Get the girl some absinthe… and a clue:
The sound of this post is my head bashing into a wall repeatedly.
Okay, I’m a glutton for punishment. I don’t know why I pore over things that make me boil inside the the fury of at least 3 volcanoes, but I think I do it in an attempt to make some fucking sense of the crazy people in this world. This is why I am finding myself reading over again the post by Vox Day…. The sentiments expressed by the clearly insane Vox and his commenters are as follows:
1. There is no such thing as date rape. Date rape is made up, and is akin to “post-sex buyer’s remorse.” Women cry date rape when they slept with a man and regret it afterwards.
Yes. “Date rape” is distinguished from real rape as it involves inherently sexual situations where there is seldom any possibility of obtaining evidence of either criminal activity or criminal intent, both of which are necessary to demonstrate in the conviction of real crimes.
2. Most of the time, women are responsible for being raped. The feminist movement is an attempt to eschew personal responsibility for said raping.
This is wildly inaccurate. A more accurate summary would be: “Women can be partially responsible for being raped. This does not, however, take away from the guilt of the rapist.” Apparently OOA doesn’t grasp the concept of the zero-sum game and its inapplicability here either.
3. Atheists and other liberals are moral relativists.
Thinking atheists are. They have no non-subjective basis for their “moral systems” and the rational ones subscribe to Nietszschean amorality. The vast majority, however, are simply unthinking moral parasites who pick and choose from the dominant morality as it suits their requirements at the moment.
4. The logical consequence of “moral relativism” is that there is nothing wrong with rape, since men deem the “slaking of [their] desire or lust” an intrinsic good. Therefore, even if you aren’t a conservative and don’t hate women like Vox et al. do, you are a liberal and therefore moral relativist and therefore you think rape is good.
By definition, there are no objective wrongs in the eyes of the moral relativist. Nor are there objective rights. OOA demonstrates a certain trouble with logic here. A moral relativist might think rape was good for her or she might not. Whatever her opinion, it would bear no significance for anyone else who defined their morality differently.
5. It would probably be a good idea if we adopted the approach to rape common in medieval-style Islamic law, which provides that another man must testify that a woman was raped (apart from the rapist) in order for the claim to be valid.
No one suggested Sharia as a potential solution to anything. However, the existence of some evidence – eyewitness evidence generally being considered the least conclusive – should be required in order to convict a human being of any crime.
6. It might also be a good idea if we punished false accusers. The proper punishment would be the same punishment as for rape. So, 20 years for every woman who brings a rape charge but fails in the investigation stage or at trial.
As opposed to rewarding them? Of course! A false accusation is a willful intent to harm an individual and more socially destructive than a simple assault. Also, a false accuser is someone who admits to having fabricated a groundless charge, not someone whose testimony does not lead to a guilty verdict. Such as was the case in 41 percent of the 109 rape accusations examined by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue in 1994. (Wikipedia)
7. If women have regular consensual sex with multiple partners, her claim of rape is suspect and likely false. Therefore, if you consent to two partners, you consent to them all.
It depends on the circumstances. The simple point which OOA attempts to obscure is that if a woman regularly engages in consensual sex, the probability that she was having consensual sex and not being raped is significantly higher than if she never makes a habit of doing so. This is difficult to understand?
8. Rape is different from other crimes because rape is the “possibility of life” while other crimes are “destruction.”
Yeah, I didn’t buy this one. Of course, I didn’t write it either. But I note that most men would be satisfied to see rape treated like any other crime with normal standards of evidence, testimony and courtroom procedure; it is women who have lobbied and demonstrated to see it treated differently. There is no Murder Shield Law and at least a modicum of evidence beyond “I say so” is required to meet the burden of a reasonable doubt for every other crime.
She’d better keep on with that bashing. Perhaps it will knock some sense into her.