To not see why people are so annoyed...?

[curiousgeorgie]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709730/Richard-Dawkins-sparks-outrage-Twitter-debate-saying-date-rape-bad-stranger-rape-worse.html

Sorry for the daily mail link, I know some don't like that.

I think I agree with him and I don't think it takes anything away from victims.... Am I wrong?

OP YABU because although his logic and argument is correct - as explained in more detail in his blog - of course people are going to be upset because the example is just so inflammatory.

He was incredibly naive if he didn't anticipate that the comparator he was trying to describe would be seen in the way he was trying to put it forward - it is too emotive a subject for any of us to read past the premise and to consider the logic structure.

But too many people are prepared to take it out of the academic context in which he had set the argument. Because he chose bad example. Two bad examples, actually.

Moral of the story? If you want to have an academic discussion on the structure of a logical argument, don't use Twitter as your platform.

Agree

I think it shows a lack of emotional intelligence

Nor only is this a nasty piece of mealy mouthed rape apologism dressed up as "discussion", OP didn't even give an indication what it was about in the thread title.

If you are going to start a controversial thread on a hot button topic which you know will provoke a strong reaction and/or upset people - at least have the courtesy to mention it so people can avoid the subject if they wish.

curious if you come back to this thread could you answer this hypothetical question.

If a friend of yours was attacked and raped in the circumstance that it wasn't a stranger [someone she knew, possibly a date] would you actually think to yourself 'it wasn't that bad, it could have been worse?'

Would you really think that?

MostWicked - if you say A is worse than B, then it follows, logically, that B must be better then A. I said what I did because I think it proves how wrong what RD said was - exactly because you cannot say that one rape is better/nicer than another. You've picked out one sentence from my post without the context that makes it clear that I am not saying that any rape is 'nice' or that I believe one race is better or worse than another - that does me a disservice.

They're both as bad - in different ways.

If I'm dragged into an alley by a stranger I imagine the fear for my life - has he got a knife? Has he got a gun? Is he planning to strangle me after this? - is stronger than if my husband of 20 years won't take no for an answer one night.

However emotionally the latter might well be worse. I don't know. There are so many things that are awful about rape that you just can't compare, and state that any one situation is worse than another.

YABMassivelyU.

I am not saying that any rape is 'nice' or that I believe one rape is better or worse than another - that does me a disservice.

I know you weren't saying that one type of rape is 'nice'. You said "if you are saying one sort of rape is 'worse' than another, you are clearly implying that some rapes are 'nicer'". I disagree with your extrapolation of that statement, it does not mean that some rapes are 'nicer'. I think that all rapes are horrific, but some are extremely horrific. That doesn't make any rape nicer than another.

There are different factors that might make a rape even worse.
A violent gang rape at knifepoint, of a vulnerable person, has the additional factors of the violence, the fear of death, the gang and the vulnerability of the victim, all of which make the overall offence worse than one which had none of those additional factors. In no way does that make one without those factors 'nicer'. Maybe less horrific in comparison, but no victim should ever be expected to take comfort in the notion that it could have been worse. The comparison is important in the courts, but nowhere else.

The issue of whether the rapist is known to the victim or is a stranger, needs more context. There are circumstances when either could be worse than the other, but there is no 'nicer'.

Rape is not an abstract concept. It is a trauma that happens to individuals. Only they can say what it means to them.

This discussion is pissing me off. And I like intellectual debate

Sorry, I don't mean to criticise individuals on here. I meant that the fact that Dawkins would see fit to provoke this discussion is pissing me off

His statement was clear and unambiguous:
Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse

In his response this morning Dawkins stated that he did not say this was RIGHT (his capitalisation), I think that is bullshit semantics. In saying that this analogy is a way to explain syllogism he asserting that this statement is TRUE. This statement is NOT TRUE. Dawkin's analogy is not an example of syllogism, it is his opinion, and this ill informed opinion is not objective fact.

It is illogical to apply degrees of severity to the crime of rape. Rape is rape, it is committing a sexual act with an individual without their consent. Rape is not about sex. It is about power, control, oppression. The aim is the degradation of the victim. The need to terrorise the victim into submission whether with a knife, physical violence or verbal threats. It is about stripping dignity from a victim. This is true of 'date rape' or stranger rape.

It is horrific in all circumstances. It is incredibly troubling that a man of Dawkin's supposed intellect would attempt to categorise rape according to familiarity between victim and rapist and the manner in which sexual coercion was applied.

Only a fool would attempt to discuss rape in such simple logical terms. I believe Dawkins is an arrogant fool.

Rape is rape. Individual acts of violence and degradation.

How one can begin to compare horrendous us beyond me.

Having said that the only conceivable way that I might consider rape by a stranger to be worse would be if you feared for your life ie thought they might kill you too.

No sign of OP coming back to defend her opinion that she's in agreement with this arse of a man.

She won't be back. She was arsey after 10 reasonable rebuttals of her position.

Well, this seems to me like an eminently reasonable discussion of an incredibly sensitive and upsetting topic. I understand why superficially someone would, without thinking, agree that 'stranger rape' is worse than 'date rape' because the very term 'date rape' trivialises the attack. The former summons up the stereotypical evil monster lurking in an alleyway to pounce on an unsuspecting innocent victim. 'Date rape' presupposes some kind of sexual attraction and, if you don't actually think about it, your logic may follow that it's better to have sex with someone you like than someone you don't.

But rape isn't actually about sex. It's about power and control, violence and domination. Sex is simply the weapon used to assert this. Take it out of the equation and say 'it's preferable to be punched in the face by a stranger than your boyfriend'. Is that true? No, it isn't.

People want to soften the concept of acquaintance rape by relegating it to a question of blurred lines, misunderstanding, a temporary lapse of control. Because we don't want to believe a normal man, someone we like and trust, is capable of a heinous crime. So we downgrade it - it's not a 'proper rape' committed by a 'real rapist'. But it is. And sadly, that 'real rapist' may be a man who seems nice, normal, friendly and unthreatening.

The attitude towards rape and the idea that it's more understandable or acceptable for a man to rape his friend/girlfriend/wife than to assault a stranger just clarifies how much we still need feminism and it bewilders me that some women won't identify themselves as feminists.

And looking further afield, the culture of rape endemic in India is resulting in numerous horror stories in the news. The two girls who were raped and hanged recently were known to their attackers. Was their fate somehow more palatable than the case of the young woman raped and murdered by strangers on a bus? It would be insulting and vile to weigh this up - the answer is that all rape is unacceptable, all rape is terrible and the concept that knowing the perpetrator makes it any less awful is nonsensical.

I admire Dawkins as a scientist. Not so much as a cultural commentator.

In this case he has tangled the two, with predictably dismal results.

He tried to prove a logical argument with something that doesn't culturally exist. Mild paedophilia doesn't exist, for example.

What does predictably exist however is a cultural reaction to that cultural notion.

Who is RD to say what is a "lessor" rape, or to grade what rapes are "worse" than the other?

Worse to who?

Can RD actually seriously imagine getting a bunch of rape victims together and asking them to stand in a line after deciding between them who's rape was worse (and therefor who's was better)? Because as soon as you start to engage with a scale of rape that is basically what you are asking.

I am a philosopher. I think the example he used was idiotic and posting on Twiter even more so. Having said that it was a thought experiment, I.e. IF you think that one kind of rape is bad and another is worse...etc. The use of 'if' here means 'set aside what you actually think here and accept my assumption. If my assumption is true, for the sake of the argument, do you agree my conclusion follows?'. In this case the conclusion was a point about implicature.

So if I said 'If aliens exist we're about to be wiped out as a race' and you responded with 'aliens do not exist' you would have missed my point. A relevant response would be 'aliens could be friendly and looking to get to know us not annihilate us' from which we could continue the discussion.

Still a really stupid example as the topic is extremely sensitive and the assumption idiotic so your listeners miss the original,point you were trying to make anyway. The stealing example is much better.

Squeaky you have deliberately misunderstood me. i never said it was different according to who did it, in fact the perpetrator in my examples was exactly the same each time. I said that a premeditated rape may be treated differently to one that wasn't planned in the same way that murder is.

For all crimes the specific circumstances are taken into account and thank goodness for that

It's all just personal choice cultural relativism, unless you leave the 'x' and 'y' in place. As soon as you replace them with actual words you are in 'says who?' territory.

All rape is pre-meditated, even if the pre-meditation takes place only a few minutes before the rape occurs. There is no such thing as accidental or mistaken rape. Stop pushing bullshit rape myths, Frontier.

It is illogical to apply degrees of severity to the crime of rape
But the law requires it. A judge cannot sentence without considering the severity of the offence.

Rape is rape.
So do you think that all acts of rape should attract an identical sentence?
The CPS guidelines cite a number of aggravating and mitigating factors that affect the judgement of the severity of the crime.

And the severity of the offence, doesn't always correlate with the effect on the victim. People respond to the same crime in different ways.

If you changed the crime to theft, I think most people would consider a friend or lover stealing from you a damn sight worse than a stranger.

Up it to rape then it really is more disgusting, if you need to put a value judgement on it, that a person you trust and esteem can do such vile violence to you.

That's ridiculous Oxford or all murder would be premeditated - if its accidental it's manslaughter. So it's entirely possible for murder to deliberate but not premeditated, why not rape?

It doesn't help the argument if people refuse to even hear the opposing view. I haven't said what my personal view is - just adding open questions to . open up the debate opening the debate and being abused for it

MostWicked - and these are cultural judgements, which is precisely why I think Dawkins was wrong to use them to demonstrate points of supposed philosophical logic.

They are in addition hotly contested cultural judgements.