Debate Thread

Oh good, for a second there I thought was in the serious board but that's clearly not the case

Aw yeah finally my two month circlejerk experience on men's rights issues comes in handy

Ziggles wrote:I think that as a society we could recognize this, and stand against sexual abuse more firmly, instead of tossing around rape jokes and placing the blame on the victims.

I think there's a time and place for rape jokes and if anyone is feeling threatened by them then the jokes should be stopped - on a forum like this where we're all mature, non-violent, non-rapists I think the occasional foray into the rape zone is understandable, because we all know it's purely for the sake of humour. I am fairly confident in all of you that none of us are going to see rape as more acceptable because of a joke.

I don't want this to sound like I'm discounting your opinion, but I've never seen anyone, ever, blame a rape victim, male or female, for their actions leading to their rape. I understand we're from different cultures, though, is that really such a big issue over there? I heard about "victim blaming" very often but I can honestly say I've never seen an example. If you can link to anything, even like facebook screenshots, just so I can get a better idea of what that issue is like.

Cube of Reason wrote:Completely right, Zigs. Plus as a culture I think we need to realize it is possible to rape a male and the effects on them can be just as damaging, if not more. The macho culture we have now basically forces guys to never own up about being raped, ever.

Yes
I feel very strongly about this
I agree

someguy3657 wrote:I will dislike and mock feminists, because, while feminists did fight for equal rights in the past, many of them became psycho bitches who think men are scum, no matter what they did, and that anyone who doesn't think the same is a misogynist pig.

Chuckles, I agree to an extent
I used to float around men's rights boards a lot, and then several months later I went to an extreme feminist board for comparison (SRS); there's something that's said a lot about this issue and I think it's valid for all facets: the vocal minority are not representative of the majority, no matter how loud they blast their opinions. There are a lot of shit feminists but I feel like there are many more who aren't shit. Andrea Dworkin is shit, and she inspired a lot of shit and her particular brand of feminism was about shouting so loud that people felt trepidation before debating with her. We shouldn't use black-and-white dichotomies to lump it into an "us-versus-them" issue.

I feel like there's an issue with the terms "feminism" and "masculism" over the term "equalism" because it implies that men and women are fundamentally different and people who identify as either of the former aren't fighting for equality, they're, now by modern attitudes towards both, fighting for dominance of their sex, under the guise of equality- whether they're doing it intentionally or because they haven't identified it as that.

>Squiggles I don't want this to sound like I'm discounting your opinion, but I've never seen anyone, ever, blame a rape victim, male or female, for their actions leading to their rape. I understand we're from different cultures, though, is that really such a big issue over there? I heard about "victim blaming" very often but I can honestly say I've never seen an example. If you can link to anything, even like facebook screenshots, just so I can get a better idea of what that issue is like.

There's this very stigmatic view on rape victims here in the states and because of this most rape victims don't report in the crime committed on them. We are also grossly behind in rape prevention and education - the FBI just recently updated rape to include raped-males and non-forcible rape in 2012. By definition you were not considered raped if youre male until last year and up until then only Male-on-female rape was considered serious and notable. Funding to rape-crisis centers are also being cut because of our poor economy in recent years.  

Rape is such a complicated issue in the states, There isn't even a nationally accepted definition of rape in the United States because each state has their own laws that may differ from other states. There is the definition of rape in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the closest we get to a specific and universal definition of rape:

Definition of Rape :

Unfortunately Victim Blaming/Slut Shaming isn't just something that is brought up on wankst forums but it's something that is very serious over here, and one reason is because in almost all cases, contrary to popular belief, the perpetrator was someone the rape-victim knew, leading people to believe the victim is partly (if not mostly) to blame.

Victim-Blaming is sometimes called Secondary Victimization.   Secondary Victimization is defined as the re-traumatization of the sexual assault, abuse, or rape victim through the responses of individuals and institutions. ---->

The common excuses defending rapists are usually

Excuses:

Articles on the growing problem of Victim Blaming:

I'd like to also mention In the United States (and Canada as well unless something changed), rape is the only crime in which there are protections that help the accuser. These laws that give the accuser certain privacy in the courtroom were placed due to the popular strategy of questioning their background including sexual history, which led to the accuser being blamed in court. Sometimes these laws are lifted for special occasions if it means obtaining new evidence.

You mentioned you wanted an example of Rape-Blaming and the most popular example I can think of is the Steubenville Rape Case in Ohio, although there are probably more recent cases if anyone wishes to share.

Details about the rape case:

Because these young men were football stars and the girl was  underage drinking and happened to get drugged, sickening amounts of people ended up defended the two men and their actions.

Text Messages that led to convictions in the Steubenville Rape Trial

Article written by the blogger who impacted the case by calling out the victim-blaming and her research into the subject

"It is one thing to hear the rumors, but I think when people actually saw the tweets, and the vile things that were said with their own eyes, it really drove home just how disgusting the behavior of these kids was that night.

Soon locals began contacting me stating that they believed there was a cover-up into investigation of the charges. That's not a new allegation for Steubenville. There is also a belief among residents of Steubenville that high school athletes are given a pass when it comes to accountability for bad behavior."

Popular news channel CNN expresses sympathy for the rapists:

Before I end with some screenshots, Anonymous was so interested and disgusted with people defending the teens in the case, they uncovered the names and hidden texts and photos that were being covered up regarding the case and revealed them in the public. ----->

From the article; wrote:Questions still surround the Steubenville Rape Case even after the guilty verdict that sent two of the perpetrators to prison for years. Without the involvement of hackers the case was set to be dropped.

I really think that the heroes in this story are the hackers who got the photos out there because I think that actually led to a kind of shaming process that pushed this trial forward.

Screenshots of Victim Blaming in the Ohio Case:

Victim-Blaming is very much real in the states and it feels like it's one of the most covered-up topics that people would rather ignore because rape is so complicated to trial and it's such a sensitive subject. Rape is such an epidemic over here and the justice scales are so skewed that people don't even find it worth reporting when they are raped and that's just sad.  

>Squiggles I think there's a time and place for rape jokes and if anyone is feeling threatened by them then the jokes should be stopped

Yes. I have no qualm with controversial topics being joked on, but if anyone has emotional ties to the jokes by all means joking on said topic can be banned in the public forum areas.

>Squiggles the vocal minority are not representative of the majority, no matter how loud they blast their opinions. There are a lot of shit feminists but I feel like there are many more who aren't shit. We shouldn't use black-and-white dichotomies to lump it into an "us-versus-them" issue.

I feel like there's an issue with the terms "feminism" and "masculism" over the term "equalism" because it implies that men and women are fundamentally different and people who identify as either of the former aren't fighting for equality, they're, now by modern attitudes towards both, fighting for dominance of their sex, under the guise of equality- whether they're doing it intentionally or because they haven't identified it as that.


Yes, beautiful.

Those screenshots made me physically ill.

This will make you have a homicidal fury over the injustice and the mistreatment of rape by the court system in some cases.


Why do we allow this stuff to happen?

This evening, I came across this story on Polygon.

Some of Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain's characters are being redesigned to make them "more erotic" in an effort to encourage cosplay, said game director Hideo Kojima in a series of tweets today.

"I've been ordering to Yoji [Shinkawa, the game's art director] to make the character more erotic, and he did it well," said Kojima on his English Twitter account. "Recently I've been making characters this way. I create the setting thoroughly, how he/she spent early life, name, style, favorite phrase, fashion, action, to stand the character out."

He continued, "The initial target is to make [you] want to do cosplay or its figurine to sell well."

Kojima plans to provide detailed information on the CG model for Quiet — the mute, bikini-clad sniper revealed in Metal Gear Solid 5's E3 trailer — for cosplay purposes this Friday, Sept. 6, at 3 a.m. ET. According to Kojima, he received requests for that data from fans looking to cosplay as Quiet at this year's Tokyo Game Show.

He also seemed to express a concern that the outfit for the new, more erotic version of Quiet may be too difficult for cosplayers to replicate, saying, "This one may not be cosplayable [...] What if no one would do Quiet cosplay at TGS even [if I give] the info...lol?" He later provided an image of a potential costume for Quiet.

What do we think of this? Do we think it's a positive step towards wider creative expression, or just a bit disrespectful to the userbase?

I've never cosplayed but quite frankly the sexiness of the character would be the last thing on my mind, and I see Kojima's statement as pretty weird. It almost makes me feel like I'm being exploited, like my sexuality is being played upon just to increase exposure for someone else's product.

If I was going to cosplay, I've always thought I'd like to go as Subject Delta from Bioshock 2.

I don't think there's anything really shocking about the fact they're marketing things towards cosplayers in particular, every product has a target demographic- it will become an issue if it starts effecting the quality of the source material though. I don't play Metal Gear but really how much character development can you fit in for a bikini-clad mute sniper? Focusing on appearances isn't going to produce a game or characters that are remembered for long.

halfway though typing this i forgot what points i wanted to make oh

someguy3657 wrote:Furthermore, please understand this: I will dislike and mock feminists, because, while feminists did fight for equal rights in the past, many of them became psycho bitches who think men are scum, no matter what they did, and that anyone who doesn't think the same is a misogynist pig. But I will not, and I repeat, NOT, have anything against Women's right activists, who go out and try to make an honest difference in the world, and who actually do a part in making women equals to men all around the world, rather than just bitch and blame men for it.

Remember when I said that?

This is why.

Actually according to sources including Doctor Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster, a feminist is just someone who advocates for the political, social, and economic rights for women to be equal to those of men.

So, unless my sources are flawed, what we've got here is a feminist on the left, and a self-righteous blowhard on the right.

And I would totally agree with you, if all of these self-righteous blowhards didn't call themselves feminists. The word "feminist" has pretty much been tainted by these bitches.

Besides, I find the term "Women's right activist" to sound more professional and more dedicated than "feminist"

What a word may mean to you doesn't change what it actually means. It would take more connotation than that to change it, I think.

Are you guys up for a debate about abortion? I want to get your perspectives on it.

For me, I hold that a woman has a right to choose for herself, and an unborn child that she doesn't want is very sad, but mostly affects her own life and choices, not those of others, so she should get to decide to get an abortion.
Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, I think, but it still needs to be available.
Here are found some helpful charts about abortion in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state
In the US, abortion is constitutionally-protected under the right to privacy as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause.

Texas is an ultra-conservative state so recently there was a bill passed into law that closed all but five or so abortion clinics within the state(which, as you'll recall, is very big). There was a debacle about Wendy Davis filibustering the law.
What gets me upset about abortion is that so many people know so little about it and the female reproductive system in general. Opinions mostly go on instinct here.

I agree that abortions should be available to the women who need one. This is a decision that impacts only the parents' lives. The only problem I could see is when one of the parents disagrees, but this is a personal issue and not subject to legislation. I'm obviously not an expert here, but from what I gather this is a rather invasive procedure and I doubt any woman (probably apart from a small minority, because people are weird) would somehow count on it as some form of birth control which is what some of the opponents seem to be trying to convey (if it's not some religious reason, about which you all probably know my sentiments by now). In any case there is no reason not to make it accessible for the people who need it.

While being religious and rather against abortion, I think it should be available to some people. Mostly, rape victims.

I mean, if we take into consideration the many, many birth control methods such as condoms and the pill, there really shouldn't be anyone getting pregnant nowadays if they aren't willing or prepared to raise a child. Granted, maybe in the middle of passion, you tend to forget about protection. And, like Gorgro said, I'm not an expert, mainly because I don't have ovaries, but I would think that giving birth to a child and then giving him or her away to a family that could raise them a million times better than you ever could seems to be a better alternative than to snuffing out what could potentially be a fantastic person simply because of a mistake.

But yeah, abortions should still be available to people who were raped, because I feel that bearing the child of someone who violated you for 9 months would be nothing short of a hell.

It's all well and good saying "oh, condoms and the pill are a thing" but unfortunately those things can misfire. The failure rate of condoms is obviously low enough for them to be a viable form of birth control, but sometimes things just go bad.

Also, you say bearing the child of a rape would be unpleasant, but how do you know that's not the case for an accidental pregnancy? To have that albatross hanging around your neck for nine months?

Well, because the woman would've had at least some feelings of love for her partner if it was an accidental impregnation, unlike rape.

But like I said, abortions should be available, but only to rape victims. I suppose accidental impregnation could count as well, as long as they really did try to have protection

People make a lot of mistakes, especially where love is concerned. Some relationships are ill-timed, poorly thought out, abusive. How do you decide which people get to have abortions and which don't? I don't think we can place a restriction of that sort on people. It's too difficult to make constant on all levels, because you'd have to use a board of reviewers that would vary regionally.

Not to mention the issue of teenage mothers. How do you even handle that? Not everyone is like my sister and takes excellent care of her baby and matures ten years in sixth months. Not everyone should be a mother.
Adoption can be difficult. However as far as babies go, adopters tend to prefer children under the age of 2, so it's just a question of deciding for a given number of would-be adopters who is a good candidate for raising a child. The babies that don't get adopted go into foster care, where they are unlikely to be adopted, because people tend to think children in foster care are juvenile delinquents.

So in ten days, it'll be the first anniversary of when Adam Lanza killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Just last week or so, authorities released a comprehensive report on the shooting, and just today, the tapes of the 911 calls from the school were released as well.

The release of the tapes has sparked no small amount of controversy. There are those who believe that the release of the tapes was the right decision, such as Gilles Rousseau, the father of substitute teacher and victim Lauren Rousseau, was killed. He says that "the more the public knows, there will be less confusion, there will be less people making stories about what happened."
"There won't be any secrets by the time I hear [the tapes], there will be the facts, and I'm much better dealing with the facts than dealing with the unknown."

Others disagree, arguing that it is  still too soon. Gail Saltz, M.D, is a psychiatrist who says that "the 911 calls are going to sound like being there. In that sense, they're the trauma again."
The state's attorney's case for the tapes to not be released was on the grounds that "they would deter others from calling 911 in the future." This claim was said to have no merit by the court, though, leading to the release of the tapes.

Nicole Hockley, the mother of 6 year old victim Dylan Hockley, was similarly against the release of the tapes. "It will affect our community certainly and it will affect our families, and I think as parents it's just down to us to ensure our children and families are protected from hearing those for as long as possible."

My initial thoughts on reading arguments against release of the tapes on the grounds of them being too traumatic was a harsh "You know what else would be traumatic to hear about? The simple news that a guy shot up a fucking elementary school. After that a whole lot of other stuff seems pretty tame." But I reevaluated my thoughts after that, thinking about how unfortunate it is for the tapes to have been released just ten days before the anniversary of the shooting, likely when those who have been affected by the tragedy have been thinking about it more and more as December kicks off. No doubt they'll likely hear more than a bit of what is on the tapes against their wishes, as well as people discussing that material, all while they're just trying to not dwell on the massacre and move on.

But I still believe that the tapes should be available to the public. Nicole Hockley's argument that children should be protected from hearing the tapes "for as long as possible" does hold some weight, in that no one should be forcing the children, or indeed anyone, to listen to the tapes, but as those kids get older, almost certainly some of them will end up curious and will ask about the tapes, and they have a right to be informed should they so choose to want to be informed. We should be careful that we don't let this kind of material terrify and disillusion them, but we should also realize that, since we live in a world where, depressingly enough, shit like this can happen periodically as the years go by, they are well-informed enough to be prepared for the tragedies like this that they will have to deal with in their lifetimes, and to make the world a better place so that these tragedies happen less and less often as the years go by and we press onward.

Now I'mma just jump off this soapbox and let any discussion go ahead.

I think the tapes should be allowed to be accessed by the public, but no one should force anyone to listen to them, so in my opinion they should make a website to host the recordings announce the website, but have a warning before listening.

The theorists behind Sandy Hook are really more hurtful than the reality of the situation, I believe. The horrible things people say about what's 'really behind' the tragedy can only be quashed by disclosure of all the facts, so although release of the 911 tapes might be tasteless, I think it's necessary. I don't want to hear any more conspiracy theories, they somehow make the whole thing much worse.

911 being publicly funded is a big deciding factor in the decision for making tapes available to the public. The public does have a right to transparency of publicly funded entities, obviously there is contributing factors. Ongoing police investigation, the act of someone getting killed/assaulted being caught on tape, or incredibly disturbing or sensitive information may lead to recordings needing to be omitted from public record, at least for a while.

My opinion in the case of Sandy Hook, ultimately the tapes should be available to the public but it feels very wrong to me for it to be so soon. It may have to do with the fact I feel empathy for the pain of those affected by event coupled with it being one of the most senseless and harmful acts in recent history. It feels as tho I would be opening up old wounds for other people to gawk at with morbid curiosity at would be one of the worst events in a person's life.