The Danes really have it going for them

[Darius871]

Originally posted by 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....

Since that has nothing to do with my question:

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

Bull****.

[Blake]

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

Aeson, me and my bald friend don't think about what people deserve. What they get is a product of their past. The important thing, is what they do with what they get.

A woman gets raped?
She can spend her life hating the rapist, or fearing all men...
Or she can forgive the rapist and use the experience to gain insight into the nature of suffering and pain.

And I mean, I'm not going to say which choice is "right" or "fair" or whatever, but I do know, the latter will lead to much, much more happiness and a much better future for her. So it is what she "should" do.

I would also daresay, that if she forgave the rapist to his face - that would blow his mind. A rapist believes he is entirely unlikable and unredeemable in the eyes of women - that is WHY he's a rapist!
But what is true here, is that she can only do that if she has the requisite wisdom, if she doesn't understand forgiveness then she actually CAN'T forgive the rapist... so in that sense it's not what I say she "should" do. Just that if she can do it, that would be a good thing. Since it would help put the rapist on the road to recovery and becoming a productive member of society...

Likewise, the rapist could also use his experience (and prison time) to gain insight into the nature of desire, karma and suffering.
I would say, that if the rapist sincerely apologizes to the victim, puts all his heart into saying sorry - that would be a good thing for him to do.
But again, he can only do that if he develops the requisite wisdom (as a rapist, he obviously didn't have it), so I'm not saying that is what he should or must do, but it would be good if he develops the skill to do so. Because if he does that, that could help the victim a lot - to not see the rapist as a heartless monster. But until he knows how to "put his heart" into something, he can't do a heartfelt apology... he would just scare her more.


That's another reason we should stay focused firmly on solution-finding, on cultivation of good qualities, rather than saying what is right or wrong to do, rather than using "rituals" like saying sorry or forgiving. Ritualized apology or forgiveness is worthless...

[Darius871]

I sincerely hope you never have to personally experience the effects of rape on self or family and finally have the first clue what the hell you're talking about.

Oh but I forgot, the rape is just a "product of the victim's past" anyway, so no matter how close he/she is to you, you can take comfort in the fact that it's just a gracious distribution of karmic justice.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Aeson, me and my bald friend don't think about what people deserve. What they get is a product of their past.

Amazing how brazenly you contradict yourself.

Your bald friend flat out said that everyone gets what they deserve. He used the term deserve. He even reiterated the point at least once. Either he is talking out of his ass about a subject he has never put any thought into, or he has thought about what people deserve. Which is it?

Either way you've been talking about what the rape victim deserves all along. You avoid using the term "deserve", but it's plain as day that you are blaming her for being in a situation where the rapist finds her. This is called assigning responsibility for an act. That is to say, blaming. You say you aren't blaming, while you assign blame. You say you don't think about what she deserves, while saying she deserved it based on how she acts.

You do the same thing with "past lives", blaming children for the state they are born in based on what they supposedly did in these supposed "past lives", without the faintest shred of evidence to support your claim.

You do all of this to prop up your ego and claim you are wise and enlightened. What a fool.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871


Since that has nothing to do with my question:

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?

Cause-condition-effect

Here the effect is the kid getting gutted.
The cause and condition is what he wears and your mental state.

I would ask if there is any merit to dressing like that - I say there isn't, it is uncomfortable and it offends people. In retrospect he could have avoided his fate by dressing better, and he would have been more comfortable and approachable. So he would have done better to not dress that way.

Does that make your actions justified? Of course not!

I've made it abundantly clear that punishment is NEVER justified. And you'd taken it upon yourself to punish him.

The answer to "Do you deserve to be punished for gutting an idiot" is the same as "Does he deserve to be punished for dressing like an idiot". It's actually the same as "Does a wolf deserve to be punished for killing and eating a man"

You can wrap your mind up in all sorts of knots by dwelling on such questions.
Understand, that when someone dresses like a fool in the name of offending people, he should be accepting that people will get offended and he will come to harm from that, and recognizing that the future is ALWAYS uncertain, he doesn't know what kind of harm that might be... He should actually think about that in advance - wait a second, is it ACTUALLY a good idea to dress like a fool in the name of offending people, do I actually want that kind of attention? So that's why I say he should be "accepting" of the consequences - you should always be accepting of the consequences because that means you've actually thought about the consequences rather than engaged in some happy denial.
Understand that when someone guts people for trivial reasons, that they gets tossed into jail for many years. There are all sorts of reasons giving for this - the reasons may be punitive, or they may be preventative. You get judged as a mentally unstable person who should be kept away from society. You should be accepting of those consequences, you should think about the consequences of gutting someone and contemplate on whether it's worth it - whether acting on your offense is THAT important. Be accepting of the consequences.
And someone who wanders alone at night in a dangerous forest, should accept that he may get eaten by a wolf. He should think about whether the freedom to walk alone, is worth his life. Some monks do believe that solitude is more important than the life of their body - so they actually do walk alone in jungles and risk being eaten by wild animals. They are accepting of the consequences.

What's right or wrong? I don't flipping know! Don't ask me. All I know is that it's easy to understand the consequences, what leads to peace and what leads to suffering.

SHOULD a teenager wear baggy pants which expose his buttcrack?
YES, if the freedom of being a fool and offending people is more important to him than the freedom of getting along.

SHOULD you gut a teenager with an exposed butt crack?
YES, if acting on your offense is more important to you, than freedom from not being in jail for life.

SHOULD a man wander alone in a jungle full of wild animals which will want to eat him?
YES, if the freedom of solitude is more important to him than his life.


If the decision is made, out of greed, hatred or delusion, it is a foolish decision.

People SHOULD stop and think "Wait. How important is this to me actually? Am I accepting of the consequences or am I trying not to think about them?"

If people stopped and asked themselves that more often, there would be far less foolishness and suffering in the world.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Aeson
Either way you've been talking about what the rape victim deserves all along. You avoid using the term "deserve", but it's plain as day that you are blaming her for being in a situation where the rapist finds her. This is called assigning responsibility for an act. That is to say, blaming. You say you aren't blaming, while you assign blame. You say you don't think about what she deserves, while saying she deserved it based on how she acts.

It sounds to me like a petty semantic game; while it's perfectly logical to define "blame," "fault," "deserve," etc. in terms of merely assigning responsibility, Blake seems hung up on the moral connotations of the terms which aren't necessarily inherent to them.

For instance I can say it's X's fault that he and I got into a fender bender, but I'm not making any moral judgments about him as a person. It's just an assessment of causation, nothing more. I don't know how much more clear I can make it Blakie.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871
I sincerely hope you never have to personally experience the effects of rape on self or family and finally have the first clue what the hell you're talking about.

WHO SAYS I HAVEN'T?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871
For instance I can say it's X's fault that he and I got into a fender bender, but I'm not making any moral judgments about him as a person. It's just an assessment of causation, nothing more. I don't know how much more clear I can make it Blakie.

And all I can say, is that if you don't drive, you can't get in a fender bender.

Can you deny that? You can't! .

When you drive, you have to accept the possibility that someone will crash into you...


So when it happens, there's no need to get indignant, you can just calmly swap details and decide who should pay, acknowledging that, unless you've suddenly become an immaculate being and perfect driver, you may be partially at fault (my mother once crashed into a stopped car, and she's a very very careful driver - she did of course BLAME the driver of the stopped car , no-one could stop laughing but she was insistent it was the driver of the stopped car fault and she had a nice line of reasoning too, IIRC the other driver was an old granny which would explain it - those are always danger!).

This kind of acceptance is practise - it's so you can remain in control when the inevitable happens. It's a useful thing to do because it defuses conflict, it takes two to have an argument.

And that's why it should be done - because it's useful.

[Aeson]

Who pays the repair bills if someone crashes into you while you are stopped at a red light?

[Blake]

Whoever ends up paying the repair bill...

Or do you live in a perfect world where you can actually FORCE people to do the right thing?

If you are asking who SHOULD pay the repair bill, the person who did the rear-ending should pay the repair bill. But there is nothing wrong with the driver of the stopped car compassionately agreeing to share some of the burden, particularly if it was a freak accident causing a loss of control, rather than carelessness.

I mean if I was stopped and got rear-ended I'd probably agree to pay repairs on my car. And when they ask "WTF?! Why?!" I'd say "I'm a Buddhist", that can justify all sorts of things .
But seriously, buddhism is important to me, the buddhist values are important to me, so whenever possible, I express them... being generous is more important than being right. So I probably would pay the repairs on my car if I got rearended while stopped.
And since the person will feel like they owe me one, I'd give them a link to or a CD of, one of Ajahn Brahm's dhamma talks . What do I get out of that? You'll never know .

But you see, it's just about what is important to you...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Blake
Cause-condition-effect

Here the effect is the kid getting gutted.
The cause and condition is what he wears and your mental state.

I would ask if there is any merit to dressing like that - I say there isn't, it is uncomfortable and it offends people. In retrospect he could have avoided his fate by dressing better, and he would have been more comfortable and approachable. So he would have done better to not dress that way.

Does that make your actions justified? Of course not!

I've made it abundantly clear that punishment is NEVER justified. And you'd taken it upon yourself to punish him.

The answer to "Do you deserve to be punished for gutting an idiot" is the same as "Does he deserve to be punished for dressing like an idiot". It's actually the same as "Does a wolf deserve to be punished for killing and eating a man"

You can wrap your mind up in all sorts of knots by dwelling on such questions.
Understand, that when someone dresses like a fool in the name of offending people, he should be accepting that people will get offended and he will come to harm from that, and recognizing that the future is ALWAYS uncertain, he doesn't know what kind of harm that might be... He should actually think about that in advance - wait a second, is it ACTUALLY a good idea to dress like a fool in the name of offending people, do I actually want that kind of attention? So that's why I say he should be "accepting" of the consequences - you should always be accepting of the consequences because that means you've actually thought about the consequences rather than engaged in some happy denial.
Understand that when someone guts people for trivial reasons, that they gets tossed into jail for many years. There are all sorts of reasons giving for this - the reasons may be punitive, or they may be preventative. You get judged as a mentally unstable person who should be kept away from society. You should be accepting of those consequences, you should think about the consequences of gutting someone and contemplate on whether it's worth it - whether acting on your offense is THAT important. Be accepting of the consequences.
And someone who wanders alone at night in a dangerous forest, should accept that he may get eaten by a wolf. He should think about whether the freedom to walk alone, is worth his life. Some monks do believe that solitude is more important than the life of their body - so they actually do walk alone in jungles and risk being eaten by wild animals. They are accepting of the consequences.

What's right or wrong? I don't flipping know! Don't ask me. All I know is that it's easy to understand the consequences, what leads to peace and what leads to suffering.

SHOULD a teenager wear baggy pants which expose his buttcrack?
YES, if the freedom of being a fool and offending people is more important to him than the freedom of getting along.

SHOULD you gut a teenager with an exposed butt crack?
YES, if acting on your offense is more important to you, than freedom from not being in jail for life.

SHOULD a man wander alone in a jungle full of wild animals which will want to eat him?
YES, if the freedom of solitude is more important to him than his life.

So in other words, if after extensive contemplation I concluded that acting on my offense at your verbal diarrhea is "more important to me" than staying out of jail, I "should" hop on a plane to come gut you like a fish? Why not simply recognize that you as a human being inherently have a right not to be disemboweled for trivial reasons, and that I "should" respect that right? How would that be any less "wise" than your suggesting that I put my personal comfort above human life?

Originally posted by Blake
WHO SAYS I HAVEN'T?

Meaning you have? What was the victim's reaction when you casually told her that the torment was just the unfortunate but inevitable result of her having stepped onto the street that day, plus the inevitable result of her acts in a past life? Did she thank you for the ever-so-enlightening angle from which to view the tragedy as a valuable lesson learned?

Originally posted by Blake


And all I can say, is that if you don't drive, you can't get in a fender bender.

Can you deny that? You can't! .

When you drive, you have to accept the possibility that someone will crash into you...

So when it happens, there's no need to get indignant, you can just calmly swap details and decide who should pay, acknowledging that, unless you've suddenly become an immaculate being and perfect driver, you may be partially at fault (my mother once crashed into a stopped car, and she's a very very careful driver - she did of course BLAME the driver of the stopped car , no-one could stop laughing but she was insistent it was the driver of the stopped car fault and she had a nice line of reasoning too, IIRC the other driver was an old granny which would explain it - those are always danger!).

This kind of acceptance is practise - it's so you can remain in control when the inevitable happens. It's a useful thing to do because it defuses conflict, it takes two to have an argument.

And that's why it should be done - because it's useful.

I never said anything about getting "indignant"; again you're attaching connotations of moral judgment and conflict to terms that don't necessarily have those meanings. If I'm waiting at a stop light and a drunk driver smashes into me at 30MPH, he is only at "fault" insofar as his actions have a much higher (if not total) degree of causal responsibility. X and I might both agree that he is "at fault," "to blame," "deserving of the repair bill," etc. without any thought whatsoever as to whether X was "wrong"; rather it is simply a calm, mutual acknowledgement that his decision to get drunk had far more causal significance than my decision to drive to the lumberyard at that time instead of five minutes earlier. No doubt my getting in the car that day was "a" but-for cause, but that doesn't mean X didn't bear the vast majority of "fault" in a purely amoral causal sense.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Whoever ends up paying the repair bill...

Or do you live in a perfect world where you can actually FORCE people to do the right thing?

We live in a world where these things can generally be determined by evidence. You know, the act of examining a situation and determining what factors were responsible for an outcome. There are laws which require someone to pay if responsible.

It happens all the time. It isn't perfect, but it's far better than people being able to ram into anyone they choose with their car, leaving the victim no recourse to seek damages since blame cannot be assigned.

[Blake]

Aeson, welcome to the mind of someone who has just rear-ended someone at the red lights:

**** **** ****, ****ing hell, ****ing hell! How could I be such an idiot!!!
****, this guy is going to take me to the ****ing cleaners.
Oh my god, how am I going to pay for all this?! It'll probably be like thousands of dollars and raise my premiums!
My wife is going to ****ing kill me!!!
**** **** **** how could I be such an idiot?!!! Is it THAT hard to just pay attention? Goddamnit! Goddamnit! Goddamnit! You idiot!
****, here he comes, what am I going to say?!!

I see in that, a need for compassion, with that compassion being more important than societies ideals of fairness. The compassion will bring more benefit to both me and him, than him paying my repair bill.
I don't care what society thinks is fair. I think that compassion is more important and whenever I am given the oppurtunity to exercise compassion (and rarely is it on a silver platter!) I take that oppurtunity.
But I am a Buddhist.

[Aeson]

That had nothing to do with what I said. You asked (in a mocking manner) how who was at fault could be determined. You clearly were trying to imply that there was no "fault" that could be determined. We clearly have tools capable of determining fault in a good number of cases though.

Go ahead and forgive whatever you want. That's up to you. You can't pretend that the person wasn't at fault when they were at fault though. Your very act of "forgiveness" assumes that there was fault in fact.

------------

And we all know you're buddhist and like to pretend that that makes you special. No one else could ever forgive someone, or fault a woman for being raped. You are unique and special, enlightened beyond compare, and doing humanity a great service by claiming crack babies deserved to be born with a terrible addiction because clearly they lived their past life as [whatevertheywere] in a manner deserving of such a fate.