindness and caring actually is! They'd gone through life only experiencing greed, blame, punishment, apathy.

The sad thing is, that even victims don't experience genuine kindness and caring, they just receive some kind of lame sympathy, they might get some retribution done on their behalf (more anger), but no-one comes along and treats them as an equal - treats them as someone who isn't broken. They just encounter more greed anger and delusion, it's just used "for" them rather than "against" them.

Take the woman I know who was raped as a teenager, I am about the only man she trusts, the only man in the whole wide world. Because I am the only man who has been genuinely kind and caring towards her. The reason she trusts me so much, is partly because I am a Buddhist Celibate - she equates sex to pain, thinks that all men want sex, and thus that all men want to hurt her. Except I'm a man who doesn't want sex, so I don't want to hurt her. She doesn't need to be afraid of me.

That's part of what I mean by blowing peoples minds - it blew her mind to meet a man who was kind to her, and who was a celibate, it challenged her belief that all men want to hurt her. I've now bargained her down to "only 95% of men want to hurt her".
You may think that being celibate is senseless and a perverse deprivation, but perhaps there is actually good reason for someone to not only be celibate, but to take pride in celibacy. I certainly think it's a far more than worthwhile sacrifice, to be celibate, to gain an entry point into the battered psyches of abused women - because that kind of entry point is needed in order to perform healing. And healing work is far more satisfying than sex.


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.
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.

[Wezil]

If I ever commit a serious crime I want Blake as my judge.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
It is verifiably useful to abandon concepts of "blame" and "deserves".

"Karma means; Whatever you are experiencing now, you deserve." - Ajahn Brahm

[Darius871]

oh snap

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson


"Karma means; Whatever you are experiencing now, you deserve." - Ajahn Brahm

Exactly. So why spend even a millisecond thinking about, talking about what people deserve? It's just wasted mental effort.

[Darius871]

This has nothing to do with whether the rapist is a "bad guy" who "deserves" to be raked over the coals. Even if we were to completely disregard any frivolous notions of how morally reprehensible rape is thought to be, that still doesn't make it any more clear why society should consider a woman's mere attractiveness even causally responsible for the violent outburst of a stranger. Even from a completely amoral standpoint I wouldn't see how she's inducing anything, when the rapist is the one making the first affirmative act.

Suppose I see some teenager wearing a visor both backwards and upside down, with his pants sagging down below his asscrack, and the sight is so annoying to me that I decide to walk up and gut him like a fish with my hunting knife. Setting aside whether it's "wrong" for me to do so, are you suggesting that it was all his mistake for setting that causal chain in motion by dressing that way in the morning? Why would my spontaneous and unpredictable violent act not be the one and only significant cause of his death?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Exactly. So why spend even a millisecond thinking about, talking about what people deserve? It's just wasted mental effort.

You (and your bald friend) are the ones saying that the woman deserves to be raped.

[Blake]

Okay.

Rape is simple the most extreme form of "unwanted sexual attention".

Unwanted sexual attention is by definition, unwelcome. Women don't like it, they suffer when they get it.

Even if it's just oogling and leering and such, it's still unwelcome and annoys them.

I get the impression that the women in this article, have a problem with unwanted sexual attention. That's why they want to "desexualize breasts", that way they can go around topless without getting unwanted sexual attention.

But basically; there are two freedoms a woman can have:

Freedom from sexual attention
and
Freedom from wearing clothes.

I get the impression, these women want BOTH freedoms, they want both the freedom from sexual attention and the freedom from wearing clothes.

But they can't have both. They have to choose. Short of isolating themselves from the world, they have to choose EITHER freedom from sexual attention, OR freedom from wearing clothes.

I don't care which one they choose, they just shouldn't complain when men oogle them when they go around topless . Because they have chosen freedom from wearing clothes over freedom from sexual attention.


To return to the "Beating the Buddhist" example.

I can choose between freedom to speak my mind.
And freedom from hate.

I can't have it both ways short of shutting myself off from the world and talking into a void.

I believe the freedom to speak my mind, is more important than the freedom from hate. So I speak my mind and am accepting of the hate.

But many people, choose a STUPID freedom in favor of a good freedom. That's like choosing the freedom to attend raves and get sloshed, over the freedom from being date-raped.

A woman who doesn't attend that kind of scene, can't get date-raped...

But anyway. That's what I think about freedoms. It tends to be the nature of reality, that you often can't have all the freedom you desire, sometimes you have to decide which freedoms are more important, what you are willing to accept in the name of having that freedom....