Revleft purges

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I've seen a reference to something like this, which presumably happened in 2011, on a number of occasions, but I have no idea what that is. Does someone care to explain?

[Sinister Intents]

I'm pretty sure the 2011 one was because of forum games in which a number of people invited people who'd normally be banned here. I wasn't a member at the time, but I knew it had something to do with forum games. I could be wrong!

[DOOM]

Forum games?
Yeah heard about this too, always thought it was some joke.

[Skyhilist]

There was also the RAAN and roooster thing, that happened pretty much right when I joined and I had no idea what was going on.

[Zukunftsmusik]

How many threads will be made about this? This forum has a search function

[Hrafn]

The forum game-related claims of "Nazi infiltration" were a hoax, and a minor one at that. The resl purges took place when people started questioning admin policy.

[Orange Juche]

Having been here since 2004, I missed all that, and have since wondered if I would have been "purged". What were people questioning? Like, what was the circumstance?

Was that when they took Stalinists out of OI?

[Five Year Plan]

If you talk about it, you might disappear, too! Shhhh!!!!!

[Kill all the fetuses!]

How many threads will be made about this? This forum has a search function

Well, I skimmed through several threads I everything I got was some weird things about "Avanti", which doesn't clear anything up at all. Furthermore, I saw no references to forum games as well. Hence this thread.


Having been here since 2004, I missed all that, and have since wondered if I would have been "purged". What were people questioning? Like, what was the circumstance?

Was that when they took Stalinists out of OI?

Well, people keep mentioning the purges and I have no idea what they are talking about, so I thought someone might explain me what was it. Well, yes, essentially I am asking about the circumstances.

[Ele'ill]

'purges' refers to any time a friend-group repeatedly does obnoxious things and gets themselves banned, usually followed by sockpuppet moaning

[Blake's Baby]

Weren't you an admin (or was it a mod? It's a distinction that's meaningful to admins/mods but none of the rest of us know or care what the difference is)? If so you may not be entirely unbiased in that assessment.

Ismail decided that the forum was being infiltrated by fascists and a bunch of people were enabling them; CotR decided that a bunch of people were compromising her identity by referring to stuff she'd done off the forum. Oh and someone was annoyed that a user called Chicken* had made a tendency called Chickenism*.

So a lot of people were banned.

*names changed because 3 years later the board software is still set up to censor that word.

[Orange Juche]

Is that why there aren't a whole lot of people from like pre-2010? I've noticed there's virtually no users that have registered anywhere near the time I did.

[The Feral Underclass]

Weren't you an admin (or was it a mod? It's a distinction that's meaningful to admins/mods but none of the rest of us know or care what the difference is)?

It sounds like you care.

[Ele'ill]

Weren't you an admin (or was it a mod? It's a distinction that's meaningful to admins/mods but none of the rest of us know or care what the difference is)?

Then why and what are you asking me?




If so you may not be entirely unbiased in that assessment.A lot of the issues regarding groups of users and individual users were initially noted by other users, not by the mods/admins. And there was a lot of moaning by various users, that is just a fact.



I mean if me being biased is not wanting to wade through 35 pages of meme images in any given top thread within the Learning/Politics forums or not tolerating free running blatant sexism in OI then yeah I am very biased.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

If you talk about it, you might disappear, too! Shhhh!!!!!

...So it's sort of like this forum's version of Candlejack?

[Ele'ill]

Avanti was great though, up until the story of braining some kid with a bat. I bet they used an actual bat, like the animal. Beat someone to death with a Western Long-eared Myotis.

[Sinister Intents]

When I first joined I expected to bbe banned in some kind of purge, but another purge hasn't really happened in a while lest I'm missing something

[M-L-C-F]

There have been multiple purges on this site. Both ones that were needed, and ones that were completely stupid. Dealing with reactionaries is all well and good. But the purges like the time the vocal Rebel Alliance Forums people got banned or restricted. Because we disagreed with the CC and its elitist circlejerk, and split off from here. Those were bullshit. Because some of the people who've been in charge of this site, don't like to be questioned. Putting the Stalinists in OI was fucking stupid too. I don't care for most of them, but don't segregate them from the rest of us. But the power and influence here seems to fluctuate, depending on the political fad that this site is on. Which grouping has the most members, and whatnot.

I got unbanned because TAT is cool and helped me out. Those who were restricted got unrestricted later, or just stopped bothering with this site. This site doesn't take criticism well, and it's shown that in the past. However, it's become much more lenient. Because if it was the way it used to be. All those people who started that anarchist forum, would've been banned pretty fast.

The remaining records of these events aren't viewable to regular users. Only the admins and senior mods. There's a reason they're not all there, and it isn't just server issues that have happened.

[Blake's Baby]

It sounds like you care.

No, except in so far as it makes it difficult to get info about what has been done. When you think someone is an admin and you go looking in the thread of 'admin actions' to find out if they've logged things and then it isn't there, because it's in a different thread called 'moderator actions', it's frustrating. I would guess that the vast majority of users don't know what the distinction between an admin and a mod is. I certainly don't. I suspect that most that don't care about the distinction either. I know I don't. I do know there is a distinction, because it make the site even more bureaucratic than it needs to be. I care about shit functioning, but as to the exact division of responsibility between the two groups and who's more to blame for the shit, no, not really.

[The Feral Underclass]

You definitely care.

[Blake's Baby]

Then why and what are you asking me?

I'm asking if you were either a mod or an admin. If I had only asked if you were a mod, and you were in fact an admin, you could have said 'no'. If I asked if you were an admin, and you were instead a mod, you could have answered 'no'. But as I don't know what the difference is between an admin and a mod anyway, I don't care what your specific job title might have been. I want to know if you had a job.

[M-L-C-F]

Who the fuck doesn't know what the difference between what a moderator and administrator are? It's simple forum assignments, and has to do with the forum software. As well as spreading out the responsibility to more than just the administrators. It's not complicated, and you don't need to know much about software to know that. :rolleyes:

An administrator runs the site and/or forums. The moderators police the site and/or forums. Administrators can also police, but it's usually left to the moderators to do.

[motion denied]

I have no idea why the purges happened - they happened before I signed up. As a lurker I didn't notice/understand shit so...

All I can say is: a spin-off forum that apparently can't be named had some interesting threads and discussions, at a level I'm yet to see around here. It's a shame it's been long dead.

Anyway, fuck it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Who the fuck doesn't know what the difference between what a moderator and administrator are?
I hadn't known til I became one. I thought I'll be able to restrict and ban indiscriminately, ultimately leading to my personal dictatorship over the forum. Look where it got me instead.

[Ele'ill]

I'm asking if you were either a mod or an admin. If I had only asked if you were a mod, and you were in fact an admin, you could have said 'no'. If I asked if you were an admin, and you were instead a mod, you could have answered 'no'. But as I don't know what the difference is between an admin and a mod anyway, I don't care what your specific job title might have been. I want to know if you had a job.


My point was that you followed this up with something along the lines of 'who gives a shit' and i'm thinking 'yeah I know, right' but since you are actually asking now, yes I was. A local, global, and admin.

[Blake's Baby]

Fucking hell Links, don't look now but apparently, they made you a cop while you weren't looking. My advice is, back away quietly while smiling and we can all make it out of here in one piece.


My point was that you followed this up with something along the lines of 'who gives a shit' ...

No, I didn't. I followed it up with 'not that I know what the difference is but it appears to be important to somebody', as I'd remembered a particularly frustrating occasion when I was trying to find something out but couldn't because I didn't know the job title of the person I needed to look for. From a user's point of view, I want to know (for example) who has banned someone. But now M-L-C-F has helpfully explained the difference. Not that I will remember what anyone's title is next time but that's not M-L-C-F's fault.

[Ele'ill]

No, I didn't.




Weren't you an admin (or was it a mod? It's a distinction that's meaningful to admins/mods but none of the rest of us know or care what the difference is)?




I followed it up with 'not that I know what the difference is but it appears to be important to somebody',

and then it became pretty important to you (I don't even know or care at this point what your exact grievance is you are posting in a very confusing manner I am replying mainly to be polite)




as I'd remembered a particularly frustrating occasion when I was trying to find something out but couldn't because I didn't know the job title of the person I needed to look for. From a user's point of view, I want to know (for example) who has banned someone.

Wow that is sooooo frustrating because there is no other alternatives to find out that kind of thing.

[Sinister Intents]

This thread goes on while I'm in a parking lot, blasting death metal and waiting for my girlfriend. In all honesty I think a new purge is very far away from happening anytime soon.

[#FF0000]

Ismail decided that the forum was being infiltrated by fascists and a bunch of people were enabling them; CotR decided that a bunch of people were compromising her identity by referring to stuff she'd done off the forum. Oh and someone was annoyed that a user called Chicken* had made a tendency called Chickenism*.

So a lot of people were banned.

*names changed because 3 years later the board software is still set up to censor that word.


'purges' refers to any time a friend-group repeatedly does obnoxious things and gets themselves banned, usually followed by sockpuppet moaning

it is a mix of both of these thing tbh. even when obnoxious people are getting banned, the process is entirely opaque and admins are rarely if ever forthcoming in answering questions about why the person was banned and don't accommodate criticism, usually leading to more people getting banned because everyone is baby.

[#FF0000]

This thread goes on while I'm in a parking lot, blasting death metal and waiting for my girlfriend. In all honesty I think a new purge is very far away from happening anytime soon.

well yeah because there isn't as much going on these days.

also I think "purge" is a bad word to use for this because it implies there's some kind of rhyme or reason. what usually happens is: someone gets banned > people get mad > admins get mad > more bans > repeat

"Ban-wave"

[Orange Juche]

"Ban-wave"

That makes it sound fun! :lol:

[M-L-C-F]

In all honesty I think a new purge is very far away from happening anytime soon.

See, that's how they get you. It's the calm before the storm. :p


"Ban-wave"


That makes it sound fun! :lol:

"Ban-wave" sounds like a weapon that a mad scientist would make. All I see is an admin shooting a giant laser weapon at people, turning them into dust. Thereby banning them from the site. :lol:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I guess according to RL. Male chickens still don't exist. When will you end your war on science RL? Hmm!?

Tbh, I just remember the Chicken purges which really just starte with Ruuster and then spread to anyone affiliated or took up for him and so on. What I remember. More or less. Idk about the others.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

From what I can tell, the Great Purge Patriotic War Against Fascist Infiltrators was some sort of epic clash of internet revolutionary nerdarios. Anyway it's sort of misguided to focus on one incident when RevLeft has a long history of questionable administrative decisions. I mean god's nonexistent sake, there are barely-concealed third-positionists posting without restriction, while a lot of the more knowledgeable and politically consistent members have left, stopped posting regularly or have been banned, mostly because of the BA's collective long-distance relationship with reality.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

******* lives in all of our hearts

[Brosa Luxemburg]

*chicken

[motion denied]

Purging fascist infiltrators is some Yezhov role playing shit.

The thin line between being sympathetic to a tendency and becoming a walking character of some dead Russians.

[Sinister Intents]

I just purged all the food I ate. Does this count?

[Red Commissar]

Eh, I think people are being a little overdramatic about how much that particular ban spree did. A lot of users who were from before then were already becoming inactive or leaving. Some of that might have to do with political differences or beef with the BA but a lot of it has to take into consideration that generally the longer someone is in an online community they tend to become more inactive as time goes on. There are of course always exceptions to this but for the most part it rings true. I don't post no where near as much as I used to when I first joined and that's not really much to do with the forum as much as I simply don't feel the same drive to post.

As for this particular episode of bans, it was a bad one in the sense that a lot of pent up frustration exploded. If you want the full glory you can look at the official statement and the thread that morphed into the venting thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/statement-admins-concerning-t165865/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-hell-happenedi-t165963/index.html

honestly though it was nothing really clear-cut and dry. Dumb e-drama and personality conflicts/rivalries that came to the surface ontop of the event.

[Red Economist]

As for this particular episode of bans, it was a bad one in the sense that a lot of pent up frustration exploded. If you want the full glory you can look at the official statement and the thread that morphed into the venting thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/statement-...865/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/statement-admins-concerning-t165865/index.html)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-hell-ha...963/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-hell-happenedi-t165963/index.html)
I've been on this site since 2008, (as a lurker), so I'm surprised I missed most of this. makes interesting reading (from an internet drama standpoint).

[PhoenixAsh]

What happened was that the BA made a decision about forum games.

Members who had no place on this forum became members on invitation from other members just to play the games. This included people who posted on 3rd position sites or worse. Neither that has and had a place on this forum. So forum games were banned.

The only real issue was that this happened against the background of months and months of feuds between a group of members and the BA which turned every administrative decision, right or wrong, into drama and fights.

So there were several issues that came to head at roughly the same time.

* Ongoing differences with two specific long term users.
* The forum game question
* And the continued agitation by a group of users against the BA.
* Re-organisation of OI
* Reaction against latent and increasingly more open sexism (even more so than now) / bro-culture phad

It set off DOS-attacks on the site and resulted in split-off forums (which ironically eventually succumbed to the same infighting as they had started here), open personal threats, breach of security culture, posting personal information etc.

It was a very hectic and confusing time.

Members were banned. Mostly due to their own behavior and completely unnecessary. Some got caught in the cross fire.

It is what happens when drama goes over into hysteria.

That is about it.

[Hit The North]

I like how all these "anarchist admins" are into order and a strong central administration. I like how they view dissent as "drama" and "hysteria" and requests for clarity and accountability as "whinging". I like how they gang up on users who disagree with them and won't be quiet about it, and ban them on trumped-up charges in order to shut them up (Vanguard1917, a miserable, irritating and thought-provoking contrarian, being the latest victim). I like how the complete lack of administrative democracy on the site results in passive-aggressive threads like this where only past controversies can be discussed because discussion of current ones are verboten and there is no reasonable mechanism for challenging decisions anyway.

[Hit The North]

Eh, I think people are being a little overdramatic about how much that particular ban spree did. A lot of users who were from before then were already becoming inactive or leaving. Some of that might have to do with political differences or beef with the BA but a lot of it has to take into consideration that generally the longer someone is in an online community they tend to become more inactive as time goes on. There are of course always exceptions to this but for the most part it rings true. I don't post no where near as much as I used to when I first joined and that's not really much to do with the forum as much as I simply don't feel the same drive to post.


But users don't get purged for inactivity. Hell, we have a number of continuing admins and mods who hardly ever post these days!

And I disagree, that particular purge deprived the site of some active and very knowledgeable posters, some of whom were active irl, and the forum, in my view, has still not completely recovered from their loss.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I like how all these "anarchist admins" are into order and a strong central administration. I like how they view dissent as "drama" and "hysteria" and requests for clarity and accountability as "whinging". I like how they gang up on users who disagree with them and won't be quiet about it, and ban them on trumped-up charges in order to shut them up (Vanguard1917, a miserable, irritating and thought-provoking contrarian, being the latest victim). I like how the complete lack of administrative democracy on the site results in passive-aggressive threads like this where only past controversies can be discussed because discussion of current ones are verboten and there is no reasonable mechanism for challenging decisions anyway.

The only active administrator who is at the same time an actual anarchist is Quail, the most pleasant, approachable and politically sane of the lot, even if she is a mathematician. I think the problem with the board administration isn't so much this or that leftist tendency exercising some sort of secret dictatorship but the general political tendency of the administration, which is liberal or social-democratic at best, the leftist politics of certain individual administrators notwithstanding (as anyone who has done administrative work knows, the whole is stupider than the sum of its parts, or at least more inclined to accept the prevailing social attitudes). This is reflected by some of the bans and other dodgy administrative decisions - some of them are probably (possibly?) motivated by personal, subpolitical reasons, but a lot of them are political - and liberal.

[PhoenixAsh]

I like how all these "anarchist admins" are into order and a strong central administration. I like how they view dissent as "drama" and "hysteria" and requests for clarity and accountability as "whinging".

I like how you aren't able to distinguish between goal and method. And that, ironically, was exactly the reason why these users stepped over the line creating the polarization which ultimately meant the downfall of their own forum...and the absence of any change.

I called it back then: hypocracy. As soon as they had their own place...the exact same result.


I like how they gang up on users who disagree with them and won't be quiet about it, and ban them on trumped-up charges in order to shut them up (Vanguard1917, a miserable, irritating and thought-provoking contrarian, being the latest victim).

I like how you seem to always defend the sexists, rape apologists and heteronormatives...and how you go out of your way to actually address the statements which were given to you which were grounds for bans long, long ago for the specific user you mention.


I like how the complete lack of administrative democracy on the site results in passive-aggressive threads like this where only past controversies can be discussed because discussion of current ones are verboten and there is no reasonable mechanism for challenging decisions anyway.

Basically your wish here is the culmination of the aove: when BA bans sexists you disagree. When questions of democracy result in threats with physical violence and exposure of private information...we can't call users out on it. But perhaps you missed all that...how convenient.

And therefore it is your conclusion: no administrative democracy on this site.

Perhaps you have to look at cause and effect. Like I argued back then...

I of course do remember the CC...which came extremely close to what you actually seem to want and which immediately reverted in witch hunts and in which the members you defend would not have stood a chance at all anyway.

Circular logic.

[Hit The North]

I like how you seem to always defend the sexists, rape apologists and heteronormatives...and how you go out of your way to actually address the statements which were given to you which were grounds for bans long, long ago for the specific user you mention.


I love the way you label your opponents as "sexists, rape apologists and hetronormatives" (in your non-revolutionary, bourgeois-sociological manner), when it is you who denies that rape is an expression of patriarchal power and belittles the use of rape against women in peace time and war time by inflating the importance of female-on-male rape. If VG1917 was a persistent sexist and rape denier for arguing against you then that would make 90% of the women's movement sexists and rape-deniers and 100% of the MRA fantastic anti-sexists like yourself.

Frankly even your bourgeois-sociological politics are shit and you've employed administrative measures to win a flimsy argument.


I of course do remember the CC...which came extremely close to what you actually seem to want and which immediately reverted in witch hunts and in which the members you defend would not have stood a chance at all anyway.
In the case of VG1917, who was here long before anyone had heard of you, he did survive the CC. In fact, he participated in its discussions and defended his contrarian positions numerous times. What he failed to survive is the current "behind-closed doors" manoeuvring of the likes of you.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. I have more important things to do than waste time in another fruitless discussion over things I can't change.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

By the way, did the infamous C.C. really engage in "witch hunts" or did it just ban a lot of people the administration liked? Because the version I heard is more in line with the second option, and reading through old threads, I really don't see any evidence of the evil C.C. banning people because they disliked them. If anything the rules seem to have been too lax - as they are now in fact (no one is opposed to stricter rules, I imagine, but a lot of people are opposed to how the present rules are enforced).

[Lord Testicles]

By the way, did the infamous C.C. really engage in "witch hunts" or did it just ban a lot of people the administration liked? Because the version I heard is more in line with the second option, and reading through old threads, I really don't see any evidence of the evil C.C. banning people because they disliked them. If anything the rules seem to have been too lax - as they are now in fact (no one is opposed to stricter rules, I imagine, but a lot of people are opposed to how the present rules are enforced).

The way I remember it is:

The CC did have a lot of witch hunts, not all were put into practice but that didn't stop (petty, insufferable, drama-peddling) people from trying to initiate them almost constantly. I don't think the unique way this board handles unwelcome people (OI, restrictions) helped because restriction would usually be the goal of the witch hunts. (For example, I don't like Person A but A hasn't done or said anything worthy of a ban but he did once call a female member of the board "hysterical" so I might be able to argue that he is in fact a sexist and therefore should be restricted.)

Naturally, I think the faults of the CC lie as much with the BA as it did with CC members. The CC shouldn't have been discussing who should be banned and what for, the BA should have just had clear and concise rules which would be applied uniformly.

I think most of the ill-feeling towards the BA would evaporate if they would just make their decision process more transparent (letting members or CU members view the admin and mod forums) because then people would be reassured that they are administrating this forum as professionally as possible as opposed to organising and enacting their own little witch hunts in secret.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I didn't pay attention to the chicken situation but a lot of the 'unjustified bans' I've seen have been for people who antagonize the mods over the course of a few days or weeks over petty board policy shit before the logical conclusion drops on them. I can only think of one really unjustified one but the guy was being a prick in the thread and had been a prick in general for several weeks before that, so it wasn't totally without reason.

[Thirsty Crow]

The only active administrator who is at the same time an actual anarchist is Quail, the most pleasant, approachable and politically sane of the lot, even if she is a mathematician.
I can already see where this is going.
There will be an epic battle on the forums between primarily physicists and mathematicians, with biologists and chemists playing only episodic, and highly suspect roles. Resulting in massive exodus of members and a protracted war of attrition, no side will be able to prevail until one linguist (kinda) rises as a shining beacon of revolutionary light and brings peace to the lands.
Then proceeds to purge both factions. Numbers and equations ewww. Maybe he'll keep an occasional biologist as a minion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I can already see where this is going.
There will be an epic battle on the forums between primarily physicists and mathematicians, with biologists and chemists playing only episodic, and highly suspect roles. Resulting in massive exodus of members and a protracted war of attrition, no side will be able to prevail until one linguist (kinda) rises as a shining beacon of revolutionary light and brings peace to the lands.
Then proceeds to purge both factions. Numbers and equations ewww. Maybe he'll keep an occasional biologist as a minion.

True Spartacist tales time again! The honourable international secretary founder-dude Robertson was actually a chemist. I think this explains much of his complete social ineptness.

[PhoenixAsh]

I love the way you label your opponents as "sexists, rape apologists and hetronormatives" (in your non-revolutionary, bourgeois-sociological manner), when it is you who denies that rape is an expression of patriarchal power and belittles the use of rape against women in peace time and war time by inflating the importance of female-on-male rape. If VG1917 was a persistent sexist and rape denier for arguing against you then that would make 90% of the women's movement sexists and rape-deniers and 100% of the MRA fantastic anti-sexists like yourself.

I see that you are still a lying little shit for brains asshole. That much hasn't changed. But it is funny how you need to resoort to downright lies in order to make your point of defending somebody who said:

1. Sex with people who are unable to consent isn't rape
2. It isn't rape when it is non-violent
3. If men are sexually harassed then it is because they have alterior motives
4. Men can't be sexually harassed
5. Female-to-female rape isn't rape
6. It isn't rape if you are under the AOM
7. Continuously perpetuated gender stereotypes
etc.

But yeah...sure...

Next of course you conveniently FAIL to mention it was VG1917 who focussed entirely on the part I mentioned about female-to-male rape (conveniently ignoring me continously mentioning female-to-female rape as being far more prevalent as well as saying that male-to-female rape was by far the majority of rapes occuring)...setting out to prove his point that rape is purely male violence by introducing "adult" into the equation.

And of course you also completely fail to mention me structurally arguing that female perpetraitors do not undermine the patriarchal aspect of rape at all but are perfectly logical within the patriarchal structures. And how rape was exploited in the patriarchal system. Arguments which VG1917 refused to engage in.

But hey...whatever YOU actually need to prove your little chummy-chum-chum wasn't actually a rape apologist, sexist, victim blamer who was previously kicked out of the CU for sexism and rape apology to the point where non of his BA friends wanted to actually excuse him and who specifically build on those exact same arguments.



Frankly even your bourgeois-sociological politics are shit and you've employed administrative measures to win a flimsy argument.

Conveniently forgetting that VG1917 was already previously kicked out of the CU and restricted for sexism and rape apologism. But yeah sure...I, me, alone employed administrative measures to win a flimsy argument which I didn't want in the first place...out of the clear blue sky...without a previous and continous context.

Turn the responsibility much?

Next you are going to argue that I didn't actually engage him for several pages...o...wait..you did...

See it isn always fun when you are lectured on your political position when somebody is defending a rape apologist and denier.


In the case of VG1917, who was here long before anyone had heard of you, he did survive the CC. In fact, he participated in its discussions and defended his contrarian positions numerous times. What he failed to survive is the current "behind-closed doors" manoeuvring of the likes of you.

I think I was pretty open from the start what I thought of him....and since I continued that exact position for several pages in which he had ample time to explain his position and yet chose to confuse, obfuscate and ignore in order to haggle over percentage points and in the process making numerous statements which you conveniently gloss over in your asinine defense of somebody who thinks fucking somebody unable to consent isn't rape and if you do not use violence it isn't rape and when you are a victim of abuse then you must have alterior motives when you are male because you are male....

Sure...whatever...



Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. I have more important things to do than waste time in another fruitless discussion over things I can't change.

Really? Because it seems to me that you specificaly entered the thread with VG1917 AFTER he was banned to specifically start this discussion.

[M-L-C-F]

Man, I'm glad that I missed all this shit from the past couple years, when I was away from this damn site. RevLeft drama is so fucking annoying. It's the same shit now, as it was 10 years ago. The CC might be gone, but the bullshit still remains. Whether it's parts of the BA, or the userbase here.

Yes they had witchhunts in the CC, and many of the people in it acted like elitist dicks. Retrospectively, I view it as the 4chan of the internet left. Though this entire site shouldn't be taken seriously, and none of us who are actually active irl do take it seriously. Minus a couple of the people who have power here of course.

This site seems less active than it used to be, especially when Che-Lives was the primary site still. Plus the IRC chat, which was the best part of this site, is gone now. :crying:

[Ele'ill]

I like how all these "anarchist admins" are into order and a strong central administration.

I like how all these types of folks ^ who have been here for a long time think that an internet forum filled with pure anonymity, sockpuppets and trolls could be run 'democratically' and last more than an hour. Even if every CU user here was made an admin you would still be moaning and attempting to draw hysterical conclusions between real world politic praxis and an internet forum. Also, from a brief historical perspective you haven't even proposed anything at all as a member of the CU so sorry if non-contributors who pop out of the ether every time an 'anti-forum/admin' thread comes up get written off as 'oh look its that user moaning on again'




I like how they view dissent as "drama" and "hysteria" and requests for clarity and accountability as "whinging".

Actually some of the 'dissent' (lol) is legit but afaik none of what you are talking about is included in that.



I like how they gang up on users who disagree with them and won't be quiet about it

Its usually groups of users ganging up on other users or ganging up on mods and admins, that's a fact.

[M-L-C-F]

I like how all these types of folks ^ who have been here for a long time think that an internet forum filled with pure anonymity, sockpuppets and trolls could be run 'democratically' and last more than an hour. Even if every CU user here was made an admin you would still be moaning and attempting to draw hysterical conclusions between real world politic praxis and an internet forum.

I can vouch for the idea of democratic forums failing. That's what happened with RA, when we split off. It got taken over by liberal pretenders and reactionary trash, and the mob mentality set in pretty quick. But that doesn't mean shit shouldn't be more transparent here though. I also think that the CU is stupid, and looks like a semi-replacement for the CC. At least from the outside looking in. As I don't have any friendly contacts in that usergroup, like I used to in the CC. So I could be mistaken.

[#FF0000]

I like how all these types of folks ^ who have been here for a long time think that an internet forum filled with pure anonymity, sockpuppets and trolls could be run 'democratically' and last more than an hour. Even if every CU user here was made an admin you would still be moaning and attempting to draw hysterical conclusions between real world politic praxis and an internet forum. Also, from a brief historical perspective you haven't even proposed anything at all as a member of the CU so sorry if non-contributors who pop out of the ether every time an 'anti-forum/admin' thread comes up get written off as 'oh look its that user moaning on again

yeah i agree with most of this but at the same time admin actions are extremely opaque and there isn't even an attempt to facilitate disagreement. What admins say goes, and if you don't like it there's no recourse or attempt at finding a resolution that makes everyone at least a little bit happy.

[Orange Juche]

I'll go back to what I alluded to before - I do find it strange that almost everyone whom I see post on this site is like 2009 or later, often 2012 or later signups.

This board has always seemed fairly active and though it took me 10 years to get 1,000 posts, I've popped in at least for a little bit from here to there, and it always seemed at least somewhat active. So there's like a mass of posters from 2002 - 2009 essentially who simply who either chose not to post here or were banned? Did they choose not to post here because of banning? This is something I've been wondering, because clearly a notable amount of people stopped using this forum since I signed up.

[M-L-C-F]

I'll go back to what I alluded to before - I do find it strange that almost everyone whom I see post on this site is like 2009 or later, often 2012 or later signups.

This board has always seemed fairly active and though it took me 10 years to get 1,000 posts, I've popped in at least for a little bit from here to there, and it always seemed at least somewhat active. So there's like a mass of posters from 2002 - 2009 essentially who simply who either chose not to post here or were banned? Did they choose not to post here because of banning? This is something I've been wondering, because clearly a notable amount of people stopped using this forum since I signed up.

I think that a lot of it has to do with people just getting sick and tired of the bullshit. It's also the pretenders not thinking it's cool to be a leftist anymore, or people just outgrowing this site. I don't think that there's some conspiracy on why all the other older users are gone. But I do think that some people were gotten rid of or forced out.

I outgrew this site. I'm only back, because it's something to do. There are a handful of people here that I know from before. They're the handful of people that I actually take seriously. Many of them don't post anymore. Most of the people that I knew on here from way back, don't bother with this site anymore. But I can't say that I blame them for doing so.

[Ele'ill]

I think most users stopped posting not because they were banned or had a falling out with radical politics. I think life circumstances often drag us away from the internet. I plan on going back to school and/or moving fairly soon so that will probably be a time where I won't be using the internet in the same way that I am now. I also want to pursue muay thai/mma and/or bouldering and free diving as recreational activities. Time in the day just runs out. I think forums can accommodate a schedule of work/after-work-beer, part time school and recreational learning/reading which it has for me.

[M-L-C-F]

I think most users stopped posting not because they were banned or had a falling out with radical politics. I think life circumstances often drag us away from the internet. I plan on going back to school and/or moving fairly soon so that will probably be a time where I won't be using the internet in the same way that I am now. I also want to pursue muay thai/mma and/or bouldering and free diving as recreational activities. Time in the day just runs out. I think forums can accommodate a schedule of work/after-work-beer, part time school and recreational learning/reading which it has for me.

Yeah, I think that also has to do with it as well. It's the same for me. When I start working here again soon, there really won't be much time left for me to be wasting on this site.

[PhoenixAsh]

its an internet forum. People move on.

[BIXX]

I used to support bringing back the CC (fuck, I even proposed the general idea of a CC before I knew the CC was a thing that didn't really work out) but now I realize that RevLeft isn't important and that I don't really care much to be involved in decision making in a forum.

[Orange Juche]

its an internet forum. People move on.

Cue cheesy dramatic movie montage ending describing what happened to those who left when they grew up...

[motion denied]

I was going to reply hindsight 20/20 with a "internet is serious business" meme. However, apparently I'm no good at posting images.


Let it be known that I've hit the "meme response" level, and that internet is serious business. Low as I can get.

[M-L-C-F]

That's probably the best point outta all of them. That it's merely an internet forum, and that it doesn't really matter at all.

[Ele'ill]

nothing really matters at all

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's probably the best point outta all of them. That it's merely an internet forum, and that it doesn't really matter at all.

Don't mean we can't whinge about it tho. I mean, sure, it's an Internet forum, it won't bring about the revolution etc. But pointing out things that annoy you about an Internet forum is not an overreaction. The way some people talk you'd think we stalk the BA and have slit the throats of their cats or something.

[#FF0000]

to be fair i mailed a dead cat to psycho once

[PhoenixAsh]

Don't mean we can't whinge about it tho. I mean, sure, it's an Internet forum, it won't bring about the revolution etc. But pointing out things that annoy you about an Internet forum is not an overreaction. The way some people talk you'd think we stalk the BA and have slit the throats of their cats or something.

Well...there is pointing out things that annoy you and there is escalating every thing.

This thread refers to the "time of the purges" and during that period threats of vioolence were made. I don't think they involved cats and slit throats, but they did involve identity exposure and violence. O...plus attacking the board. Which, and I am not saying they are related, happened shortly after.

[M-L-C-F]

Don't mean we can't whinge about it tho. I mean, sure, it's an Internet forum, it won't bring about the revolution etc. But pointing out things that annoy you about an Internet forum is not an overreaction. The way some people talk you'd think we stalk the BA and have slit the throats of their cats or something.

Oh yeah, it's fine to criticize this place. In fact, I do it pretty frequently. But the people here really need to get their priorities straight. Forums have their use, but actions speak louder than words.

I pity a lot of the younger people here, that've got a large number of posts. Because they're really just wasting their time. Instead of sitting on the computer arguing with people, or complaining how you're being treated here. Go out, and do something. Volunteer work, protests, or try to organize your fucking workplace. Do something to help others, which in the end also helps yourself. It could be something as simple as cleaning up a park, or even feeding the homeless. If not that, then just read and learn. Though there's no reason why you can't do them all at the same time.

I'm not even trying to be a prick or anything. Nor am I being ageist at all. But the kids here really lack some well needed wisdom. Something that can only be gained with experience. The revolution is powered by youth, but is fought by us all. Wisdom guides the cause, a common goal that we all have. Sorry if I'm coming off as the old man at all. But I just shake my fucking head at the angst, and the people here who just don't even try to overcome any dysfunction that they might have. Instead they just try to get people to pity them, or use their problems as excuses. Continuing to either nitpick, or just bicker amongst each other. All this site is, is an endless circle. Debating the same shit over and over again is useless. It's why I don't bother debating shit here anymore.

I mean, I might have differences with some people in the left. But that doesn't stop me from working with them in real life things. That's what a lotta people here gotta learn. Get over yourselves, work together for something better, and stop fucking overreacting. It's all well and good to not care for some people or groups. But don't be so exclusive that you've got no one to work with.

But anyways, that's my little spiel, that I've got for this place. Not quite as long as one of Comandante's speeches, but it's still a pretty decent sized post. :lol:

[Creative Destruction]

I like how all these types of folks ^ who have been here for a long time think that an internet forum filled with pure anonymity, sockpuppets and trolls could be run 'democratically' and last more than an hour.

i'm a part of a message board that has been around 2008 and has had democratic governance in place the entire time, and it rigorously protects identity, has trolls and sockpuppets, etc. it's imperfect and causes drama sometimes, but it generally works and people who the entire forum trusts tend to make it into admin and mod positions more often than not. there's also and easy recall process (that was readily used a couple years ago, but has slowed down recently.)

it can be done if the forum membership is committed to it being that way.

[M-L-C-F]

i'm a part of a message board that has been around 2008 and has had democratic governance in place the entire time, and it rigorously protects identity, has trolls and sockpuppets, etc. it's imperfect and causes drama sometimes, but it generally works and people who the entire forum trusts tend to make it into admin and mod positions more often than not. there's also and easy recall process (that was readily used a couple years ago, but has slowed down recently.)

it can be done if the forum membership is committed to it being that way.

This forum membership is not committed to it being that way. That's the problem. As everyone would fuck it up somehow. I also just don't think that it's for RevLeft either. This place will always be the same, for however long that it keeps going. It's like monkeys throwing shit at each other here. Utter chaos and anarchy. As we Marxists used to joke, to fuck with the anarchists. :p

[Five Year Plan]

I'm not sure why this thread is still going on. The forum is private property. Full stop. That's all you really need to know about how it's run, regardless of the high-minded rhetoric about leftism and democracy and on and on. It is being run and always will be run in the way that the owner(s) deem fit, which is sometimes in the interests of the empowerment of the membership, and sometimes not. People will complain. There will be disagreements about those complaints, with some users conveniently always lining up on the side of the administration, and others lining up on the side of the people making the complaints. These complaints won't always be handled to everybody's satisfaction, and in fact, sometimes the complaints can be counter-productive. Surviving on the forum is about learning to make the most of imperfection, both in terms of rules and in terms of the personalities, until better options come along. Sort of like life in general.

[Ele'ill]

i'm a part of a message board that has been around 2008 and has had democratic governance in place the entire time, and it rigorously protects identity, has trolls and sockpuppets, etc. it's imperfect and causes drama sometimes, but it generally works and people who the entire forum trusts tend to make it into admin and mod positions more often than not. there's also and easy recall process (that was readily used a couple years ago, but has slowed down recently.)

it can be done if the forum membership is committed to it being that way.

what forum? I'm curious so I can look up its actual policies, number of active users, instances of 'imperfection and drama sometimes', so that I can believe it 'generally works' any better than the rest of the internet. I really don't believe you though.

[Lord Testicles]

Back when I used to play cybernations the alliance I was apart of had a forum which ran along democratic lines and it's been chugging along since around 2006, so it can be done.

[Five Year Plan]

Back when I used to play cybernations the alliance I was apart of had a forum which ran along democratic lines and it's been chugging along since around 2006, so it can be done.

Yeah, when you have some relative uniformity of views regarding core issues of methodology and substance, you can have a real functioning participatory democracy. When you don't you end up with extreme bureaucratization. It works the same on Internet forums as it does in political organizations and in societies at large, as I always tell my ex-Trotskyist friends who blame "democratic centralism" for bureaucratization when they were in orgs that spent the past several decades trying to build a broad-based amorphous "left" movement so diffuse that bureaucratization was the only way to keep the thing together. The fact that there's a degree of sclerotic bureaucratization on this forum should give some indication of how useful "leftist" is as a political abstraction.

[ashtonh]

What would happen if this time chickenism returned but not in a sock but new people entirely. Also challenging or questioning admin policy. On a side note in OI i have seen pro-lifers against the policy of only pro-choice. Just out of curiosity, it says at any time, does that mean abortions at anytime like a day before birth or what?:rolleyes:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What would happen if this time chickenism returned but not in a sock but new people entirely. Also challenging or questioning admin policy. On a side note in OI i have seen pro-lifers against the policy of only pro-choice. Just out of curiosity, it says at any time, does that mean abortions at anytime like a day before birth or what?:rolleyes:

Yes, it does mean that.

[PhoenixAsh]

full and free medical access to up until day of birth abortions without restrictions decided upon by the woman herself and not anybody else.

But of you really positively want to...

after birth abortions are still debatable. look up: guibilini & minerva.

[Rosa Partizan]

full and free medical access to up until day of birth abortions without restrictions decided upon by the woman herself and not anybody else.

But of you really positively want to...

after birth abortions are still debatable. look up: guibilini & minerva.

don't know if this is a reactionary position, but as for myself, I find this concept disgusting.

[Lord Testicles]

don't know if this is a reactionary position, but as for myself, I find this concept disgusting.

Agreed. We've already got a word for after birth abortions, it's called infanticide.

[PhoenixAsh]

Agreed. We've already got a word for after birth abortions, it's called infanticide.

Basically their argument is that infanticide is such a big word and that the moral and ethical reasons wuld be the same as late term abortions. They did so in the medical journal for ethics. Very interesting article. Wasn't well received though.

Can't imagine why.

It is a hugely interesting read though:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

[Rosa Partizan]

is this serious? Or is this another super duper edgy fashion thing? How is this an issue of female body autonomy or even feminism? This is plain bullshit. Def enough internet for today, for fuck's sake.

[PhoenixAsh]

They were serious. But you need to read the article and the arguments they make. They bring up a lot of valid points about the ethical position of child & fetus. And morality. Which can benefit arguments in the abortion debate

...just read it.

[Rosa Partizan]

I have to get up for work in 4 hours, so, no. Give the child to someone who DOES care, take some fucking rrsponsibility, this is anything but impossible in our western countries. If we start like this, where do we draw the line? What about disabled 3 year olds or babies with down syndrome? No, not gonna fall for this disgusting egoistic hedonistic bullshit. Good night.

Edit: waiting for a super edgy leftist to call me reactionary or petit bourgeois.

[Hermes]

I have to get up for work in 4 hours, so, no. Give the child to someone who DOES care, take some fucking rrsponsibility, this is anything but impossible in our western countries. If we start like this, where do we draw the line? What about disabled 3 year olds or babies with down syndrome? No, not gonna fall for this disgusting egoistic hedonistic bullshit. Good night.

Edit: waiting for a super edgy leftist to call me reactionary or petit bourgeois.

Sorry, but what responsibility are you talking about? I'm not sure I understand.

[#FF0000]

after birth abortions are still debatable. look up: guibilini & minerva.

yeaaaaaaaah that paper is definitely not what you make it sound like. it's talking about euthanasia for infants with catastrophic diseases and defects that were not caught during pregnancy.

[Hermes]

yeaaaaaaaah that paper is definitely not what you make it sound like. it's talking about euthanasia for infants with catastrophic diseases and defects that were not caught during pregnancy.

I haven't read through the entire article yet, but are you sure that's all the article is saying? This quote, for example:


In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia

does not really seem to limit it to catastrophic diseases or defects.

If I'm misreading the article, or it's just an ethical argument, or if they clarify later on, my apologies. Bad reading comprehension, etc

[Luís Henrique]

Just out of curiosity, it says at any time, does that mean abortions at anytime like a day before birth or what?

It means that.

I think "abortions at anytime, on demand" is, in the abstract, the correct position. Not because I think abortions at the 39th week of pregnancy are actually a good idea, but basically because I trust women. Anti-abortionists talk as if women would get pregnant and carry a fetus inside them for nine months, only for the pleasure of having a late-term abortion. Now while it can be discussed whether women who take day-after pills may be leading irresponsible sex lives (no, I don't think so), it is quite obvious that a woman who demands an abortion in the final stages of pregnancy has been facing some really serious problems in her life. It is not a sport, after all.

Realistically, demands like free abortion at any time may well be counterproductive and result in more, not less, difficulties in legalising abortions where it is in fact illegal. Brazilian feminists, for instance, do not demand it, but legal abortions up to the first trimester of pregnancy. And no, they aren't reactionary; it is a matter of repealing legislation that is much worse than that.

(Some people seem to tend to make a false analogy, as if abortion on demand at any time was revolution, and abortion on conditions, or with term limits, were mere reforms. The truth is that abortion on demand at any time is itself a reform, so it can be reached gradually.)

Now, of course, it is a completely different issue whether only the most pristinely correct position about abortion can be expressed in this board, or if any position, including complete prohibitionism, can be brought into discussion (and where - in the general forums, or only in OI). It is also a different issue what should be done to people who support deviant positions (while I do tend to think that they should suffer some kind of sanction, I cannot help but noting that other clearly reactionary positions are allowed here, with little realisation of their reactionarism).

Luís Henrique

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I went from page 2 to page 5 and see the conversation has changed quickly. Anyway,
Yeah, I was around for at least 2 of the great purges. By the 2nd one was done (which was one big swoop), I pretty much became really disinterested in the site as a lot of good members or friends were banned, and a lot of other good members and/or friends left the site because of it. Whenever I come around it doesn't look nearly as active or thought provoking, though I suppose any forum will have it's ups and downs.

I don't even remember what the purges were about. If memory serves me right, the first one I was around for made sense, but the 2nd one really pissed me off. Idk man, I'm speaking outta my ass but my hands won't let up from the keyboard until I find motivation to go to the fridge and grab more salsa for my chips.

oh and it blows my mind some really good posters have been purged, but fucking DNZ and that one Hoxhaist joke of a poster are still around. They shouldn't be banned, but really laughed all the way out of internet town.

Okay I should grab that salsa now.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

^ tl;dr me going waahh wahhh

[PhoenixAsh]

yeaaaaaaaah that paper is definitely not what you make it sound like. it's talking about euthanasia for infants with catastrophic diseases and defects that were not caught during pregnancy.

actually it is exactly what it sounds like and the authors propose the term themselves. The basis and foundation of the argument is the ethical and moral vallue of fetussen and children. The proposition is expanded to include down syndrome; developmental disorders etc. Ìt also specifically includes the well being of the family even when the child could have a reasonable life.

The abstract contains the following thought explicitly:

If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

And also specifically mentioned is the cost for the family. This includes social and economical burdens for the third paty in the equation.

The premisses they are proving (arguing) in their article are:


The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.



Now...the article is interesting for several reasons. One is that the proposition
is making the distinction in children/fetusses and, as the author calls them, actual people...as well as the comparison of the fetus vs child distinction.

Using the articles arguments is interesting in any abortion debate.

[Rosa Partizan]

this is one of the sickest and most disturbing concepts I've read about in a very long time, and stop being so super pseudo "scientific" and "objective" when this is clearly absolutely brutal and inhuman and opens the floodgates to child murder of any kind, or even also to murder of grown up people with disabilities. My mother works with such people, be it children or adults. Even plenty of those that would be considered miserable from the outside do want to live a dignified life and are able to feel joy and happiness. Such ideas make me really, I mean, REALLY sad, and anyone supporting these ideas is no leftist, but a sick fuck that needs to gtfo of this planet. How is this even related to feminist issues of any kind?

[M-L-C-F]

It's pseudoscience, being falsely objective, and is backwards analysis. It's not interesting, it's sick, and incredibly anti-human interest. Trying to pass itself off as "bettering humanity". It's truly reactionary, and is something along the lines of what right wing libertarians would try to back. I'm not really surprised that people here would find this barbarism interesting though. This place has a fair share of fucked up people. This is nothing new, and that has always been the case here. Though there are fucked up people everywhere, so it's not unique in that aspect.

I'm pro-choice up until the 2nd trimester, unless the mother's health is in question. I however think that in a socialist or communist society, that abortion should be slightly discouraged, especially later in the pregnancy. Because there would be a proper social system in place, to make sure that the children are taken care of. Which is why some communists in the past, were against abortion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm pro-choice up until the 2nd trimester, unless the mother's health is in question. I however think that in a socialist or communist society, that abortion should be slightly discouraged, especially later in the pregnancy. Because there would be a proper social system in place, to make sure that the children are taken care of. Which is why some communists in the past, were against abortion.

You are aware that this goes against explicit board policy? Which, for once, actually makes sense. I mean, think about what you're saying: that after a certain arbitrary point women need to be forced to give birth. And before that abortion should be slightly discouraged, cool, maybe homosexuality too needs to be slightly discouraged, "some communists in the past" had a shitty analysis of that as well.

[M-L-C-F]

You are aware that this goes against explicit board policy? Which, for once, actually makes sense. I mean, think about what you're saying: that after a certain arbitrary point women need to be forced to give birth. And before that abortion should be slightly discouraged, cool, maybe homosexuality too needs to be slightly discouraged, "some communists in the past" had a shitty analysis of that as well.

No, you misunderstand what I mean. I'm supporting the right to choose. That they would have the right the choose. I in no way mean force them to have the baby. Just basically have it known, that the child would be taken care of. But if they still want the abortion, then that's their choice. You're trying to make it sound different than what I meant. I didn't mean to come off that way.

[PhoenixAsh]

this is one of the sickest and most disturbing concepts I've read about in a very long time, and stop being so super pseudo "scientific" and "objective" when this is clearly absolutely brutal and inhuman and opens the floodgates to child murder of any kind, or even also to murder of grown up people with disabilities. My mother works with such people, be it children or adults. Even plenty of those that would be considered miserable from the outside do want to live a dignified life and are able to feel joy and happiness. Such ideas make me really, I mean, REALLY sad, and anyone supporting these ideas is no leftist, but a sick fuck that needs to gtfo of this planet. How is this even related to feminist issues of any kind?

Then you do not understand the article at all....nor the philosophical leaps it makes.

Not only in countering the argument that if there is no distinction between a fetus and a new born then abortion should not be permissable. The counter argument is that it is impossible that people can be harmed by not being brought into existence.

But also of the profound implications the defintions of health towards a more socially oriented defnition in the 50's and the liberal implication of the right to develop potential. And linking birth and social well being directly to economic situation on a medical basis. Now...the implication of both these arguments for womens rights is profound.

It also deals with the "o lets adopt" counter-argument in a convincing manner and develops a line of reasoning of morals and ethics.

And that is aside from the content of the abstract itself.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah, I don't understand it, absolutely, I'm not worthy of your smartness. I read your link and to make sure another summary in German and what it comes down to is: If you're unable to cope with the baby, be it for health, economic or whatever reasons, you should be allowed to kill it, it's not a real human, it's an "eventual" one. So don't you smartass around philosophical blahblah when the main content is very clearly obvious. Why is no other user involved in this? Are you cool with this shit or what?

[PhoenixAsh]

yeah, I don't understand it, absolutely, I'm not worthy of your smartness. I read your link and to make sure another summary in German and what it comes down to is: If you're unable to cope with the baby, be it for health, economic or whatever reasons, you should be allowed to kill it, it's not a real human, it's an "eventual" one. So don't you smartass around philosophical blahblah when the main content is very clearly obvious. Why is no other user involved in this? Are you cool with this shit or what?

Well..there you have it. What makes somebody human and an individual? And THAT is exactly why the article is interesting on so many levels. And THAT is exactly why it is relevant.

Because if you fail to understand that the question when somebody becomes human and an individual is the moral and ethical battleground of abortion legislation and the main construct on which the sexual repression of women is being argued then...yeah...the article is simply about killing neonates for exactly the same reasons as why abortions should be permissable. In other words...the reverse anti-abortion arguments.

[Rosa Partizan]

why would you support this shit when it can be even twisted around and used to condemn abortion? Stop thinking you're too smart for me or that I'm stupid, I got it all right, and still I see a huge difference between a fetus and a born baby and there is no way you could equate this. This is all the typical leftist pseudoedgyness I've read here several times, like, let's be as repugnant as possible.

[PhoenixAsh]

why would you support this shit when it can be even twisted around and used to condemn abortion? Stop thinking you're too smart for me or that I'm stupid, I got it all right, and still I see a huge difference between a fetus and a born baby and there is no way you could equate this. This is all the typical leftist pseudoedgyness I've read here several times, like, let's be as repugnant as possible.

You have that backwards.

This argument has been used for decades to fuel the anti-abortion position and this article takes those arguments to a whole different level.

There is no defence of the argumentative goal, merely the logical philosophical approach...the argumentative goal is merely that: the foundation of the application of a logical philosophy regarding morals and ethics in an ongoing debate since the 50's about the nature of personhood and health. And that, rather than the content, it the reason for the paper.

Hence why I am saying you do not understand the article.

[Hit The North]

LOL, one of our prominent community members, not content with recently occupying a political space with the MRA, by drawing on one of their favourite studies and arguing that millions of American men have been raped by American women, he now occupies a political space akin to Nazi eugenicists and the family patriarchs of Ancient Rome by endorsing a philosophical argument for infanticide. :rolleyes:

[Ele'ill]

Wow, there are a lot of these threads on the board right now. There's at least 3.

[Turinbaar]

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible

Does this in theory allow for a 40th trimester abortion? Mrs. Cartman needs to know.

[M-L-C-F]

Does this in theory allow for a 40th trimester abortion? Mrs. Cartman needs to know.

So I'm not the only one who thought of that? :laugh:

[Rosa Partizan]

Since I'm neither cool with having sex with the dead bodies of my grandparents nor with killing disabled babies, I can't keep up with revleft's revolutionary edgyness. So sad about it.

[PhoenixAsh]

LOL, one of our prominent community members, not content with recently occupying a political space with the MRA, by drawing on one of their favourite studies and arguing that millions of American men have been raped by American women, he now occupies a political space akin to Nazi eugenicists and the family patriarchs of Ancient Rome by endorsing a philosophical argument for infanticide. :rolleyes:

O hey kids...look...this is HTN...


Somebody who lost all political credibility for defening a rape apologist, victim blamer, sexist and rape denier dismissing his position as "contrarian"...
Is lying through his teeth to defend that person.
And who is themselves currently arguing a fine line for abortion restriction....and fetus rights


He sure has some political relevance on this site left :rolleyes:

Quite unsurprising since your arguments for the right of fetusses [URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2777776&postcount=56"] are walking the exact same path of the reverse of the arguments in the article.

Irony

How does it feel to occupy the same political space as the Tea-party and parrotting their favorite argument? (see what I did there? Silly, silly boy)

There we have you defending sexism and rape apology and seeming to argue for abortion restriction and the rights of fetusses. O My.

[ashtonh]

It's pseudoscience, being falsely objective, and is backwards analysis. It's not interesting, it's sick, and incredibly anti-human interest. Trying to pass itself off as "bettering humanity". It's truly reactionary, and is something along the lines of what right wing libertarians would try to back. I'm not really surprised that people here would find this barbarism interesting though. This place has a fair share of fucked up people. This is nothing new, and that has always been the case here. Though there are fucked up people everywhere, so it's not unique in that aspect.

I'm pro-choice up until the 2nd trimester, unless the mother's health is in question. I however think that in a socialist or communist society, that abortion should be slightly discouraged, especially later in the pregnancy. Because there would be a proper social system in place, to make sure that the children are taken care of. Which is why some communists in the past, were against abortion.
With accusations of me being sexist this view the exact view I share pro-choice until the 2nd trimester etc. Basically exactly what M-L-C-F said Im just am not to well at articulating ideas to paper.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's pseudoscience, being falsely objective, and is backwards analysis. It's not interesting, it's sick, and incredibly anti-human interest. Trying to pass itself off as "bettering humanity". It's truly reactionary, and is something along the lines of what right wing libertarians would try to back. I'm not really surprised that people here would find this barbarism interesting though. This place has a fair share of fucked up people. This is nothing new, and that has always been the case here. Though there are fucked up people everywhere, so it's not unique in that aspect.

It is interesting to note that it is mostly the same people who take issue with late term abortion who have the moralist approach not based on factual arguments but on sentimental statements against the article in question.

The reason why this article is of interest is because it is part of a 40-year ongoing ethical debate about the nature of personhood. As such it was posted as a ethical philosophical discussion piece based on the logical conclusion exercise and not as a endorsement of what is actually being argued.

The article is relevant because it deals with the exact same issue that lies at the heart of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. This debate surpasses the sub-debate on abortion and also deals with the exact same issues about euthanasia (which falls squarely in the pro-choice category). But lets leave the latter out of the equation for now.

Whether or not you agree with the subject discussed at hand or the conclusions the authors make in line of this exercise is irrelevant. As it is the logical approach that matters. It is very interesting however to see people here on this site arguing the opposite position posed in the article...

To them the fetus has personhood and therefore there needs to be legislation to restrict abortion or at least some protective measures which protect the rights of the fetus.

The moral and ethical implications this has for the status of grown women as persons; which is thereby practically revoked; are to the same people who argue against the moral implications of this article mere side notes.

Naturally this is not, in their minds, a very anti-human position....because we (mostly men) all know women aren't of course real humans anyways and are mere incubators for the next generation. So legislating their right over their own bodies, lives and reproductive capabilities and forcing them to make lasting emotional, economic and social decisions is something we do not need to really consider. As long as the fetus/child is recognized as a person and protected against the vile evil creatures that are women....that is all that matters.

O...wait. No...actually this is exactly what the debate is about: the weighing of value of human lives based on subjective definitions of personhood.

The opposite positions both use, either subconsciously or consciously (or masked by different terminology), a definition of personhood without establishing what personhood is.

And this is why this debate is extremely relevant.


Here is what the authors themselves stated about it:


Drs. Minerva and Giubilini intended the paper to be a purely academic reflection on the nature of abortion and childcare, and to examine, from an ethicist's standpoint, why certain types of abortions are permitted while others were not. It was meant to be shared among the academic community, continuing a debate within the field of medical ethics that has been present for several decades.



And as long as we are talking on the subject:

I would also suggest you do some additional research into the prevalence of neonaticide and the main reasons for its occurance...which directly link these issues to sexism and the social status of women and the social condemnation of abortion...even in countries where this is legal (France has done some interesting research into this).







I'm pro-choice up until the 2nd trimester, unless the mother's health is in question. I however think that in a socialist or communist society, that abortion should be slightly discouraged, especially later in the pregnancy. Because there would be a proper social system in place, to make sure that the children are taken care of. Which is why some communists in the past, were against abortion.

Aside from the fact that you seem to think wiomen should not have the right to their own bodies and are in fact less important; less human; less of a person than a fetus...and aside from the fact that that is extremely mysogenist...

And the fact that this position is directly responsible for a prevalence of neonaticide...which of course you morally condemn.

Define health.

Because for all your emotional rants against the posted article uses the definition that is being used in the 50's by the WHO which defines health as:


Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The bibliographic citation for this definition is: Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. The definition has not been amended since 1948.

[Blake's Baby]

So... is the whole point of this thread 'purge-bait' now?

[Zoroaster]

So... is the whole point of this thread 'purge-bait' now?

Probably.

[brigadista]

Some fancy sounding stuff on here - however I doubt any of this will be considered by a woman who has to make this difficult personal decision - her choice simple as - don't get why there are pages about it tbh

[Brotto Rühle]

I'm interested if anyone still has contact with any of the purgees... I'd like to hear what they have to say on the whole thing...

Right now it's like talking to Avigdor Lieberman on why the Israel-Palestine conflict started.

[PhoenixAsh]

So... is the whole point of this thread 'purge-bait' now?

Have you seen the site? There are currently four threads in which abortion legislation is being discussed and people openly arguing for the legislation of women's bodies.

Somebody even started a poll on it :glare:

[Hit The North]

O hey kids...look...this is HTN...


Somebody who lost all political credibility for defening a rape apologist, victim blamer, sexist and rape denier dismissing his position as "contrarian"...



All this means is that I disagreed with your mud-slinging against VG1917 and your determination that a small percentage difference between his estimate of female-on-male rapes and yours meant that he was a persistent sexist worthy of banning whilst you, in the course of attempting to break the link between rape and patriarchy (utilising the evidence of a single report), meant that you were a champion of anti-sexism.

All it means is that I asked you to validate your little charge sheet against VG1917 with instances of him directly arguing the positions you accused him of and you didn't show this to my satisfaction. Instead, I, and others who questioned the ban, got a lot of bad attitude.





Is lying through his teeth to defend that person.

I'm not lying. That's how it went down in that thread and people can check it, if they want.


And who is themselves currently arguing a fine line for abortion restriction....and fetus rights

Am I? Gosh, then you better git down with your buddies and work on getting me restricted.

To help you, here is my considered position on the matter:

I support the right of a woman to have a foetus removed from her body at any stage in the pregnancy but if that foetus was viable, as it would be very late into a pregnancy, then I would want society to provide the means for the extracted foetus to survive and thrive without its birth parent, if that birth parent had given up interest and claim to it. Once the foetus is removed then the woman should cease to have a claim over it and would be unable to seek its death. In cases where there is a clear threat to the woman's health and life if the foetus is not terminated, an 'either-or-' between foetus and woman, then the woman's rights and life should obviously take precedent. She already has a life, the foetus does not.


He sure has some political relevance on this site left :rolleyes:Meh, what would "political relevance" on a website actually look like? But given how you are on the verge of declaring infanticide as a principled woman's right, I don't know how you have the nerve to question anybody else's "political relevance" :lol:


How does it feel to occupy the same political space as the Tea-party and parrotting their favorite argument?
Well, if this Tea-party you mention hold the same view I've just summarised then I feel fine. BTW, why do you always use examples drawn from American life and terminology if you're a European?


(see what I did there? Silly, silly boy)
Yes, I do. You did it to VG1917, twisting his words to mean something he didn't intend. I did it to you and now you're doing it to me. We have fun on Revleft, don't we?


There we have you defending sexism and rape apology and seeming to argue for abortion restriction and the rights of fetusses. O My.Well, come on, dipshit, you must have enough evidence by now!

You wish.

[Rosa Partizan]

This outrage about "pro-lifers" is out of proportion considering that no one gives a fuck about that in this thread, killing (disabled) babies is considered a possibility. Yes, pro-lifers can fuck themselves, there is no way and no fetus stage when the woman shouldn't be able to decide about her body, so it's rightfully a big deal when someone claims otherwise, but why is it NO FUCKING DEAL at all that killing a baby could be a solution for distressed, poor, overburdened parents? Why is nobody here argumenting in favor of these babies? We already had a time in Germany when lives were divided in worthy of living and unworthy of living, but who cares, let's waste essays on pro-lifer scum, it's more edgy anyway to give a fuck about babies, you fucking pseudoscientific edgemasters.

[PhoenixAsh]

All this means is that I disagreed with your mud-slinging against VG1917 and your determination that a small percentage difference between his estimate of female-on-male rapes and yours meant that he was a persistent sexist worthy of banning whilst you, in the course of attempting to break the link between rape and patriarchy (utilising the evidence of a single report), meant that you were a champion of anti-sexism.

Lets get this clear. You have been perpetually lying in order to defend yoour little buddy. You have dismissed and failed to address any of the issues of his arguments over a period of months. You did so in order to validate your little quest to try to pin this ban on some witch hunt against VG1917 rather than it being the end result of a long history of this user being sanctioned for his sexism way before I even became involved.

Conveniently you ignored him being kicked out of the CU over rape apologism and sexism. Conveniently you ignored him being restricted over the same issues. Conveniently you ignored that all this has been done based on published BA votes of which the results were unanimous. You ignore that even his friends in the BA refused to defend him (as was written on his profile page) any longer.

What was the basis for this previous action (of which I had no part what so ever) taken against him? His position that:
1). Rape is only possible by violence
2). Having sex with women/men who are unable to consent is not rape.
3). Coercion and forced intercourse without violence is not rape or do not constitute rape (rape=violence)

But I am sure I was the one who made him say that.

And you have tried to shift blame for his own arguments on me refusing to acknowledge the huge problems in his opening post I reacted to where he specifically build on his position of rape apologism and denial for which he was restricted months ago in order to rile against feminist members.

You instead focus on a small part of the argument that VG1917 himself has made the focus point of the debate while ignoring all the stuff I said and you later explicitly deny me having said.

Now I can understand you being too fucking stupid to understand the implications of his opening post and I understand you to be too fucking stupid to understand why I actually called him a sexist.

His ensuing argument that:
01). Female-to-female rape does not exist (rape is purely male violence)
02). Rape is always violent (rape is purely male violence)
03). Female to male rape is very rare (rather than the sourced 4 in 21)
04). Age is a deciding factor in whether or not somebody is raped.
05). Sexual harassement of men is not possible (later amended to unlikely)
06). Men who claim they were sexually harassed have alterior motives
07). Using a specific case to dismiss the claims of a victim based on gender stereotype.
07). Haggling over percentage points
08). Saying male rape is a result of "nagging women" and therefore not really rape
09). Doing so with the use of genderized socialization models for both men and wowmen
10). Dismissing (initially) any sourced material on the grounds of gender stereotypes of both men and women

Of course he, and you, ignored any post in which the distinction between male and female rape and how rape in general fits into the patriarchal structures and heteronormativity of current society....and is used to enforce gender roles and patterns.

You even went so far as saying I ignored and rejected the prevalence of male to female rape...which was a bloody fucking lie since I specifically adressed the point.

As a result he was banned for his positions and arguments on a unanimous BA vote for ban. Which was published.

But whatever fits your narrative of this being entirely my doing.

And you have been lying through your teeth to defend your little rape apologist buddy there.

Because apparently it is hard to put the blame for somebodies position and arguments on the shoulders of that person when you like them.

But what can we expect of somebody who dismisses the position of inability to consent isn't rape as mere "contrarianism"



Am I? Gosh, then you better git down with your buddies and work on getting me restricted.

Me? You are doing a bang of job yourself. I don't really have to do anything. But your inability to once again attribute responsibility correctly is noted.


To help you, here is my considered position on the matter:

I support the right of a woman to have a foetus removed from her body at any stage in the pregnancy but if that foetus was viable, as it would be very late into a pregnancy, then I would want society to provide the means for the extracted foetus to survive and thrive without its birth parent, if that birth parent had given up interest and claim to it. Once the foetus is removed then the woman should cease to have a claim over it and would be unable to seek its death. In cases where there is a clear threat to the woman's health and life if the foetus is not terminated, an 'either-or-' between foetus and woman, then the woman's rights and life should obviously take precedent. She already has a life, the foetus does not.


O...really? : http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=131



It seems to me, more civilised and more humane that a woman can demand not to go through a full pregnancy, but not, after a certain late period in the development of the foetus (i.e. when it is viable outside the womb), to demand its death.

So basically...you don't want women to abort after 7 months of gestation when the fetus would be viable if extracted and equate that with "demanding its death".

I am wondering how you are going to spin that.


Meh, what would "political relevance" on a website actually look like? But given how you are on the verge of declaring infanticide as a principled woman's right, I don't know how you have the nerve to question anybody else's "political relevance" :lol:

Actually I have not declared anything of the sort as a principled right and it shows the amount of lies and deceit you are going through in order to cast away the blame of your inherently sexist position.

I am also noting once again...that you...as somebody who argues for abortion restriction on the grounds of fetal viability and fetal autonomy (see previous link) are holding the moral and ethical counter position to the article.


Well, if this Tea-party you mention hold the same view I've just summarised then I feel fine. BTW, why do you always use examples drawn from American life and terminology if you're a European?

Yes...it actually does. And it expands on that view of fetus rights. now I know you lie about your actual position on abortion. A position I quoted where you specifically argue that women should not have the right after viability is reached to abort. I am actually wondering how you will spin that one next.



Yes, I do. You did it to VG1917, twisting his words to mean something he didn't intend. I did it to you and now you're doing it to me. We have fun on Revleft, don't we?

Well, come on, dipshit, you must have enough evidence by now!

You wish.

For more than 200 hunderd posts VG1917 had the ability to clarify his position of it was incorrect. Instead he chose to blame victims, dismiss rape, dismiss sexual harssment and continue his position based on gender stereotypes all in order not to discuss rape as a concept but to haggle over percentage points all evolving from his opening post where he used his previous sexism and rape apologism to argue that feminists didn't understand rape. He continued this argument through PM.

But hey...sure....whatever.

Whatever makes your little sexist head rest easier at night.

[Brotto Rühle]

PhoenixAsh, if you have beef with HTN, take it to another thread. This isn't about your little spat. You've derailed the thread enough. I'm just a member, I shouldn't have to moderate a moderator.

Now, back to the juicy old e-drama.

[M-L-C-F]

Um, yeah... I clarified my point about 2 posts later. It seems you totally missed that part, or just simply ignored it. So you can go on some rant, to make yourself feel all high and mighty. I really don't give a shit about your long winded post. In other words: this argument is fucking stupid. I never said anything bad about women or anything. It's all just spin trying to make people look bad.

[PhoenixAsh]

This outrage about "pro-lifers" is out of proportion considering that no one gives a fuck about that in this thread,

I know reading things in context must be hard. Perhaps you should scroll back an actually see what happens in this thread.

Let me clarify it for you:


What would happen if this time chickenism returned but not in a sock but new people entirely. Also challenging or questioning admin policy. On a side note in OI i have seen pro-lifers against the policy of only pro-choice. Just out of curiosity, it says at any time, does that mean abortions at anytime like a day before birth or what?http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2777641&postcount=77

Do note the user who posted it has made several threads on the issue and supported the moralist and ethics argument of fetus rights.

To which the reply was:


full and free medical access to up until day of birth abortions without restrictions decided upon by the woman herself and not anybody else.

But of you really positively want to...

after birth abortions are still debatable. look up: guibilini & minerva.


Now of course you missed the irony.

Not only of posing this against somebody who previously supported and made themselves the moral and ethical counter position. But also the irony of the article itself.

What makes the article interesting...and what is of interest in this debate (and the actual grounds for writing the article) as I repeatedly explained but you just can't seem to wrap your head around....is that it is the moral and ethical exercise about personhood in which moral and ethical arguments are made and used in favor of abortion and mirrored over the same position of there being no distinction between a late term fetus and a born child as an argument for restriction of abortion in the context of health and its current definition....where the actual topic is not the goal but merely the logical and ethical implications.

The argument about personhood is an essential element in the pro-choice vs pro-life debate. In fact...it is the key element.

Somehow you can't get passed the idea of "killing babies"


killing (disabled) babies is considered a possibility.

This is already practice in several countries under specific conditions. And is part of the pro-choice euthanasia debate.

In Belgium it is legal and it is in The Netherlands. The UK consider it illegal but permissable in some instances. Germany the same. France the same.

Look up "Groningen protocol" to get more context of this.


Yes, pro-lifers can fuck themselves, there is no way and no fetus stage when the woman shouldn't be able to decide about her body, so it's rightfully a big deal when someone claims otherwise, but why is it NO FUCKING DEAL at all that killing a baby could be a solution for distressed, poor, overburdened parents?

And that is exactly the point.

Because this argument is verbatim the same one that is used against the possibility of non-medical late and end of term abortions.

And this is why this debate about personhood is important as are the moral and ethical considerations.


Why is nobody here argumenting in favor of these babies?

And you are entirely sure you do not see the similarity?


We already had a time in Germany when lives were divided in worthy of living and unworthy of living, but who cares, let's waste essays on pro-lifer scum, it's more edgy anyway to give a fuck about babies, you fucking pseudoscientific edgemasters.

And you are sure they aren't been devided into that anymore?

Interestingly enough the article was purely ment as a logical and ethical exercise in order to show the implications of certain positions mirrored against themselves.

The secondary intention was to mirror the argument of ethical status of the fetus vs that of the child in a different situation.

It is incredibly interesting to see that the positions of pro-life and pro-choice are exactly aligned after birth.

The outrage you feel and express is the same outrage the other side feels pre-birth.

That shows that there needs to be a clear definition of personhood adn what constitutes personhood and when. = The context in which the article was written.

[PhoenixAsh]

PhoenixAsh, if you have beef with HTN, take it to another thread. This isn't about your little spat. You've derailed the thread enough. I'm just a member, I shouldn't have to moderate a moderator.

Now, back to the juicy old e-drama.

Whats the matter? Suffer from subjective blindness and failed to see who initiated that debate?

You indeed do not need to moderate the moderator. Perhaps you should apply some objectivity and adress the party that is actually responsible.

As this not having any bearing on the topic...perhaps you should look again and perhaps that little spat between HTN and me originated in the same time we are now disucssing. Thought about that?

K? Thnx!

[Ele'ill]

This isn't about your little spat.

yo I know, current little spats aren't in this summer shit flinging from ten years ago is totally what's up

[Brotto Rühle]

Whats the matter? Suffer from subjective blindness and failed to see who initiated that debate?

You indeed do not need to moderate the moderator. Perhaps you should apply some objectivity and adress the party that is actually responsible.

As this not having any bearing on the topic...perhaps you should look again and perhaps that little spat between HTN and me originated in the same time we are now disucssing. Thought about that?

K? Thnx!
All I see is a whiny anarchist who seems to be convinced, unlike the rest of the board administration, that Hit the North is a sexist. You're coming across as one of those "THE WORLD IS CRAZY, NOT ME!!!!" types.

Who cares if it was around the same time that the "purges" occurred that you two had a spat. I'm sure others were feuding too, doesn't make it relevant to the "purges". As a moderator, regardless of who derailed the chat to begin with (though I would argue that Hit the North's original post that started your debate in here was relevant to the "purges" idea), you are to take the role as representative of the board administration and PREVENT derailment, not produce it.

[PhoenixAsh]

All I see is a whiny anarchist who seems to be convinced, unlike the rest of the board administration, that Hit the North is a sexist. You're coming across as one of those "THE WORLD IS CRAZY, NOT ME!!!!" types.

Maybe you should whipe the shit out of your eyes then and look at HTN's original post and what he is actually adressing...instead of jumping to some whiney ass conclusion about thread derailment which show your complete and utter hypocracy and inablity to look beyond threads and see recent trends.

Maybe it is just me but it seems to me that if a user adresses BA decisions in the context of a thread about BA decisions then the reply to that is both relevant and entirely on topic. Especially when the specific user in question, over several threads, is exhibiting the exact same behavior several others adressed as being the origin of the ensuing drama.

Now I am not entirely sure on what grounds you assume that the rest of the BA is or is not deciding that HTN abortion position is sexist...but his defense of VG1917 over several threads in combination with his insistance of attributing BA rulings over the course of serveral months to one single person is dodgy and hypocritical at best. Especially in the light of him using this as an attack on the BA.


Who cares if it was around the same time that the "purges" occurred that you two had a spat. I'm sure others were feuding too, doesn't make it relevant to the "purges".

Actually, his position does matter and the spat around the time does matter because they were a direct result of the situation which led up to the purges and how they were handled after wards.

So no. You are absolutely and entirely wrong here as well as arbitrarily deciding and taking sides on what is and what isn't relevant while you a. do not understand them & b. apparently miss the relevant information to make that judgement.



As a moderator, regardless of who derailed the chat to begin with (though I would argue that Hit the North's original post that started your debate in here was relevant to the "purges" idea), you are to take the role as representative of the board administration and PREVENT derailment, not produce it.

Let me make this quite clear: the reply and debate between HTN were neither derailment of the thread not irrelevant to the purges back then as they were specifically posed by HTN as examples of why the purges occured.

As you correctly assessed here my reply is representative in part of the BA, as well as adressing his ad hominem and insistance of the BA being the play ball of one single local mod and consequently therefore means the BA votes on matters of sanction are irrelevant. Which is a nice catch ofcourse.

Now you can not like how I handle HTN nor the tone of my posts...but there it is.

First everybody complains there is not enough communication and adressing users...now it is the problem users are adressed to much. Of course it is not a problem for HIM to actually continue the debate after the first exchange. But no...just because you subjectively do not like an argument you decide to attack the mod. The level of subjective hypocracy you display here is astounding....

[Luís Henrique]

Somebody who lost all political credibility for defening a rape apologist, victim blamer, sexist and rape denier dismissing his position as "contrarian"...

I remember you were once accused of being a "rape apologist". It was a ridiculous accusation, of course. As is the one you are leveling against Vanguard1917 now.

And to think I risked my own political credibility to stand for someone being falsely accused of being a rape apologist (ie, you)...


Is lying through his teeth to defend that person.

Where are the lies?


And who is themselves currently arguing a fine line for abortion restriction....and fetus rights

Homicide, which is what you are now actually defending, is not "post-birth abortion".

The only way to defend abortion up to birth is exactly to make birth the difference between fetuses and children - and consequently between abortion and homicide. And as any stupid talk about "post-birth abortion" does exactly remove such difference, it makes, if taken in serious, "pro-choice" positions unsupportable.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Why is nobody here argumenting in favor of these babies?

To be honest, the "post-birth abortion" argument is so absurd that it is indeed quite difficult to argue against it.

At least without Godwinising the thread.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Partizan]

Luis, you seem to be right, but on the other hand, it's obviously not absurd to support the arguments in favor of killing disabled babies. I'm not talking about babies so heavily disabled and sick that they most probably will have a very short life span with a lot of pain and suffering, but about babies with down syndrome, which today is possible to handle as parents. Phoenix seems to be cool with killing such babies, I mean, they're difficult to handle, so why should anyone have to deal with that shit? #hedonismrules #edgyasfuck

[Luís Henrique]

As a moderator, [...], you are to take the role as representative of the board administration and PREVENT derailment, not produce it.

Ah, I think this idea is too difficult to grasp for so many of our [im]moderators.

Luís Henrique

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I can't seem to come to a position either way other than that it seems like a real slippery slope to judge personhood based on ethics and morals that are ultimately arbitrary, just due to the nature of ethics and morals. I keep writing out responses and then not posting them, an uncomfortable subject for sure.

[Luís Henrique]

Phoenix seems to be cool with killing such babies, I mean, they're difficult to handle, so why should anyone have to deal with that shit? #hedonismrules #edgyasfuck

Indeed.

He seems to have evolved into a "murder apologist" now.

But then what to expect when we have a thread about cannibalism in the Learning forum - and then it takes days for the powers that be to remove it - not to the trahscan, where it belongs, or at least to Chit-Chat, were it could belong if members weren't declaring it a serious discussions, but to Non-Political?

Perhaps the board should be renamed "www.edgleft.com", so that people really interested in building working class strength don't mistakenly come here any more to disturb the competition on who is more repulsive and stupid?

Luís Henrique

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think it's so wrong to discuss arcane philosophical problems amongst other leftists. If you took this question to a general philosophy forum you would have to wade through dozens of generic pro-life responses before getting anything interesting out of the discussion. The real issue is that forum participation has just been really low in general for the last 6 months or so, so it just seems as if all we have are arcane philosophy discussions anymore.

[Ele'ill]

Good point luis, all of your relevant and highly political posts about building working class strength are completely drowned out by a single cannibalism thread something should be done about this. With competition like that the balance of good and evil is tipped unfairly. :lol:

[PhoenixAsh]

I remember you were once accused of being a "rape apologist". It was a ridiculous accusation, of course. As is the one you are leveling against Vanguard1917 now.

And to think I risked my own political credibility to stand for someone being falsely accused of being a rape apologist (ie, you)...

The difference then was that users who (still active on the site...so I wont mention them) held the same position as me were (wrongfully) accused of rape apologism, while my position was expressly deemed not to be...the implication of having the same position which is what I addressed, and the continued refusal to address it, does not negate that if two users have the same position and one is accused of somthing the other one (in that case me) can not be explicitly excluded. So the accusation should be levelled at both. And I saw that in the light of that position...and was not willing to accept a preferential treatment for some unknown reason. So either both of us were rape apologist...or neither of us were. There is no middle ground as the arguments were the same. Neither me or the other user were banned as the position was deemed not to be rape apologism.

Now there is a huge difference. (and if you really want to I can PM you the post I wrote back then for you to see that position is exactly what I stated back then)


VG1917 position was however on three seperate occasions and in three seperate votes deemed unanimously sexist, and rape apologetic to the point where even his BA friends distanced themselved from him and refused to defend him...

Two of these votes I had no part in what so ever.

So you can level your ire at me but instead you should be levelling your ire at a user who stated on three seperate occasions any one or multiple ones of the following:

01). Rape is always violence
02). Rape is always male violence
03). Feminists who argue that rape is not violence don't understand rape
04). Inability to consent and having sex with somebody unable to consent is not rape
05). Men who claim they are sexually harassed have alterior motives.
06). Refering to a specific case saying that the man was bieng driven by greed
07). Men can't really be sexually harassed by women
08). It apparently isn't rape when you are below 21 years of age...remember...his entire line of argument that 5% isn't true is based entirely on questioning age categorization
09). Female-to-female rape does not exist...since rape is always male violence
10). Men who are raped by women is merely and predominantly caused by , and I quote, "women nagging".

etc.

But...apparently it is more important to single out a single one of the BA...and actually dismiss all these remarks.




Where are the lies?

O...you may have missed the fact that previously in his defense of VG1917 HTN expressly stated that I did not acknowledge the aspect ratio of male-to-female rape in respect to female-to-male rape. Which I expressly did.

He stated I rejected Patriarchal context of rape...while this was expressly mentioned but entirely ignored by VG1917.

HTN also stated that I posed my entire position based on female-to-male rape rather than including repeatedly female-to-female rape which was ignored by VG1917.

He stated that I drew the debate towards female-to-male rape rather than VG1917's own insistance to focus on a small part of my argument and continuing to argue the case over percentage points.

Not to mention of course his comment that alluded that I cited some MRA study. Rather than a national study into significant other sexual abuse.

And completely ignoring me mentioning several times the gender socialization stereotypes and heteronormativity expressed in current legal definitions of rape and how rape is handled and dealt with.



Homicide, which is what you are now actually defending, is not "post-birth abortion".

I am not defending anything. And I like you to quote where I am doing so.

What I am however saying is that the article is both relevant and important within the ethical debate about personhood and is the mirror argument of pro-life ethics.

What I am also saying is that the article originated in an ethical debate or pratical implications as a thought exercise and is not a policy position but a consequential logic description. In other words the subject itself is not important but the ethical consequences as a logical outcome of certain positions in certain contexts is the reason the article was written. It is not an anlysis, not a policy statement, not a proposal but a theory of ethical application. Some people don't seem to be able to grasp their head around this fact.

Now ofcourse we have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to "OMG think of the children" but the position in the article is ethically no different from the ethical logical position of the pro-life crowd. Hence why it is important. Whether or not anybody wants to admit it....the definition of personhood and its moral/ethical applications are the heart of the abortion debate...this holds ethical and moral consequences. These have to be dealt with.

And if you look to the start of the debate...you see me making several ironic statements as well as saying: Using the articles arguments is interesting in any abortion debate.

I think you will be completely and utterly unable to quote me defending the practice proposed in the article.


Instead however I DO recognize that it is already legal practice to euthanize certain categories of children...a specific sentiment which was explicitly mentioned and reacted agains as being part of the proposal of the article....while it is not in fact proposed by the article but medical practice in several countries.



The only way to defend abortion up to birth is exactly to make birth the difference between fetuses and children - and consequently between abortion and homicide. And as any stupid talk about "post-birth abortion" does exactly remove such difference, it makes, if taken in serious, "pro-choice" positions unsupportable.

Luís Henrique

Well..I don't disagree. But scores of people...in fact a huge part of the world population does disagree entirely. Hence why we even have to pro-life vs pro-choice debate and why womens reproductive rights are restricted in the first place...and who largeky use personhood and sentience as the means to do so.

Of course you can choose to close your eyes for that...but hey...personally I like to not do that.

I also like to remind you that pro-choice positions include euthanasia. And the euthanasia question includes the same debate on personhood as abortion does. This means that the entire pro-life vs pro-choice dichtomy actually deals with the status of a fetus/child.

And that raises some issues like what to do with children who suffer; what is the definition of "health" and what does this mean for abortion/euthanasia when you allow them for "health" related reasons; when does something become a person?; does this matter? But it also raises the issue, which you personally might find uncomfortable, which live is more important and why should somebody be allowed to supress the live of another.

Now...unless I am mistaken...this is mainly the take on the debate the pro-life crowd and abortion restrictionists here take. Arguing against late term abortion based on personhood, fetal autonomy, individuality and sentience...conveniently forgetting that this moral and ethical choice has consequences for another sentient being and their value.

Dismissing these issues is ignoring that the debate does not take place in a vacuum.

Now...apparently posting an article because I was dismissing yet another one of those abortion restrictionists who argue the sentience and human rights of fetusses in order to force women to undergo c-section operations and give birth causes a lot of emotional responses from people who themselves always use the rejection of personhood to fetusses and call them parasites.

I am not saying I disagree...but it is interesting to see the level of debate quickly degenerating to exactly the same arguments which are normally counter posed to abortion and freedom of women to choose.

[PhoenixAsh]

Luis, you seem to be right, but on the other hand, it's obviously not absurd to support the arguments in favor of killing disabled babies. I'm not talking about babies so heavily disabled and sick that they most probably will have a very short life span with a lot of pain and suffering, but about babies with down syndrome, which today is possible to handle as parents. Phoenix seems to be cool with killing such babies, I mean, they're difficult to handle, so why should anyone have to deal with that shit? #hedonismrules #edgyasfuck

Yeah...like I said...you don't understand shit about the history and context of the article and you seem to be unable to wrap your head around the reason why I posted the article. Nor will you be able posting one word in of mine in defense of neonaticide.

But fine....lets go this direction...

I am quite surprised by this position of somebody who defends Israel's current bout of genocide and explicitly targetting children as self defense or during the past decades explicitly refused timely medical attention to children. I guess that the value of childrens life is entirely dependable on their subjective evaluation and ethical heritage. Right?

Now I know this is an incredibly cheap shot here...so I hope this gets the messages across...that your position on the life of children seems to be entirely subjective.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yeah...like I said...you don't understand shit about the history and context of the article and you seem to be unable to wrap your head around the reason why I posted the article. Nor will you be able posting one word in of mine in defense of neonaticide.

But fine....lets go this direction...

I am quite surprised by this position of somebody who defends Israel's current bout of genocide and explicitly targetting children as self defense or during the past decades explicitly refused timely medical attention to children. I guess that the value of childrens life is entirely dependable on their subjective evaluation and ethical heritage. Right?

Now I know this is an incredibly cheap shot here...so I hope this gets the messages across...that your position on the life of children seems to be entirely subjective.

that's the only point where you're right. You're derailing the same way you derailed the discussion with HTN, because you're not willing to answer a single shit question about if you think it's okay to kill babies with no fatal disabilities like down syndrome or babies with very poor parents that will hardly be able to make ends meet, as those 2 scientists proposed. Why don't you understand that you talk about something abstract while I'm talking about something concrete and wanting a concrete answer about YOUR point of view on when killing a baby is okay. So stop hiding behind a discussion that I never pointed at and never intended to lead but asked for clear-cut answers right from the start.

[PhoenixAsh]

that's the only point where you're right. You're derailing the same way you derailed the discussion with HTN, because you're not willing to answer a single shit question about if you think it's okay to kill babies with no fatal disabilities like down syndrome or babies with very poor parents that will hardly be able to make ends meet, as those 2 scientists proposed. Why don't you understand that you talk about something abstract while I'm talking about something concrete and wanting a concrete answer about YOUR point of view on when killing a baby is okay. So stop hiding behind a discussion that I never pointed at and never intended to lead but asked for clear-cut answers right from the start.

Answered in a PM.

[Five Year Plan]

Answered in a PM.

Any reason why the answer is secret?

[PhoenixAsh]

Any reason why the answer is secret?

Well...when I am bout to admit my obvious membership of some sort of evil baby killing nazi pagan cannibalistic organisation where I orchestrate witch hunts against members for no reason what so ever or because "why the hell not"...while kicking puppies and drowning kittens....I usually like some privacy.

Other than that the reasons why the answer is secret are of course secret...that is the whole point of being secretive. It would be no use to be secretive if I then would go around telling why there was need for secrecy.

Which there wasn't of course...and I am just being secretive to cultivate my image of mysterious asshole....which I think is quite fashionable and makes me more attractive as a human being....kind of like bell bottoms...

As to the part which is not secret at all (not that there are secret parts of course): it should have been obvious that I am using the abstract of the mirror image ethical reasoning rather than the topic...as I have made several references to that effect, explicitly stated that several times and I have made no mention of anything inside the article other than its ethical application and explicitly stated that the content didn't matter.

[Five Year Plan]

Well...when I am bout to admit my obvious membership of some sort of evil baby killing nazi pagan cannibalistic organisation where I orchestrate witch hunts against members for no reason what so ever or because "why the hell not"...while kicking puppies and drowning kittens....I usually like some privacy.

Other than that the reasons why the answer is secret are of course secret...that is the whole point of being secretive. It would be no use to be secretive if I then would go around telling why there was need for secrecy.

Which there wasn't of course...and I am just being secretive to cultivate my image of mysterious asshole.

As to the part which is not secret at all: it should have been obvious that I am using the abstract of the mirror image ethical reasoning rather than the topic...as I have made several references to that effect, explicitly stated that several times and I have made no mention of anything inside the article other than its ethical application and explicitly stated that the content didn't matter.

If people who would attack you for your answer are wrong, why tailor your actions around what they would or wouldn't say. They're wrong, remember?

[PhoenixAsh]

If people who would attack you for your answer are wrong, why tailor your actions around what they would or wouldn't say. They're wrong, remember?

Ow I see. Yes...but that is only if you assume that that is what I was tailoring my actions to.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It was a pretty exciting time. Fuck its been three years?

[PhoenixAsh]

We should hold a reunion

[Luís Henrique]

The difference then was that users who (still active on the site...so I wont mention them) held the same position as me were (wrongfully) accused of rape apologism, while my position was expressly deemed not to be...the implication of having the same position which is what I addressed, and the continued refusal to address it, does not negate that if two users have the same position and one is accused of somthing the other one (in that case me) can not be explicitly excluded. So the accusation should be levelled at both. And I saw that in the light of that position...and was not willing to accept a preferential treatment for some unknown reason. So either both of us were rape apologist...or neither of us were. There is no middle ground as the arguments were the same. Neither me or the other user were banned as the position was deemed not to be rape apologism.

While I am sure that is the case, I don't see the "difference". Some people thought your position (as in, the position you shared with the other poster) was rape apologism. And consequently demanded action against you. Other people (for instance, me) disagreed that it constituted rape apologism - even if not necessarily agreeing with your position. Because not everything we disagree with is rape apologism, or otherwise banable.

Same goes for V1917: some people (including you) think his positions constitute rape apologism. Others (including me) disagree that they constitute rape apologism, even if we disagree with said positions. Because not everything we disagree with is rape apologism, or otherwise banable.

What you now try to do is guilt by association: if anyone disagrees that V1917's positions constitute apologism, it must be because we agree with his positions themselves.


VG1917 position was however on three seperate occasions and in three seperate votes deemed unanimously sexist, and rape apologetic to the point where even his BA friends distanced themselved from him and refused to defend him...

So let's see what are his so horrible positions:


01). Rape is always violence

By definition, true, depending on jurisdiction. You can certainly argue that the legal definition of rape should be wider. But this by itself doesn't change the legal definition, which, in most jurisdictions, require violence as a constitutive element of the criminal type.

Now, if we are to discuss whether the legal definition should be wider or not, I would argue against enlarging it, because it would either lower the sentences for rape, or imply very strict sanctions, that are usually levelled only against violent crime, for non-violent crime.


02). Rape is always male violence

If he thinks so, he is mistaken. There certainly is a small amount of lesbian rape, and perhaps even a very small amount of female-on-male rape. I fail however to see how this amounts to rape apologism. It is a factual mistake about quite rare phenomena - unless of course you trivialise the definition of rape, in which case a woman "forcing" her girlfriend into sex by exhaustion would be a rapist, and as such guilty of a crime that should carry several years in prison.


03). Feminists who argue that rape is not violence don't understand rape

People - regardless if the are feminists, or MRAs, or whatever else - who argue that rape is not violence probably don't understand the juridical consequences of equating violent and non-violent crime. Even if such position is wrong, I fail to see how it is rape apologism. It is merely a distinction between violent and non-violent crime. People who argue that theft is not robbery aren't "robbery apologists" - not even, indeed, "theft apologists".


04). Inability to consent and having sex with somebody unable to consent is not rape

If he argues that, I would agree that he is very deeply mistaken, and that he believes that some cases that clearly constitute rape in most jurisdictions should be treated as minor crimes. But does he? Where? As far as I remember, what went under discussion was a very different issue: that of if a person who is intoxicated with alcohol is unable to consent if she is still able to talk, walk, etc. A discussion that was systematically hampered by the inability of some to realise that people don't immediately fall unconscious when they have their first sip of beer.


05). Men who claim they are sexually harassed have alterior motives.

Again, I don't think this is something that he has said. Most men who claim the are sexually harassed by women are probably lying, yes. Those who construe (even legitimate) episodes of harassment as "rape" are wrong, and quite probably do have ulterior motives, often probably reactionary or sexist ones. It is obvious however that the amount of men who are raped (eg in prison) by other men is appalling, and that sexual harassment of men does exist, and that even female-on-male sexual harassment exists, though in much lower levels.


06). Refering to a specific case saying that the man was bieng driven by greed

Well, without knowing what exactly he meant by "driven gy greed" or the specific case, it is really difficult to assess that.


07). Men can't really be sexually harassed by women

Most probably, that men can't be really raped by women. Which, since you believe that rape is not necessarily violent, gets misconstrued as the above. It is a wrong position - rape does not necessarily involve penises, so a woman can rape a man with her fingers dildoes, etc. And of course women can rape men through the bodies of other men (for instance, by hiring hitmen to rape an enemy instead of or before killing him). But it is more likely an exaggeration of a quite correct position: that women-on-men rape is not a huge social problem as men-on-women or men-on-men rape.

But even if not, it doesn't look as rape apologism at all.


08). It apparently isn't rape when you are below 21 years of age...remember...his entire line of argument that 5% isn't true is based entirely on questioning age categorization

It "isn't" rape when committed by someone who is not legally responsible. Which it means something like "it is analogous to rape" or "it is something that would constitute rape if committed by someone who was of the legal age to be prosecuted". If that legal age is 21, then he is correct; if it is 18 or 16, then he is wrong - probably in the same way you are when you tell us that "rape is not violence": in confusing what is law and what you think should be law.


09). Female-to-female rape does not exist...since rape is always male violence

This is an evidently wrong position - factually mistaken, indeed. Female-on-female rape evidently exists. That it is a social problem on the same level of male-on-female or male-on-male rape... no, that isn't true either; it is a quite rare phenomenon.


10). Men who are raped by women is merely and predominantly caused by , and I quote, "women nagging".

Well, if we include non-violent sexual harrassment as "rape", as you seem to propose, then he is certainly correct. If we don't, then men are very rarely raped by women.


But...apparently it is more important to single out a single one of the BA...and actually dismiss all these remarks.

I don't think those remarks should be dismissed. They should be discussed and opposed if they are wrong. They shouldn't be pretexts for restricting or banning a poster; even if mistaken, they are not anti-socialist positions.


O...you may have missed the fact that previously in his defense of VG1917 HTN expressly stated that I did not acknowledge the aspect ratio of male-to-female rape in respect to female-to-male rape. Which I expressly did.

It seems to me that false symmetries between male-on-female rape and female-on-male rape are way more worrysome than denials of the existence of the latter. If I were to err, I would decidedly prefer to err in the direction of "female-on-male rape doesn't exist" than in the way of "both males rape females and females rape males, so it isn't a gender issue".


He stated I rejected Patriarchal context of rape...while this was expressly mentioned but entirely ignored by VG1917.

HTN also stated that I posed my entire position based on female-to-male rape rather than including repeatedly female-to-female rape which was ignored by VG1917.

Regardless, female-on-female rape, while being way more prevalent than female-on-male rape, is still a quite minor concern compared with either male-on-female or male-on-male rape. To equate both, frankly, very much sounds like a kind of MRA argument that "LESBIANS also rape women!!!!!1 so why are all those feminazis winging about men raping them???!!!!1"


Not to mention of course his comment that alluded that I cited some MRA study. Rather than a national study into significant other sexual abuse.

Ah, yes. There is definitely a problem with that. You quote someone, and then, because MRAs also quote that same person, presto: you are an MRA yourself, or a rape apologist, or whatever else. I know, I have been a victim of that procedure myself (by a foul-mouthed admin who also happened to be a member of a rapist-led cult, no less). But "other sexual abuse" is other sexual abuse - other than rape, I presume.


I am not defending anything. And I like you to quote where I am doing so.

Well. Whether the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, as evolutionists say, or 6,000 years ago, as stated in the HOLY BIBLE, is still under debate. To me, such a sentence is a defense of creationism. It is not under debate; evolutionists are right, and the Bible is wrong, unless 6,000 is somehow a metaphor for 4.5 billion. Same goes for your assertion that "post-birth abortion" is still under debate. It is not; no jurisdiction in the world allows "post-birth abortion", no serious social movement proposes it. And so, saying that it is still debatable is, in my opinion, a defense of such misanthropic absurd.


What I am however saying is that the article is both relevant and important within the ethical debate about personhood and is the mirror argument of pro-life ethics.

Which is again a defense of neonatal homicide. The article is as important and relevant within the ethical debate about personhood as the latest Flat Earth Society paper on how the world is the center of the universe is relevant within the debate on the Big Bang.

(But you are right - it is the "mirror" of "pro-life" ethics. Only "pro-life ethics" is a real monster in the real world, and "post-birth abortion" is a virtual image in the glass of academic ivory-towerism, when illuminated by iddle speculation by utilitarian pseudo-philosophers.


What I am also saying is that the article originated in an ethical debate or pratical implications as a thought exercise and is not a policy position but a consequential logic description.

This reminds me much of Dawkins telling us that we should logically and dispassionately discuss the necessity of torture or the use of hospitals as human butcher shops to dismember healthy John Does to save cardiopathic Einsteins and liver-diseased Shakepeares' lives...

It is completely illogic, it fails to acknowledge any consistence of juridical systems, it is completely based in insane methodological individualism, it is intellectually bankrupt, it cannot base or be based in any left-of-centre (any left-of-extreme-right, indeed) politics. So again, to merely say that it is part of a serious discussion, or, worse, that it relates somehow to leftist politics, is a defense of this ridicule.


In other words the subject itself is not important but the ethical consequences as a logical outcome of certain positions in certain contexts is the reason the article was written. It is not an anlysis, not a policy statement, not a proposal but a theory of ethical application. Some people don't seem to be able to grasp their head around this fact.

No, I can't grasp my head around this supposed fact. To me, that is a quite extreme manifestation of alienation, to the point of misanthropy. It isn't logical, it is not ethical, it is not intelligent, it is not useful, it is not cute, it is not serious, it is not a theory, it is not science, it is not philosophy, it is not bioethics, it is not practical, it is not related to the real world.


Now ofcourse we have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to "OMG think of the children" but the position in the article is ethically no different from the ethical logical position of the pro-life crowd.

Of course it is. The pro-life crowd mistakenly believes that fetuses are people; they correctly think that people shouldn't be killed without very good reasons, and so they oppose the killing of fetuses. Your pro-homicide "ethical theorists" apparently believe that children are not people, and consequently see no problems in killing them for the greater comfort of grown-ups. So they are quite different from each other, and your "ethical theorists" make a good job in making pro-life imbeciles look quite good in comparison.


Hence why it is important. Whether or not anybody wants to admit it....the definition of personhood and its moral/ethical applications are the heart of the abortion debate...this holds ethical and moral consequences. These have to be dealt with.

People (even those who traditionally opposed abortions) have always understood that personhood begins at birth. The emotional response of pro-lifers is 30 or 40 years old, and is exactly this: an emotional response. It can't be countered by adhering to their basic tenet - that birth isn't an important episode in people's life.


And if you look to the start of the debate...you see me making several ironic statements as well as saying: Using the articles arguments is interesting in any abortion debate.

From the point of view of pro-lifers, it must be interesting; it provides them with quite useful red herring.


Well..I don't disagree. But scores of people...in fact a huge part of the world population does disagree entirely. Hence why we even have to pro-life vs pro-choice debate and why womens reproductive rights are restricted in the first place...and who largeky use personhood and sentience as the means to do so.

No. Abortion has been forbidden in many places for about a century, without any equation of fetuses to persons. So the origin of the debate on abortion rights cannot be the confusion about when personhood begins. You are mistaking a rhetorical device pro-lifers use to convince gullible people with the actual reasons why they maintain their positions.


Of course you can choose to close your eyes for that...but hey...personally I like to not do that.

I think you close your eyes to the actual debate, and embark in a fantasy of smoke and mirrors proposed by anti-abortionists (and "ethical theorists" who speculate about the legalisation of homicide). To keep our eyes open, we have to point to the several juridical and social problems that would arise from the equating of abortion to murder (if abortion is murder, is miscarriage manslaughter? Or at least should all miscarriages be investigated by CSI teams to check if it wasn't a crime? Is a woman who smokes during her pregnancy a criminal? If abortion is murder, can you allow someone to travel abroad to have one? Is Todd Akin going to tell us that if a woman really doesn't want to abort, her body won't miscarry?)


I also like to remind you that pro-choice positions include euthanasia.

No, they don't. Plenty of people think abortion should be legal, but oppose euthanasia. I suppose the opposite may be quite less common, but I don't see why it would be logically impossible.


And the euthanasia question includes the same debate on personhood as abortion does.

It doesn't. It is indeed a very different issue.


And that raises some issues like what to do with children who suffer;

Why?

A child is a person; we don't kill people because they are suffering. A fetus is not a person; we don't kill fetuses "because they are suffering", but because they are not people. And indeed, if we are actually "pro-choice", and not merely crazed, we deem that the decision belongs exclusively to the pregnant woman. No one can kill a fetus who is in someone else's womb and then argue innocence because it was inviable, or would have killed the pregnant woman, or anything else.


what is the definition of "health" and what does this mean for abortion/euthanasia when you allow them for "health" related reasons;

Those however are not "pro-choice" positions.


when does something become a person?

At birth, in the case of human fetuses. Never, in the case of anything else.


does this matter?

Of course.


But it also raises the issue, which you personally might find uncomfortable, which live is more important and why should somebody be allowed to supress the live of another.

I don't think it has to do with "which life is more important" at all. It has to do with who has the rights to pre-birth lives. I can agree that Stephen Hawkings life is more important that John Doe's, but I don't agree that this gives Hawkings the right to kill Doe, or a third party the right to kill Doe to save Hawkings' life. Conversely, I can believe that the fetus Jane Doe is carrying will probably have a more important life than hers, but this doesn't give me any right to try and prevent Jane Doe from aborting.


Now...unless I am mistaken...this is mainly the take on the debate the pro-life crowd and abortion restrictionists here take. Arguing against late term abortion based on personhood, fetal autonomy, individuality and sentience...conveniently forgetting that this moral and ethical choice has consequences for another sentient being and their value.

Obviously a "pro-choice" position isn't - and can't be - informed by ethical conundrums about "which life is more important" or speculations about whether fetuses are sentient or not. We know they are sentient well before birth; we know they are sentient before they become able to survive out of the womb. So we have no problems with killing sentient beings; we have problems with killing people. And people aren't merely sentient beings; they are already born humans.


Dismissing these issues is ignoring that the debate does not take place in a vacuum.

Oh, please. Of course it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens in the space that has been defined by the SCOTUS so exactly: on whether denying abortion rights does or does not infringe equal protection for women regarding men. What is a vacuum, here, are those speculations about sentiency, pain, potentiality, etc.


Now...apparently posting an article because I was dismissing yet another one of those abortion restrictionists who argue the sentience and human rights of fetusses in order to force women to undergo c-section operations and give birth causes a lot of emotional responses from people who themselves always use the rejection of personhood to fetusses

That may be your intention, but when you accept the terms - those of sentiency, suffering, etc - you are entrapped into a position than can only be either logically "pro-life" or illogically "pro-choice".


and call them parasites.

This is the most ridiculous and ignorant "pro-choice" argument that I have ever read/heard. Obviously fetuses aren't parasites. They are fetuses. Also they aren't criminal attackers, so "self-defence" arguments cannot hold either.

See, just because I favour abortion rights, it doesn't mean that I must accept any argument, never mind how ill-thought, ignorant, anti-scientific it is. Just like because I support "gay rights" doesn't mean that I have to agree with someone who says that they should have such rights because "if God didn't want homosexuals, He wouldn't let they be born"...


I am not saying I disagree...but it is interesting to see the level of debate quickly degenerating to exactly the same arguments which are normally counter posed to abortion and freedom of women to choose.

It is difficult to avoid argument degeneration when we bring up degenerate arguments...

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

While I am sure that is the case, I don't see the "difference". Some people thought your position (as in, the position you shared with the other poster) was rape apologism. And consequently demanded action against you. Other people (for instance, me) disagreed that it constituted rape apologism - even if not necessarily agreeing with your position. Because not everything we disagree with is rape apologism, or otherwise banable.

Same goes for V1917: some people (including you) think his positions constitute rape apologism. Others (including me) disagree that they constitute rape apologism, even if we disagree with said positions. Because not everything we disagree with is rape apologism, or otherwise banable.

Except that of course it was bannable and hence he was banned. This is were your analogy goes wrong entirely.



What you now try to do is guilt by association: if anyone disagrees that V1917's positions constitute apologism, it must be because we agree with his positions themselves.

Actually...I didn't say that. What I did however say is that somebody jumping in only after the debate is over and after, after months of transgressions, specifically joins the debate in order to question the decision and stating that something which on three seperate occasions was found to be a transgression worthy of penalty by unanimous vote is not the case....this attitude is highly objectionable and the personal agenda is shining through brightly.

So where the fuck was he during the debatre? Where the fuck was this user in the last few months?


By definition, true, depending on jurisdiction. You can certainly argue that the legal definition of rape should be wider. But this by itself doesn't change the legal definition, which, in most jurisdictions, require violence as a constitutive element of the criminal type.

Actually it doesn't. So that is not true at all.


Now, if we are to discuss whether the legal definition should be wider or not, I would argue against enlarging it, because it would either lower the sentences for rape, or imply very strict sanctions, that are usually levelled only against violent crime, for non-violent crime.

Since it is already comon law practive and the level of violence influences the eventual sentence...you are of course..wrong again.



If he thinks so, he is mistaken. There certainly is a small amount of lesbian rape, and perhaps even a very small amount of female-on-male violence. I fail however to see how this amounts to rape apologism. It is a factual mistake about quite rare phenomena - unless of course you trivialise the definition of rape, in which case a woman "forcing" her girlfriend into sex by exhaustion would be a rapist, and as such guilty of a crime that should carry several years in prison.

30% of non heterosexual women report forced sex by their same sex partner

Of course if you would like to argue that forcing somebody to have sex without their consent is not actually something that deserves some form of punishment....


People - regardless if the are feminists, or MRAs, or whatever else - who argue that rape is not violence probably don't understand the juridical consequences of equating violent and non-violent crime. Even if such position is wrong, I fail to see how it is rape apologism. It is merely a distinction between violent and non-violent crime. People who argue that theft is not robbery aren't "robbery apologists" - not even, indeed, "theft apologists".

Except your witty word games of course deny the fact that we are not here to defend legal or non legal definitions of rsape buyt rape as a social factor and a factor well within patriarchy.



If he argues that, I would agree that he is very deeply mistaken, and that he believes that some cases that clearly constitute rape in most jurisdiction should be treated as minor crimes. But does he? Where? As far as I remember, what went under discussion was a very different issue: that of if a person who is intoxicated with alcohol is unable to consent if she is still able to talk, walk, etc. A discussion that was systematically hampered by the inability of some to realise that people don't immediately fall unconscious when they have a sip of beer.

Then go fucking complain with the rest of the BA who made the decision.



Again, I don't think this is something that he has said. Most men who claim the are sexually harassed by women are probably lying, yes. Those who construe (even legitimate) episodes of harassment as "rape" are wrong, and quite probably do have ulterior motives, often probably reactionary or sexist ones. It is obvious however that the amount of men who are raped (eg in prison) by other men is appalling, and that sexual harassment of men does exist, and that even female-on-male sexual harassment exists, though in much lower levels.

We didn't discuss anything of the sort. What he said was that men aren't able to be sexually harassed. Then he said men who were victims of sexual harassment were lying or motivated by greed. This of course is simply sexism and victimblaming.


And yes..since it is obvious that rape is not only a male crime specifically, as he claimed, to show feminists do not understand rape...then that is objectionable and sexism in itself. It also denies a part of the victim groups. And that is rape denial.


Well, without knowing what exactly he meant by "driven gy greed" or the specific case, it is really difficult to assess that.

Uhuh. Sure. Like it is very difficult to assess whether or not something was actually rape and therefore we need to doubt every womans statement. Because you are of course apllying that exact same logic. "It is too hard to actually establish what happened"


Most probably, that men can't be really raped by women. Which, since you believe that rape is not necessarily violent, gets misconstrued as the above. It is a wrong position - rape does not necessarily involve penises, so a woman can rape a man with her fingers dildoes, etc. And of course women can rape men through the bodies of other men (for instance, by hiring hitmen to rape an enemy instead of or before killing him). But it is more likely an exaggeration of a quite correct position: that women-on-men rape is not a huge social problem as men-on-women or men-on-men rape.

Actually...this was specifically adressed and he chose to ignore that entirely. So no...



t even if not, it doesn't look as rape apologism at all.

Yes actually it does and your defense and methods you use here are in fact very problematic.



It "isn't" rape when committed by someone who is not legally responsible. Which it means something like "it is analogous to rape" or "it is something that would constitute rape if committed by someone who was of the legal age to be prosecuted". If that legal age is 21, then he is correct; if it is 18 or 16, then he is wrong - probably in the same way you are when you tell us that "rape is not violence": in confusing what is law and what you think should be law.

You DO understand he was talking about the age of the victims right?

Because your entire defense here makes no sense whatsoever.

And as I said: you are wrong about the violence part in legal defnitions of rape.



This is an evidently wrong position - factually mistaken, indeed. Female-on-female evidently exists. That it is a social problem on the same level of male-on-female or male-on-male rape... no, that isn't true either; it is a quite rare phenomenon

But still a social problem. And still it counters his entire argument that rape is male violence.



Well, if we include non-violent sexual harrassment as "rape", as you seem to propose, then he is certainly correct. If we don't, then men are very rarely raped by women.

Yeah...I find your defense of him entirely problematic in the light of actual political ideology on this board and really touching on apologism.



I don't think those remarks should be dismissed. They should be discussed and opposed if they are wrong. They shouldn't be pretexts for restricting or banning a poster; even if mistaken, they are not anti-socialist positions.

Actually; they are anti-forum rules.



It seems to me that false symmetries between male-on-female rape and female-on-male rape are way more worrysome than denials of the existence of the latter. If I were to err, I would decidedly prefer to err in the direction of "female-on-male rape doesn't exist" than in the way of "both males rape females and females rape males, so it isn't a gender issue".

There were no false symetries. So your point is useless.




Regardless, female-on-female rape, while being way more prevalent than female-on-male rape, is still a quite minor concern compared with either male-on-female or male-on-male rape. To equate both, frankly, very much sounds like a kind of MRA argument that "LESBIANS also rape women!!!!!1 so why are all those feminazis winging about men raping them???!!!!1"

But still a concern. Your dismissal of these as MRA positions is of course incredibly asinine And actually akin to Egypt saying there is no rape within marriage.



Ah, yes. There is definitely a problem with that. You quote someone, and then, because MRAs also quote that same person, presto: you are an MRA yourself, or a rape apologist, or whatever else. I know, I have been a victim of that procedure myself (by a foul-mouthed admin who also happened to be a member of a rapist-led cult, no less). But "other sexual abuse" is other sexual abuse - other than rape, I presume.

MRA positions are theirs. This does not mean that issues which MRA use for their ideology don't have a basis in fact. Shying away from adressing these issues because they might resemble MRA positions is of course entirely stupid and prevents a correct analysis of broader social problems of power dynamics which all are part of patriarchal social conditioning.


Well. Whether the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, as evolutionists say, or 6,000 years ago, as stated in the HOLY BIBLE, is still under debate. To me, such a sentence is a defense of creationism. It is not under debate; evolutionists are right, and the Bible is wrong, unless 6,000 is somehow a metaphor for 4.5 billion. Same goes for your assertion that "post-birth abortion" is still under debate. It is not; no jurisdiction in the world supports "post-birth abortion", no serious social movement proposes it. And so, saying that it is still debatable is, in my opinion, a defense of such misanthropic absurd.

This is of course entirely opposite to what is actually going on. Infant euthanasia is still heavilly debated in cases of unreleivable suffering. Some countries do not allow this. Others do. And the debate about personhood and about the right to abort or the right to euthanasia are still raging heavilly in the scientific and political communities.



Which is again a defense of neonatal homicide. The article is as important and relevant within the ethical debate about personhood as the latest Flat Earth Society paper on how the world is the center of the universe is relevant within the debate on the Big Bang.

(But you are right - it is the "mirror" of "pro-life" ethics. Only "pro-life ethics" is a real monster in the real world, and "post-birth abortion" is a virtual image in the glass of academic ivory-towerism, when illuminated by iddle speculation by utilitarian pseudo-philosophers.

This reminds me much of Dawkins telling us that we should logically and dispassionately discuss the necessity of torture or the use of hospitals as human butcher shops to dismember healthy John Does to save cardiopathic Einsteins and liver-diseased Shakepeares' lives...

It is completely illogic, it fails to acknowledge any consistence of juridical systems, it is completely based in insane methodological individualism, it is intellectually bankrupt, it cannot base or be based in any left-of-centre (any left-of-extreme-right, indeed) politics. So again, to merely say that it is part of a serious discussion, or, worse, that it relates somehow to leftist politics, is a defense of this ridicule.


Yeaaahhh...Sure. However the article is written within a certain context...and not within a left one. This does not negate however much you want it to...the fact that the debate about abortion, euthanasia and their ethical applications of ethical logics are not very much raging outside the left.

So again your entire point is simply there for you to make it without any factual basis.



No, I can't grasp my head around this supposed fact. To me, that is a quite extreme manifestation of allienation, to the point of misanthropy. It isn't logical, it is not ethical, it is not intelligent, it is not useful, it is not cute, it is not serious, it is not a theory, it is not science, it is not philosophy, it is not bioethics, it is not practical, it is not related to the real world.

Indeed. Which is the fucking point.



Of course it is. The pro-life crowd mistakenly believes that fetuses are people; they correctly think that people shouldn't be killed without very good reasons, and so they oppose the killing of fetuses. Your pro-homicide "ethical theorists" apparently believe that children are not people, and consequently see no problems in killing them for the greater comfort of grown-ups. So they are quite different from each other, and your "ethical theorists" make a good job in making pro-life imbeciles look quite good.

Actually...given the fact that several members here defend such a position...the qualifier "good" and "bad" are of course completely subjective and do in fact only have bearing on your personal opinion.


People (even those who traditionally opposed abortions) have always understood that personhood begins at birth. The emotional response of pro-lifers is 30 or 40 years old, and is exactly this: an emotional response. It can't be countered by adhering to their basic tenet - that birth isn't an important episode in people's life.

No...that again is not true. As the debate about when something becomes a person was actually started by St. August which stated termination of pregnancy before three months is permitted because the developed fruit stops being a monster and becomes a human after 3 months.

So...yeah..,again your argument has no bearing on actual reality.


From the point of view of pro-lifers, it must be interesting; it provides them with quite useful red herring


No. Abortion has been forbidden in many places for about a century, without any equation of fetuses to persons. So the origin of the debate on abortion rights cannot be the confusion about when personhood begins. You are mistaken a rhetorical device pro-lifers use to convince gullible people with the actual reasons why they maintain their positions.


Again...not true.



snip

At the above point I simply stopped reading your post. Maybe you should do some actual research into the topic before you start writing something which is wrought with factually incorrect statements which run counter to actual reality?

K.

Thnx!

[Luís Henrique]

I can't seem to come to a position either way other than that it seems like a real slippery slope to judge personhood based on ethics and morals that are ultimately arbitrary, just due to the nature of ethics and morals. I keep writing out responses and then not posting them, an uncomfortable subject for sure.

The trouble is that "personhood" is not an ethical or moral (or biological or psychological, for that matter) concept.

It is strictly juridical. If one doesn't recognise an independent gnosiological realm for juridical phenomena, one will be stuck into trying to base law into ethics, morals, religion, biology, psychology, etc. Which can only lead to confusion.

Personhood begins at birth because placing it anywhere else would lead to several difficult juridical conundrums.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

However personhood does hold moral and ethical implications for huge parts of the world

[PhoenixAsh]

Also not sure how long you think abortions are a thing...so just to be sure: since 2700 BC at the very least

[Hit The North]

Actually...I didn't say that. What I did however say is that somebody jumping in only after the debate is over and after, after months of transgressions, specifically joins the debate in order to question the decision and stating that something which on three seperate occasions was found to be a transgression worthy of penalty by unanimous vote is not the case....this attitude is highly objectionable and the personal agenda is shining through brightly.

So where the fuck was he during the debatre? Where the fuck was this user in the last few months?



Where was I? Are you being serious? Let me see... Well, I've been at work, doing my job so I don't get sacked. I went camping in Derbyshire for a long weekend at the beginning of July. Saw Public Enemy at Sheffield Tramlines. I had a doctor's appointment in mid July (if you want the details, I can PM ya). Last night I had alphabet-spaghetti for tea, managed to assemble the word 'fuckwaddy' around the side of my place, and went to bed early with a glowing sense of accomplishment.

In between this uneventful two months I have mainly skimmed through my favourite communist message board, which has been a bit dull lately, and received a few pm's from VG1917 asking for help in contacting an admin about reviewing his restriction. In return I read the threads concerned and agreed that his restriction was a wee bit harsh. I pm'd an admin about it and received no response. When he was banned I again contacted another member of the BA and again received no direct response. So I raised it on the board, along with some other posters, and you were the only member of the BA to attempt to justify his ban. So kudos to you for doing that, despite your atrocious arguments. I guess you're practising for when you run this place (if you don't already) ;)

[M-L-C-F]

Saw Public Enemy at Sheffield Tramlines.

How was their show? I hope they do a another US tour soon. I really wanna see them live. They're my favourite rap group.

[Lily Briscoe]

It seems to me that false symmetries between male-on-female rape and female-on-male rape are way more worrysome than denials of the existence of the latter. If I were to err, I would decidedly prefer to err in the direction of "female-on-male rape doesn't exist" than in the way of "both males rape females and females rape males, so it isn't a gender issue".

I think this is a good point.



30% of non heterosexual women report forced sex by their same sex partner
Where is this figure coming from?

[PhoenixAsh]

Where was I? Are you being serious? Let me see... Well, I've been at work, doing my job so I don't get sacked. I went camping in Derbyshire for a long weekend at the beginning of July. Saw Public Enemy at Sheffield Tramlines. I had a doctor's appointment in mid July (if you want the details, I can PM ya). Last night I had alphabet-spaghetti for tea, managed to assemble the word 'fuckwaddy' around the side of my place, and went to bed early with a glowing sense of accomplishment.

In between this uneventful two months I have mainly skimmed through my favourite communist message board, which has been a bit dull lately, and received a few pm's from VG1917 asking for help in contacting an admin about reviewing his restriction. In return I read the threads concerned and agreed that his restriction was a wee bit harsh. I pm'd an admin about it and received no response. When he was banned I again contacted another member of the BA and again received no direct response. So I raised it on the board, along with some other posters, and you were the only member of the BA to attempt to justify his ban. So kudos to you for doing that, despite your atrocious arguments. I guess you're practising for when you run this place (if you don't already) ;)

What you actually did is what always happened and probably the reason why nobody responds to demands for explanations is that you then immediately set out with counter accusations and tried to pint this on a solitary BA member while picking apart the entire arguments to disect them in parts and try to make them seem harmless by taking them out of the context of the whole of the arguments and creating a spin on them.

Now I personally have always adressed all of the cases whether I agree with them or not (and to take away all confusion on this: in this case I am behind all three decisions 100%) or if I was involved in them or not...regardless of the consequences of the debate and the inevitable shiffest that is usually launched against me. Not rarely by the usual suspects who have taken it upon themselves to challenge every BA decision regarding the rules no matter what when it concerns members they like. So I admittedly do so with less and less of a friendly attitude and less and less patience depending on who is demaning the answers for the latest banned sexist, rape apologist, abortion restrictionist or trans & homophobe. However...I am doing it because I think it should be done. Ironically the demands for non apearing explanations are of course always met with verbal abuse, challenges, ad hominems and even downright application of sexist or questionable reasoning,...which aren't really an incentive to change attitudes.

This case is no different. You were given an explanation and you dismissed the explanation entirely. You did so by disecting VG1917 arguments and stating my argumenst were attrocious and attributing his conduct in steering the debate against me followed by usual counter accusations.

What you conveniently glossed over is that this debate started entirely because of VG1917's position that feminists who argue that rape is not always violent did not understand rape. What you conveniently glossed over is that his position of rape being violence expressly was argued as opposed to rape being about non-consent or having sex with people who were unable to consent. That in itself is hugely problematic...and what you call "contrariness" is of course deeply disturbing for people who are raped. That this is exactly what it meant, and not something else, was illustrated by his argument and defense of rape being a result of nagging women and people repetitatively asking or demanding sex. When the counter question was asked if he would think these attitudes constituted rape when the victim was a woman...he continuously refused to answer the question. EDIT: DO note that dismissing rape having actually occured because there was no physical or other violence is one in many ways how rapevictims are dismissed.

In essence that was why I started the debate with this person, who was already kicked out of the CU and restricted by a unanimous BA vote (including all of his BA friends) over his position being both sexist and rape apologist. I had nothing to do with these votes...at all. But you conveniently pinned them on me as well.

This remark of course was framed by limiting rape to men and male violence. This rejects the existence of millions of rape victims; both men and women. Especially when using the statement to show how feminists do not understand rape...this of course is doubly problematic. At no point in the debate did he actually amend that statement at all.

Naturally you glossed over, like VG1917 repeatedly did, the framing of my entire argument within the context of the patriarchal and heteronormative context of the legal definitions or rape and their use in perpetuating stereotyped gender roles. He entirely ignored the feminist definition of rape I provided (and...to counter LH's asinine argument...showed him how legal definitions of rape vary from region to region and include non violence as well >> French Kissing somebody against their will is legally considered rape in The Netherlands for example) In fact...you explicitly rejected me refering to that.
And VG1917 glossed over that entirely...to focus entirely on a small part of the argument against him to set out to disprove the existance of that small part of rape victims or to dismiss the seriousness of their rapes. In doing so he ignored the comment in my OP about rape being more than violence; rape being more than male to female rape....as two other groups of course exist.

You of course asininely argued that stating this was both akin to MRA positionism and that I refused to acknowledge the prevalence of male-to-female rape. Yet I specifically adressed this prevalence and the relatively small amount of male victims in a post. Again...you were wrong. I also specifically adressed why acknowledging the existance of non male-to-female rape does not rject patriarchy and in fact makes perfect sense within its context. I'll adress your asinine comparison to MRA positions later.

For the first few pages of posts VG1917 merely dismissed all previous demaned source material I provided. Doing so based not on the content of these sources but based on his interpretation of gender stereotypes socialized by Patriarchy. He then disected part of the source material NOT to actually adress the issue of rape within patriarchy or in order to actually understand but specifically with the intent to disprove the fact that millions of men (4-5 to be exact in the US) have been raped....while completely ignoring another vital element which I repeatedly mentioned: female-to-female rape.

In fact he specifically argued that the numbers of rape were incorrect because, in his opinion, the majority of cases were committed before adulthood of the victims. Which of course I repeatedly adressed as to relevancy of the distinction and he merely dismissed as being relevant.

So far he completely steered the debate towards haggling over numbers rather than adressing the issues put foreward focussing entirely on a small part of the argument. You however contributed HIS behaviour to me...saying that I steered this discussion towards male victimization by women because that was the core of MY argument. This is both untrue and of course deeply asinine. I repeatedly mentioned him doing this and asking to expand the debate to its entire scope instead of his narrowing its focus. Notice again...that I repeatedly mentioned female-to-female rape and that he explicitly rejected that topic.

Next he went so far as to dismiss most of the cases as being the result...of "nagging women". Compared with his rejection of male sexual harassment victims of being exaggerrating and being driven by other motives like greed because...get this...men can't really be sexually harassed because they like sexual attention of women.

This is the fucking definition of rape/abuse dismissal. It is the entire essential defintion of perpetuating rape culture. And it is the entire defintion of fucking victim blaming. And it is actually perpetuating genderized stereotypes

That you do not understand this...that you do not want to acknowledge this is hugely problematic.

Of course you counter challenged me by stating that focussing on female to male rape & female to female rape are MRA positions and therefore you alluded I was denying feminism. Naturally I already adressed that above as being factually incorrect. Not to mention the fact that not adressing certain issues which obviously DO concern feminism and patriarchal power dynamics...because non revolutionary and anti-feminists groups use these to legitimize their position is probematic. So we are going to gloss over these as unimportant and not worthy of our attention within a anti-patriarchal political position because the MRA holds some of the same positions? WTF dude? So basically...lets ignore a large group of victims. And you do not see how problematic this is?

But it also means that YOUR position is based on dismissing the issue of female-to-male rape and female-to-female rape because of prevalence. You explicitly argued this. Applying this logic beyond this scope means we should not really be bothered with smaller groups of people victimized by some construct of discrimination simply because we should focuss our entire attention on the large groups. You rather have we simply deny their existance and accept them being swept aside (a position you explicitly defend) than actually make a complete anaylis and take an actual feminist position that patriarchy affects all genders, albeit unequally. In stead...you go and say: we only focus on the largest group affected by patriarchy...because...fuck the rest. Lets b y the same logic not adress the Trans women discrimination at all....becasue well...other women are such more of a larger group. Fuck that position. Take some fucking responsibility.

This entire line of reasoning expressed by VG1917 which in whole and in part is completely ban worthy according to the rules...goes on top of his previously held position (for which he was kicked out of the CU and restricted by a unanimous BA vote of 14-0 including...all his friends in the BA) which is agian reinforced in this debate by virtue of his argumental construct and the post which I reacted to....that rape is violence and non violent consent violations are not in fact rape. Particularly in the case of inability to consent.

Now I completely agree I was utterly unfriendly and unsympathetic to VG1917. So lets get this clear: I specifically stated I did not want to debate the issue with him and I specifically and continuously called him out on what I thought of him. You might think that somebody who has been previously kicked out of the CU and restricted would simply not persue the debate any further. Yet he did. I DID adress him for hundreds of posts. He continuously set out to prove that previous opinion....up to the point that the BA debate about the user was continued and resulted on above grounds in his ban with a 9-0 vote result.

Let me make this quite clear...the user was on this site for more than a decade. He knows how this works. He had AMPLE of time to correct his statements..yet he did not do so. And he continued to add to his obvious sexism and rape apologism.

The ENTIRE context aswell as the parts of his arguments were deeply troubeling.

On three seperate occasions the user was, unanimously voted upon by the entire BA. YOUR position of trying to pin this on some personal witch hunt is problematic. Not only because of your arguments, denials and rejections of definitions but because you also explicitly argue that the vote I had nothing to do with that got VG1917 kicked out of the CU, the vote that got him restricted were somehow my doing. That his friends refusing to defend him and distancing themselves was somehow not really their choice but because of me. And you also explicitly argue that the 9 people who voted on the eventual ban vote were mere puppets, puddy in my witch hunting hands, without an actual opinion of their own, without any intelligence of their own...and without any ability to properly assess the arguments of VG1917 in their context.

And YOU lament and complain that this board isn't run democratic....and you can't see WHY that is?

So no...I have no patience for your inability to understand what rape culture is. I do not have patience for your inablity to properly attribute responsibility for obvious sexist positions. I do not have patience for you defending the indefensible. I do not have patience for you rejecting obvious problematic statements and lining that defence of some loathsome and utterly rejectable positions with false arguments and untruths.

Instead you post this whiney post trying to paint yourself as somebody who merely asks some innocent questions. You have been bussy. You can't be bothered or expected to spend hours online. Well...guess fucking what...I work 70-80 hours a day for the same fucking reason as you. I am dealing with a kid with terminal cancer. I am dealing with the death in our arms of my infant daughter born too fucking soon...and a serious suicidally depressed ex girfirend who also is the legal guardian of the 11 year old autistic little girl who has a 20% chance of making it through the next chemo. On top of that I make fucking time for assisting actual real life rape victims like myself...not some fucking statistics...who are daily faced with the same ignorant bullshit VG1917 was arguing...because of his "contrariness" as you so eloquently put it.

I however also make the fucking time to actually take resonsibility and address YOUR fucking difficulties with understanding some very simple. So excuse me if I do not spend hours and hours on debating the fucking issue with you over some technical problems you have or being fucking short with your ass.

And I am seriously wondering why you always seem to make some capital offense of something which is fucking obvious. Maybe it is not me...maybe it is simply you.

There you go.

[Luís Henrique]

I think this is a good point.

Thank you.


Where is this figure coming from?

Not from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf), which says that the prevalence of female-on-female rape could not be estimated because the sample is too small to give statistically significant results.

They however report a lifetime prevalence of 40% for physical violence among lesbians.

The same survey says 9% of heterosexual women reported been raped by partners in their lifetime. And I much doubt lesbians would be three times more prone to rape their partners than heterosexual men.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.wcsap.org/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-community

Bisexual, transgendered, lesbian, and gay people experience violence within their intimate relationships at about the same rates as heterosexuals (Waldner-Haugrud, 1997; AVP, 1992)

30% of lesbians report having experienced sexual assault or rape by another woman (not necessarily an intimate partner) (Renzetti, 1992)
15% of men living with a male intimate partner report being raped, assaulted or stalked by a male cohabitant (CDC, 1999)


But lets continue to dismiss the relevancy of the issue...I am entirely sure somebody will be able to come up with some reason why to exclude acknowledging these people and why actually talking about them is such an MRA position...so we need to shut up about them.

[Lily Briscoe]

30% of lesbians report having experienced sexual assault or rape by another woman (not necessarily an intimate partner) (Renzetti, 1992)
So you're original claim that "30% of non heterosexual women report forced sex by their same sex partner" is not actually true at all, both in that the 30% in question doesn't necessarily involve intimate partners and that it doesn't strictly involve 'forced sex' but also includes 'sexual assault' (which, to my understanding, could include things like unwanted touching, e.g. Someone having their ass grabbed in a bar, which I would imagine probably comprises a very large chunk of that 30%).


But lets continue to dismiss the relevancy of the issue...I am entirely sure somebody will be able to come up with some reason why to exclude acknowledging these people and why actually talking about them is such an MRA position...so we need to shut up about them.

Personally I'm pretty tired of hearing about 'MRA' and don't understand why it's such a popular topic on this forum. I do think your arguments could be construed as attempting to inflate the prevalence of rape committed by women in order to serve some sort of ideological agenda that involves disconnecting rape as a social phenomenon from structural violence against women, though. I'm pretty much 100% certain that that isn't your intention, but when you misrepresent statistics on sexual assault committed by women like you've just done, it does kind of give that impression.

In any event, maybe this discussion should be split?

[PhoenixAsh]

So you're original claim that "30% of non heterosexual women report forced sex by their same sex partner" is not actually true at all, both in that the 30% in question doesn't necessarily involve intimate partners and that it doesn't strictly involve 'forced sex' but also includes 'sexual assault' (which, to my understanding, could include things like unwanted touching, e.g. Someone having their ass grabbed in a bar, which I would imagine probably comprises a very large chunk of that 30%).

Personally I'm pretty tired of hearing about 'MRA' and don't understand why it's such a popular topic on this forum. I do think your arguments could be construed as attempting to inflate the prevalence of rape committed by women in order to serve some sort of ideological agenda that involves disconnecting rape as a social phenomenon from structural violence against women, though. I'm pretty much 100% certain that that isn't your intention, but when you misrepresent statistics on sexual assault committed by women like you've just done, it does kind of give that impression.

In any event, maybe this discussion should be split?

It only gives that impression if that is what serves a personal agenda. Not only the fact that it is explicitly argued in order to defend explicitly sexist statements that haggling over % points is in fact relevant.

Now as far as I am concerned I took the trouble of actually sourcing both here and elsewhere claims which were entirely dismissed as being irrelevant and non debatable because they weren't considered important or actual rape.

The fact that I omitted adding abuse is because of the fact that in all these instances rape is defined as penetration of the body. Not as being forced to penetrate or being forced to have sex against consent. Something which I explicitly adressed in the other debate as being extremely problematic and in fact part of the patriarchal and heteronormative defintion and use of rape in enforcing socialized gender stereotypes of bourgeoisie legal respresentation of sexist power dynamics....as well as seriously altering rape prevalence in general to a much higher instance rate and therefore more of a problem. Which is actually a feminist aswell as revolutionary position on how rape should be viewed. Something which by the way is consistently being glossed over.

As to your defintion of forced sex....yes...it is in fact absolutely correct when I stated 30%. I however did not say forced sex...but did indeed say rape.

But sure. There is of course every right in challenging somebody for not being entirely factual correct to the percentage point when we are involved in a heavilly polarized highly emotional debate about whether or not somebody was not apologizing rape when they entirely dismissed several victim groups...there was apparently no need for them to be factual correct and their complete incorrectness, purposefull omissions and complete dismissing of arguments was perfectly excusable.

Lets instead focus entirely on the % devide.

Now what we are also forgetting that this is sourced material which I could find. Sourced material which is not online, not in English, not accessable for the larger community is something I cannot post. So I have to make due.

But sure.

[Luís Henrique]

haggling over % points is in fact relevant.

The issue is not the percent points, but the fact that you misrepresented the data. I am sure that you were not dishonest about this - otherwise you wouldn't have posted the link - but it seems that you allowed your position to mislead you into not correctly understanding what you were reading.

From "30% of lesbian women report being raped by their same sex partner" to "30% of lesbian women report being raped or sexually assaulted by other women, who may or may not be their sexual partner", there is quite a difference - which is not a difference in percent points, but in the concepts being handled.

"Raped or sexually assaulted" may seem to you the same thing as "raped", because you have redefined rape as being something different from "forcing a person into sexual actions through violence or threats thereof", to include non-violent crime, and perhaps non-criminal forms of sexual misbehaviour. But in many jurisdictions, probably most, rape is defined by violence, and other things are diversely defined as "sexual assault", "sexual harassment", "indecent behaviour", etc. Apparently, this is the case of the jurisdiction(s) in which the survey you quote has been conducted.

On the other hand, "their same-sex partners" and "another woman (not necessarily an intimate partner)" are quite different things. According to the CDC, cited by the same site you linked, 15% of gay men report being raped or sexually assaulted by their intimate partner. Now, unhappily the CDC wasn't able to calculate the corresponding percentual among homosexual women, but unless lesbian women are more violent than gay men - something that would have to be demonstrated, not presumed - then your figure of 30% is already at least halved. Add that to the distinction between "rape" and "sexual assault", and it will have to be even less. For instance, according to that survey, 13% (and not 30%) of lesbian women report being raped by either men or women, partner or non-partner.

Evidently, this is not haggling about percent points (which would be the case if the difference was between 30% and 29%), but debunking a mistaken interpretation of data (that it refers only to rape, not to rape and sexual assault, and that it refers to rape among partners, not to rape by any perpetrator).

Now, I am waiting for your barrage of abuse, which will handly demonstrate your insecurity in pursuing your line of argumentation, but I expect that among that abuse you at least argue on how these two big differences aren't either big or differences, or to alternatively concede that you were mishandling statistics.

And anyway, female-on-male rape remains without any source or figure to support your idea that it is an important social problem.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

The issue is not the percent points, but the fact that you misrepresented the data. I am sure that you were not dishonest about this - otherwise you wouldn't have posted the link - but it seems that you allowed your position to mislead you into not correctly understanding what you were reading.

Actually I did understand what I was reading and I have explained my position.

Do NOT however distract from the fact that this is not the issue at all...what the actual issue is is the explicit and implicit sexism of VG1917.

This issue your created and latched on is merely a side show in the attempt to defend his sexism by attacking somebody from the BA. Nohthing less than that. So do not try to step over it.

Take a fucking position on the matter.

Are you or are you not arguing that his positions were not sexism, rape apologism and victim blaming??





but since we are on the point of dealing with being factually incorrect:

* Source your initial claim that rape is always violence
(which will bring us to the fact that I gave VG1917 an out in saying that rape is only violence in the anarchist sense of the word...something which he was explicitly not arguing)
* Source your claim that rape is judicially defined as always being violence in most jurisdictions
* Source your claim that personhood in the abortion debate is something which is only recently being argued
* Source your claim that there is not a widespread debate over after birth neonaticide
* Source your claim that there is not a wide basis for personhood

At the very least and out of the top of my head over which points...your are factually wrong on all these accounts. Yet those were and are viotal construicts in your argument in order to somehow change this debate about VG1917's sexism to some personal attack in your attempt top defend him.

It is amazing how you seem to want sources but seem to give none. And amazing how you easilly ignore and gloss over your own factual incorrectness as if they are nothing. Yet your entire argumentative basis is based on these factual incorrect and unsourced statements.

So no...we are not playing your fucking asinine little game of changing the issue.



But I like how your base and frame your entire argument on assumptions...and not actual numbers and facts. That says something about you.


Owww...and this:


And anyway, female-on-male rape remains without any source or figure to support your idea that it is an important social problem.

Aside from the fact that that was entirely sourced and your allusion that it wasn't is of course not only asinine but entirely unfounded....I like how you try to paint that it wasn't....and thta VG1917 as a consequences wasn't spending dozens upon dozens of posts trying to diminish or reject them after first simply dismissing them without even reading the source material.

So here is your abuse; stop trying to be a clever little asshat...adress the issue we were originally debating instead of weasling out from under it by deflecting it

[#FF0000]

A discussion that was systematically hampered by the inability of some to realise that people don't immediately fall unconscious when they have their first sip of beer.

That's completely backwards. Those threads always end up with some people talking about being too drunk to consent, and then a handful of people repeating "so you're saying all sex with alcohol involved at all is rape? that's what you're saying yes it is".

Same thing happens in threads about harassment with those same people saying "so you can't talk to people? all talking is harassment? that's what you're saying yes it is"

[Hit The North]

Instead you post this whiney post trying to paint yourself as somebody who merely asks some innocent questions. You have been bussy. You can't be bothered or expected to spend hours online. Well...guess fucking what...I work 70-80 hours a day for the same fucking reason as you. I am dealing with a kid with terminal cancer. I am dealing with the death in our arms of my infant daughter born too fucking soon...and a serious suicidally depressed ex girfirend who also is the legal guardian of the 11 year old autistic little girl who has a 20% chance of making it through the next chemo. On top of that I make fucking time for assisting actual real life rape victims like myself...not some fucking statistics...who are daily faced with the same ignorant bullshit VG1917 was arguing...because of his "contrariness" as you so eloquently put it.


Wow. And you call me whiney.

And you work 80 hours a day? I work 8 because I'm in a union, dude. And live on planet Earth.

[Hit The North]

How was their show? I hope they do a another US tour soon. I really wanna see them live. They're my favourite rap group.

It was something of a greatest hits mash-up but they were cool. Chuck and Flav still rock it.

[Five Year Plan]

Because I'm lazy, I only work 60 hours per day.

[PhoenixAsh]

Wow. And you call me whiney.

And you work 80 hours a day? I work 8 because I'm in a union, dude. And live on planet Earth.

Entire post. This is what you focus on. Typical. :rolleyes:

But fair enough.

Still you are a massive whiney callous little asshole though.

A leaky one.

With hemmeroids.

[#FF0000]

can someone summarize in one or two sentences what you idiots are shouting about because I'm not reading all of this.

[PhoenixAsh]

can someone summarize in one or two sentences what you idiots are shouting about because I'm not reading all of this.

Basically...the entire debate can besummarized as follows:

You are wrong. No you are. Fuck you, you are wrong. No you are more fucking wrong. NANANANAnana--I am not listening. Talk to the hand. I am calling my mommy. I am NOT inviting you to my birthday party.

And we all pretend like its is like really, really important.


That is basically the giste of it.

[Hit The North]

Because I'm lazy, I only work 60 hours per day.

All communists are lazy. It's well known.

[M-L-C-F]

All communists are lazy. It's well known.

But it's not just the communists either. In fact, it goes farther: the whole working class majority is just lazy (especially union workers). We're the problem apparently, not the ruling class or their middle class enforcers. It's not the 1% who are bad. At least that's what Fox News and their followers say about America and the world. It's us who are to blame! :rolleyes:

[Ele'ill]

So cannibalism

[Five Year Plan]

So cannibalism

Yes, of course, cannibalism. :wub:

[Luís Henrique]

Actually I did understand what I was reading and I have explained my position.

So you deliberately misrepresented the data, and then went on to produce the source that would belie your misrepresentation?

Wow.


Do NOT however distract from the fact that this is not the issue at all...what the actual issue is is the explicit and implicit sexism of VG1917.

The "issue", as far as I recall, was an old purge of 2011. You have derailed the thread into something else, and I am derailing it further.

God doesn't exist, life is not fair, and thread derailing is unavoidable.


Take a fucking position on the matter.

I think I made my position quite clear above. I think most of the positions you decried as "rape apologism" do not constitute rape apologism at all. The few that positions you have described that I can agree can constitute rape apologism seem to me very liberal paraphrases of V1917's positions; I don't think he actually holds them. I may of course be wrong about this latter point, but I have seen no good evidence of that.


Are you or are you not arguing that his positions were not sexism, rape apologism and victim blaming??

With how many percent points in the confidence interval and margin of error?


* Source your initial claim that rape is always violence
(which will bring us to the fact that I gave VG1917 an out in saying that rape is only violence in the anarchist sense of the word...something which he was explicitly not arguing)

* Source your claim that rape is judicially defined as always being violence in most jurisdictions

Anarchists have a different sence for the word "violence"?

And, of course,


Art. 213. Constranger alguém, mediante violência ou grave ameaça, a ter conjunção carnal ou a praticar ou permitir que com ele se pratique outro ato libidinoso


Art. 164. Quem, por meio de violência, ameaça grave, ou depois de, para esse fim, a ter tornado inconsciente ou posto na impossibilidade de resistir, constranger outra pessoa a sofrer ou a praticar, consigo ou com outrem, cópula, coito anal ou coito oral

So yes, there are jurisdictions where "violence" is a constitutive element of the criminal type. Most of them? Perhaps not. I won't make a comparative law study encompassing every jurisdiction from Alabama to Zimbabwe, however.



* Source your claim that personhood in the abortion debate is something which is only recently being argued

Here (https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html).


* Source your claim that there is not a widespread debate over after birth neonaticide

I think you made the claim that there is such debate. And so, that it is upon you to show us that it is widespread.


* Source your claim that there is not a wide basis for personhood

Well, I have never mentioned the width or lack of width of personhood, nor I think we were debating personhood at all. What I have said is that "personhood" is a strictly juridical concept. Again I think it would be your task to show us how it is more than that.

Of course, what I meant is that "personhood", in what relates to crimes, is a strictly juridical concept. Evidently philosophers can wonder about it - at least when there are no Wittgensteinians hearing - but this has zero relevance to the juridical use of the term.


Aside from the fact that that was entirely sourced and your allusion that it wasn't is of course not only asinine but entirely unfounded....I like how you try to paint that it wasn't....and thta VG1917 as a consequences wasn't spending dozens upon dozens of posts trying to diminish or reject them after first simply dismissing them without even reading the source material.

I haven't yet seen any source showing that female-on-male rape is a relevant problem at all. Where are they?


So here is your abuse; stop trying to be a clever little asshat...adress the issue we were originally debating instead of weasling out from under it by deflecting it

Hey, I want some of your pot, too - it seems to be highly pot-ent.

Here are the points:

1 - rape is a gendered issue;
2 - attempts to degenderise rape are necessarily linked to attempts to widen its legal definition;
3 - attempts to widen the definition of rape will necessarily result into bringing into question whether rape is a gendered issue;
4 - consequently, if we want to fight rape as a systemic product of patriarchy - and not as just something awful that could happen to anyone and could be committed to anyone, regardless of gender (like robbery, for instance) - then we shouldn't be trivialising rape by widening its definition beyond "violence or threats thereof".

Luís Henrique

[Lily Briscoe]

Luís, just for the sake of clarity, do you think things like e.g. (1) sex with someone who is unconscious or (2) with someone who has said no and made their lack of consent clear without trying to physically force the other person off of them, qualifies (or should qualify) as 'violence' (i.e. as rape)?

I am trying to understand what exactly you mean when you talk about violence in this context.

[PhoenixAsh]

So you deliberately misrepresented the data, and then went on to produce the source that would belie your misrepresentation?

Actually LH I did no such thing. IF you have actually read my postion on the issue of rape then you would know that I do see rape as a consent violation involving sex against consent.

So there is no "wow"


The "issue", as far as I recall, was an old purge of 2011. You have derailed the thread into something else, and I am derailing it further.


No. The issue was brought up by HTN. I responded. So go whine against him for derailing it.


I think I made my position quite clear above.

Yes. You in fact did. I was merely offering you a chance to change it.


I think most of the positions you decried as "rape apologism" do not constitute rape apologism at all. The few that positions you have described that I can agree can constitute rape apologism seem to me very liberal paraphrases of V1917's positions; I don't think he actually holds them. I may of course be wrong about this latter point, but I have seen no good evidence of that.

Yes. You are in fact wrong. And we have now in fact established that you have no real understanding what rape apologism and perpetuating rape culture really are.

This comes as no surprise because no person who actually does understand them would argue the arguments you do.

These argumenst are questionable at the very best and some are even directly related in both their logic and context to ways in which rape victims of all genders are structurally dismissed and denied.

I am sure you are not aware of this. But unlike VG1917 who spend dozens of posts ignoring the debated issue and instead focussing on topping sexist shit on sexist shit...I won't hold it against you.


With how many percent points in the confidence interval and margin of error?

The factual statement was: rape is male violence. (which with he specifically meant physical violence. He counter posed his position to the statement that sex with people unable to consent is not rape.). Rape is not merely a result of violence. Saying rape is always the result of violence is actually the method with which victims are dismissed. It also denies rape as a socialized normality in patriarchy...cultural, religious and legal...and in which rape is not seen as rape by the victims.

Two questions you already answered are hugely relevant here:
Does female-to-male rape exist? Yes. It does.
Does female-to-female rape exist? Yes. It does.

Regardless of their prevalence, we will leave this for later, this means that saying that rape is only "male violence" is factually not only incorrect....but also rejects the victims here. Both groups are by the way severely marginalized in recognition and heavilly underreported.

Dismissing them...like is being done here by several members...is hugely problematic.



Anarchists have a different sence for the word "violence"?

Yes. They in fact do have a differing definition of the word violence. VG1917's statement was only partially correct in that light (something I specifically argued). For Anarchists violence is the installation of fear and violation of consent by whatever means. I direct you to the whole libraries of books to be read on the subject for further reference.

VG1917 however was arguing violence in the traditional sence given his entire argument was counter posed against the feminists he decried who argued that violating consent is in fact precursor to rape.


So yes, there are jurisdictions where "violence" is a constitutive element of the criminal type. Most of them? Perhaps not.

Good. So I consider that statement and argument retracted. Of course we will deal with why this was problematic in the first place next:

[quote]I won't make a comparative law study encompassing every jurisdiction from Alabama to Zimbabwe, however.

It is of course always fun when revutionaries cite the bourgeois legal system to show what rape is and is not and how it should be defined. In this case the one of Brasil if I am not mistaken.

Like VG1917 did in the thread you are completely ignoring that the bourgeois legal system is almost entirely a reflection of (petit)-Bourgeois morality and serves their interests. As such it is highly patriarchal, sexist and heteronormative. It is also hugely subjective and dependend on regionality.

So, for example, where in Egypt rape in marriage is declared to not exist because the legal system does not recognize it as being rape...it exists in The Netherlands only since the late 70's (out of the top of my head...give or take a few years). Before that...the legal system which you cite as being an authority on what rape is and what rape isn't...didn't deem it wholly problematic if you had sex with your wife against her will and consent.

That in itself should say enough.

But it doesn't stop there. In the Ukraine for example...french kissing somebody against their consent is not seen as rape but as assault. Yet in The Netherlands it is entirely possible you will spend a few months in jail for doing it.

So...where does that leave "rape" as a result of bourgeois legal definitions?

Nowhere.




Here (https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html).

Actually, no. Your links doesn't really show that at all. What your link shows is that it is only recently being brought up as an argument in legal cases in order to restrict abortion in the US.

Instead however the debate about abortion is ancient, as is the debate about personhood.

It has been argued by Aquino, St. Agust and several other people who died not a few decades...but centuries ago. And it has been mentioned in earlier text specifically in relation to the termination of pregnancy.

It has been one of the most debated subjects throughout history. Much to do with religion and everything.

So...no...you were and are wrong on the matter.


I think you made the claim that there is such debate. And so, that it is upon you to show us that it is widespread.

Really? Because...you just posted a link which pretty much established that.



Well, I have never mentioned the width or lack of width of personhood, nor I think we were debating personhood at all. What I have said is that "personhood" is a strictly juridical concept. Again I think it would be your task to show us how it is more than that.

Actually it is both a religious, social, medical, political and philisophical subject.

Do a google search. You will find out.

It is actually astounding that you do not know this.



Of course, what I meant is that "personhood", in what relates to crimes, is a strictly juridical concept. Evidently philosophers can wonder about it - at least when there are no Wittgensteinians hearing - but this has zero relevance to the juridical use of the term.

Ah. So...what we have here is that you made a statement counter posing my statement...and then you suddenly give it an entirely different meanin which obviously had nothing to do with my initial statement.



I haven't yet seen any source showing that female-on-male rape is a relevant problem at all. Where are they?

And..I really don't care. Do a google search.

But what you are saying here is actually quite...problematic...you are dismissing them as a relevant problem because of your assumption about prevalence.

Which is very, very interesting. Not to mention rape dismissal.

Obviously.


Hey, I want some of your pot, too - it seems to be highly pot-ent.

Here are the points:

1 - rape is a gendered issue;
2 - attempts to degenderise rape are necessarily linked to attempts to widen its legal definition;
3 - attempts to widen the definition of rape will necessarily result into bringing into question whether rape is a gendered issue;
4 - consequently, if we want to fight rape as a systemic product of patriarchy - and not as just something awful that could happen to anyone and could be committed to anyone, regardless of gender (like robbery, for instance) - then we shouldn't be trivialising rape by widening its definition beyond "violence or threats thereof".


I think you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are in fact a liberal rather than a revolutionary....actually using bourgeois legal definitions and arguing in their favor. My, my. Perhaps you shouldn't be smoking pot at all.

You also just proved that you...like VG1917 did...completely ignore and misunderstand the nature of patriarchy.

Not to mention that you simply ignore and reject the existance of whole groups of rape victims because you do not understand how these victims fit in patriarchal socialized gender roles....and find them mere inconveniences for your complete and utter failure to actually understand rape completely in patriarchies context.

Wauw.

[Luís Henrique]

Luís, just for the sake of clarity, do you think things like e.g. (1) sex with someone who is unconscious or (2) with someone who has said no and made their lack of consent clear without trying to physically force the other person off of them, qualifies (or should qualify) as 'violence' (i.e. as rape)?

I am trying to understand what exactly you mean when you talk about violence in this context.

Point (2) is clearly violence. Point (1) could be either considered "presumed" violence (in a similar way to the case of "statutory rape"), or otherwise could be the constitutive element of a different criminal type. But no, I don't think "sex with someone who is unconscious" should be decriminalised or forbidden as a mere misdemeanour.

I also think that what some jurisdictions characterise as "duress" and "surprise" falls under the notion of violence.

But this is not what is being argued, which is mere "lack of consent", or "coercion" that take forms like threats of ending a relationship, nagging, endless begging, "made to penetrate", etc.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

Point (2) is clearly violence. Point (1) could be either considered "presumed" violence (in a similar way to the case of "statutory rape"), or otherwise could be the constitutive element of a different criminal type. But no, I don't think "sex with someone who is unconscious" should be decriminalised or forbidden as a mere misdemeanour.

Luís Henrique

So basically you have been arguing the devils advocate.
Good to have that established.

Now...for the 10 million dollar questions..>Which ones of these do you classify as rape?

[Luís Henrique]

It is of course always fun when revutionaries cite the bourgeois legal system to show what rape is and is not and how it should be defined. In this case the one of Brasil if I am not mistaken.

The problem here is that "rape" is a "crime", and a "crime" is a specific kind of law-breaking. And law... doesn't exist outside of the legal system of States, all of them being, for the moment, bourgeois.

So it makes no sense to discuss "rape" outside the discussion of positive law, unless 1) we believe in some kind of "natural law", which is evidently bourgeois ideology, or 2) we intend to debate what, if any, reforms should we make to the legal system - in which case we are again struggling with the difficulty of discussing law unless under State-enforced legal system.

And anyway, your challenge was about jurisdictions and juridical systems, not about abstractions:


Source your claim that rape is judicially defined as always being violence in most jurisdictions

so it is little bit specious that you demand me to prove that the internal angles of a triangle sum 180 degrees, and when I respond to such demand, you retort that "maybe, but the issue we should discuss squares, because triangles are bourgeois".


Like VG1917 did in the thread you are completely ignoring that the bourgeois legal system is almost entirely a reflection of (petit)-Bourgeois morality and serves their interests. As such it is highly patriarchal, sexist and heteronormative. It is also hugely subjective and dependend on regionality.

I don't ignore that. I just don't delude myself that I can discuss criminology without putting that aside for the sake of argument. We can of course say that "law is bourgeois and we are against laws", which is correct sub specie aeternitatis but then we won't be able to argue, for instance, against the repealing of Roe vs Wade or against the Estatuto do Nascituro. But if we are going to argue against the repealing of Roe vs Wade or against the Estatuto do Nascituro, we will have to argue within the limits of bourgeois legal systems. And in both cases, abstracting a purely mental construct that would be the "correct" concept of "rape" - a concept that only can exist as a juridical, and, so, for the moment at least, bourgeois, concept, won't help us.

More succintly, if we are to discuss whether there is going to be something as "rape" or punishment for "rape" in a post-capitalist society, we should realise that we are speculating and that the actual answers can only be given by post-capitalist people. If we are to discuss what we are going to immediately propose and change regarding the existing legal systems, we should proceed from the positive law definitions of existing legal systems, and explore their contradictions.


So, for example, where in Egypt rape in marriage is declared to not exist because the legal system does not recognize it as being rape... it exists in The Netherlands only since the late 70's (out of the top of my head...give or take a few years). Before that...the legal system which you cite as being an authority on what rape is and what rape isn't...didn't deem it wholly problematic if you had sex with your wife against her will and consent.

Evidently if I was an Egyptian citizen, I should be fighting to reform the Egyptian legal system in order to criminalise rape within marriage. Whether this should be done by defining rape so that it includes sexual violence against spouses, or by inventing a different crime that accounts for sexual violence against spouses (such as the California Penal Code, for instance, does), is another discussion (the Portuguese Penal Code that I quoted above, for instance, doesn't have a crime that goes by "estupro"; it doesn't mean that the Portuguese Penal Code doesn't criminalise sex extorted by violence or threat thereof, just that it gives it another name; the Brazilian Penal Code doesn't consider having sex with wasted people "estupro", but gives it another legal definition ("estupro de incapaz") that carries somewhat lighter sentences. Instead of kicking against words (and presuming, as someone recently did here in revleft, that "it is legal to rape children in Brazil"), we should understand what Penal Codes actually say, and whether what they say is convenient from our (working class') point of view.

So, back to our actual point of contention, the point again is,

is it in our interests to make the legal definition of "rape" broader than what it already is in any given legal system? I say "no" because broadening it too much very much sounds as what Brazilian feminists decry as "iuzômi" (in a free translation, "waddaboutdamen", and entails either lowering penalties for violent rape, or imposing very heavy penalties for non-violent crimes.

(I think you (generic you) can of course have two different legal types, "rape" and "non-violent rape", with different penalties. Is that what you want?)


But it doesn't stop there. In the Ukraine for example...french kissing somebody against their consent is not seen as rape but as assault. Yet in The Netherlands it is entirely possible you will spend a few months in jail for doing it.

And what happens in the Netherlands if a rapist attacks someone and penetrates them at gun point? A few months in jail? Or conversely, what happens in Ukraine if someone french kisses someone against their consent? Nothing?

In Brazil, if you french kiss someone against their will, you can be prosecuted, and sentenced to a few months in jail - though your crime isn't "rape" (but if you force someone to kiss you at gun point, or if you beat them into kissing, you can spend several years in jail - for the crime of "rape") Is that a bad arrangement because the first case isn't labeled "rape"? Or because french kissing should entail several years in jail?


So...where does that leave "rape" as a result of bourgeois legal definitions?

I fear that... as the only way to discuss "rape" in any meaningful way. After all, "rape" is a bourgeois legal definition. What exists, in "reality" - supposing that we can abstract such "reality" from the very "real" ideological constraints under which it is presented to us - is several different forms of sexual aggression - gendered sexual aggression, the social function of which is to ensure the subordination of women towards men - that need to be legally addressed, lest the social fabric is tore apart by the contradictions engedered by the lack of legal provision. You can classify and divide such forms of sexual aggression in the most different kinds of arrangements, grouping them by several different criteria, exempting some of punishment, building hierarchies between them - as the multifarious variety of positive legal systems will show you. Some of these classifications are less practical, or more injust, or more patriarchal than others.

But there is no Platonic idea of "rape" that can be opposed to all of them.


Actually, no. Your links doesn't really show that at all. What your link shows is that it is only recently being brought up as an argument in legal cases in order to restrict abortion in the US.

And it also shows that actually legal cases in order to restrict abortions worldwide are a 19th century phenomenon. Abortion may have been seen as immoral before that. Abortion may have been illegal before that, in some jurisdictions, because it infringed the right of the husband to his heirship. But nowhere, before the late 20th century, it was argued that it was an infringement of the rights of the unborn. And nowhere - with the possible exception of the Republic of Ireland - it has been actually forbidden by positive law as the same crime as murder (and then even the Republic of Ireland has had to, grudgingly, admit that people have the right to travel abroad to committ the "murder" of unborns - something it would never admit concerning the murder of actual persons).


Instead however the debate about abortion is ancient, as is the debate about personhood.

The philosophical debate about "personhood" in the philosophical acception of "personhood"? No doubt. The philosophical debate about abortion, with no legal implications? Perhaps. The strictly juridical debate on abortion? Sure. The strictly juridical debate on "personhood"? Not so much. The connected juridical debate on "personhood" and "abortion", about the implications of "personhood" on the legal status of abortion? I don't think so.


It has been argued by Aquino, St. Agust and several other people who died not a few decades...but centuries ago. And it has been mentioned in earlier text specifically in relation to the termination of pregnancy.

And you will not that neither Aquinas nor Augustine were judicial authorities. They had their opinions on the issue (I am not sure about Aquinas, but Augustine's was quite convenient: he thought that abortions should be allowed in the first trimester, and forbidden after that. For coincidence, so, he believed it should be allowed when it was practically possible, and forbidden when it was no longer so), but those opinions were not relevant for the legal systems of their times (linked to that, Augustine is also very vague in his statements: "I think", "perhaps", "who would argue that", etc)


It has been one of the most debated subjects throughout history. Much to do with religion and everything.

Perhaps. But then the Catholic Church had enormous political and moral power in the Middle Ages, and nobody actually sought to forbid abortion on the grounds that it was a form of murder. It was only in the 19th century - much past the zenith of religious power in Europe - that actual laws forbidding abortion started to be passed.


Do a google search. You will find out.

So you concede the point. Thanks.


It is actually astounding that you do not know this.

Well... you live in a place where the working class is agonising; I live in a place where workers still see themselves as workers, more often than not. Perhaps when the working class becomes as weak and powerless here as there, we will start debating pressing points such as "post-birth abortions", cannibalism, repeal of AoC laws, repeal of children labour prohibition, etc. But not yet, and I hope never.


Ah. So...what we have here is that you made a statement counter posing my statement...and then you suddenly give it an entirely different meanin which obviously had nothing to do with my initial statement.

Well, I would have thought it obvious that in a discussion about crimes - which are juridical concepts - "personhood" only matters as a juridical concept. I was evidently wrong; you confuse the existence of a philosophical debate about "personhood" with a supposed juridical debate on "personhood" (and seem to think that both refer to the same "personhood"). So I had to take a step back to clarify to what kind of "personhood" I was refering - implying a further step back to make clear that there are two different concepts that shouldn't be confused.


And..I really don't care. Do a google search.

Another concession, gladly accepted.


But what you are saying here is actually quite...problematic...you are dismissing them as a relevant problem because of your assumption about prevalence.

No. I am taking the prevalence as a symptom of their importance. The importance stems out of the fact that rape is a gendered phenomenon, designed to "keep women in their places". If it is so, it would be very surprising that it would affect men and women in similar proportions.


I think you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are in fact a liberal rather than a revolutionary....actually using bourgeois legal definitions and arguing in their favor. My, my. Perhaps you shouldn't be smoking pot at all.

I think it is way better than your preferred method of speculating about abstractions and then pretending that such abstractions somehow relate to the material phenomena that happen to have the same name as them.


You also just proved that you...like VG1917 did...completely ignore and misunderstand the nature of patriarchy.

Not to mention that you simply ignore and reject the existance of whole groups of rape victims because you do not understand how these victims fit in patriarchal socialized gender roles....and find them mere inconveniences for your complete and utter failure to actually understand rape completely in patriarchies context.

I think you have it completely reversed, man. You are the one talking about abstractions, and diminishing actual rape because men are threatened into sex by women saying that they will quit the relationship, or will hurt themselves and then accuse them of battery. Needless to say, the proper response to rape is filing complaints at a police station; the proper response to those absurds is putting a definitive end to the relationship.

Luís Henrique

[Five Year Plan]

I don't think it's right to say that rape is only a juridical concept. The juridical concept reflects a considered social judgment about human ethics and appropriate sexual conduct.

[Luís Henrique]

So basically you have been arguing the devils advocate.
Good to have that established.

Nope, see above.


Now...for the 10 million dollar questions..>Which ones of these do you classify as rape?

Which of what?

Regardless, I am no legal authority, my personal, completely unbinding, classification is hardly of interest.

Give me an actual legal system, and I can tell you where I think it is flawed, and how I believe it should be improved. And rational discussion might ensue.

But I have no privileged access to the Muses, so I cannot answer with presumptuous generalisations, or with blueprints for the Perfect Society, no.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

The problem here is that "rape" is a "crime", and a "crime" is a specific kind of law-breaking. And law... doesn't exist outside of the legal system of States, all of them being, for the moment, bourgeois.

Really? Well...good to know then that the state of Egypt has totally eradicated rape within marriage.

No. Rape is not actually a judicial problem. But equating rape to legal questions and therefore justifying the judicial marginalization of rape victims is in fact extremely problematic from not only a feminist position but also a revolutionary position.



So it makes no sense to discuss "rape" outside the discussion of positive law, unless 1) we believe in some kind of "natural law", which is evidently bourgeois ideology, or 2) we intend to debate what, if any, reforms should we make to the legal system - in which case we are again struggling with the difficulty of discussing law unless under State-enforced legal system.

It makes every sense. However...ironically...for all your defence of rape apologist VG1917...I did however mention the legal debate currently being held world wide (UN for example) which will expand on the definition of rape to allow for non penetrative forms of consent violation.

Of course...you...framing rape within the context of positive law...would seriously need to overcome the several distinct definitions going around and not to mention the problem of ssomething suddenly not being rape anymore when you cross a imaginary line on the globe.


And anyway, your challenge was about jurisdictions and juridical systems, not about abstractions:

My challenge was to your initial claim that most jurisdictions have a certain uniform defintion of rape.


so it is little bit specious that you demand me to prove that the internal angles of a triangle sum 180 degrees, and when I respond to such demand, you retort that "maybe, but the issue we should discuss squares, because triangles are bourgeois".

Actually I was quite clear in you being wrong and not yet being able to proof your initial claim.

I then of course attacked your framing the definition of rape within legal definitions.

Have you decided on which one yet?



I don't ignore that. I just don't delude myself that I can discuss criminology without putting that aside for the sake of argument. We can of course say that "law is bourgeois and we are against laws", which is correct sub specie aeternitatis but then we won't be able to argue, for instance, against the repealing of Roe vs Wade or against the Estatuto do Nascituro. But if we are going to argue against the repealing of Roe vs Wade or against the Estatuto do Nascituro, we will have to argue within the limits of bourgeois legal systems. And in both cases, abstracting a purely mental construct that would be the "correct" concept of "rape" - a concept that only can exist as a juridical, and, so, for the moment at least, bourgeois, concept, won't help us.

Actually...it would. What you are however suggesting here is that we fail to differentiate between what is, what should be and what the legal system allowed us to make for concessions.

Rape is a concept with real life consequences. This is not limited to its legal defintions or the legal recognition it does, or doesn't get. And that is exactly the reason why it flies in the face of feminism. See, rape as a function of jurisdiction doesn't actually reflect what rape is.

So when we are debating rape...we are actually debating what rape really is.



More succintly, if we are to discuss whether there is going to be something as "rape" or punishment for "rape" in a post-capitalist society, we should realise that we are speculating and that the actual answers can only be given by post-capitalist people. If we are to discuss what we are going to immediately propose and change regarding the existing legal systems, we should proceed from the positive law definitions of existing legal systems, and explore their contradictions.

This is completely overturning your previous arguments. Here you aren't arguing what rape is, but how the legal system actually fails to acurately reflect what rape really is.

You are also simply arguing method here. One which maybe interesting to persue...and...which was of course explicitly mentioned in the debate with VG1917...but which he refused to do.


Evidently if I was an Egyptian citizen, I should be fighting to reform the Egyptian legal system in order to criminalise rape within marriage. Whether this should be done by defining rape so that it includes sexual violence against spouses, or by inventing a different crime that accounts for sexual violence against spouses (such as the California Penal Code, for instance, does), is another discussion (the Portuguese Penal Code that I quoted above, for instance, doesn't have a crime that goes by "estupro"; it doesn't mean that the Portuguese Penal Code doesn't criminalise sex extorted by violence or threat thereof, just that it gives it another name; the Brazilian Penal Code doesn't consider having sex with wasted people "estupro", but gives it another legal definition ("estupro de incapaz") that carries somewhat lighter sentences. Instead of kicking against words (and presuming, as someone recently did here in revleft, that "it is legal to rape children in Brazil"), we should understand what Penal Codes actually say, and whether what they say is convenient from our (working class') point of view.

So you acknowledge that the legal system is not actually reflecting rape and what it actually is...but merely reflects what concession it allowed.


So, back to our actual point of contention, the point again is,

is it in our interests to make the legal definition of "rape" broader than what it already is in any given legal system? I say "no" because broadening it too much very much sounds as what Brazilian feminists decry as "iuzômi" (in a free translation, "waddaboutdamen", and entails either lowering penalties for violent rape, or imposing very heavy penalties for non-violent crimes.

(I think you (generic you) can of course have two different legal types, "rape" and "non-violent rape", with different penalties. Is that what you want?)

You seem to be overly concerned with penalties and state.

Neither penalties, nor state however have any bearing on the issue you contested: the fact that rape and the analysis of its role and function in patriarchy should be comprehensive rather than based on some notion of convenience.


And what happens in the Netherlands if a rapist attacks someone and penetrates them at gun point? A few months in jail? Or conversely, what happens in Ukraine if someone french kisses someone against their consent? Nothing?

In Brazil, if you french kiss someone against their will, you can be prosecuted, and sentenced to a few months in jail - though your crime isn't "rape" (but if you force someone to kiss you at gun point, or if you beat them into kissing, you can spend several years in jail - for the crime of "rape") Is that a bad arrangement because the first case isn't labeled "rape"? Or because french kissing should entail several years in jail?

It shows how entirely problematic your position is that rape is defined by the legal system.

Also...in Brasil you would be prosecuted for assault for this crime.


I fear that... as the only way to discuss "rape" in any meaningful way. After all, "rape" is a bourgeois legal definition. What exists, in "reality" - supposing that we can abstract such "reality" from the very "real" ideological constraints under which it is presented to us - is several different forms of sexual aggression - gendered sexual aggression, the social function of which is to ensure the subordination of women towards men - that need to be legally addressed, lest the social fabric is tore apart by the contradictions engedered by the lack of legal provision. You can classify and divide such forms of sexual aggression in the most different kinds of arrangements, grouping them by several different criteria, exempting some of punishment, building hierarchies between them - as the multifarious variety of positive legal systems will show you. Some of these classifications are less practical, or more injust, or more patriarchal than others.

But there is no Platonic idea of "rape" that can be opposed to all of them.

I think you display an incredibly lack of understanding of rape with your incessant attempts to frame them in a current bourgeois legal defintion and your dismissiveness of rape as a result.

Now, what you also fail to comprehend is that rape is genderized violence within patriarchy of which women are predominantly the victims...but as we already have established...they are not the only ones. Not only have you earlier dismissed several groups of rape victims...but here you leave out entirely male-to-male rape.

So when you said rape is genderized violence...you were factually correct...but you actually have no clue whatsoever what that actually means and how it features into patriarchal power dynamics and socialized gender roles.


And it also shows that actually legal cases in order to restrict abortions worldwide are a 19th century phenomenon.

no...sorry. Do your research again. St. August's argument was made specifically in the light of when and when not abortion is allowed. This predates your 19th century attempts to restrict abortions with several centuries.


Abortion may have been seen as immoral before that. Abortion may have been illegal before that, in some jurisdictions, because it infringed the right of the husband to his heirship. But nowhere, before the late 20th century, it was argued that it was an infringement of the rights of the unborn.

Actually....yes...it really was. For example...by st. August.



And nowhere - with the possible exception of the Republic of Ireland - it has been actually forbidden by positive law as the same crime as murder (and then even the Republic of Ireland has had to, grudgingly, admit that people have the right to travel abroad to committ the "murder" of unborns - something it would never admit concerning the murder of actual persons).

See above.


The philosophical debate about "personhood" in the philosophical acception of "personhood"? No doubt. The philosophical debate about abortion, with no legal implications? Perhaps. The strictly juridical debate on abortion? Sure. The strictly juridical debate on "personhood"? Not so much. The connected juridical debate on "personhood" and "abortion", about the implications of "personhood" on the legal status of abortion? I don't think so.

And you will not that neither Aquinas nor Augustine were judicial authorities. They had their opinions on the issue (I am not sure about Aquinas, but Augustine's was quite convenient: he thought that abortions should be allowed in the first trimester, and forbidden after that. For coincidence, so, he believed it should be allowed when it was practically possible, and forbidden when it was no longer so), but those opinions were not relevant for the legal systems of their times (linked to that, Augustine is also very vague in his statements: "I think", "perhaps", "who would argue that", etc)

But again.,..you are wrong. St. Aust was talking about church law. So there you go. Failed again.

Again....you shift the entire focus on this entire issue is judicial. Which I already expressly stated is problematic for a whole lot of reasons...but it is also completely not what the original argument was about.

Your entire line of reasoning here...your entire argumentative construct in the light of your earlier arguments is therefore completyely and utterly invalid.


Perhaps. But then the Catholic Church had enormous political and moral power in the Middle Ages, and nobody actually sought to forbid abortion on the grounds that it was a form of murder. It was only in the 19th century - much past the zenith of religious power in Europe - that actual laws forbidding abortion started to be passed.

Yeah. Again. You are wrong. Sorry. Go back to your drawing board.


So you concede the point. Thanks.[quote]

No, I am not. I am merely stating it nicely that I am not going to repost what was already posted for you. Which is again a nice way of saying that I am not going to bother sourcing something for you, because I think you are merley arguing here to safe your face from your earlier, and actually continued, defense of a rape apologist...by way of trivializing rape.

[quote]
Well... you live in a place where the working class is agonising; I live in a place where workers still see themselves as workers, more often than not. Perhaps when the working class becomes as weak and powerless here as there, we will start debating pressing points such as "post-birth abortions", cannibalism, repeal of AoC laws, repeal of children labour prohibition, etc. But not yet, and I hope never.

Well, I would have thought it obvious that in a discussion about crimes - which are juridical concepts - "personhood" only matters as a juridical concept. I was evidently wrong; you confuse the existence of a philosophical debate about "personhood" with a supposed juridical debate on "personhood" (and seem to think that both refer to the same "personhood"). So I had to take a step back to clarify to what kind of "personhood" I was refering - implying a further step back to make clear that there are two different concepts that shouldn't be confused.

Yes...you are wrong. And no...YOU are the one being entirely confused by inserting your attack on my position on grounds which you now reveal as being purely judicial when it was in fact entirely clear that the original debate was abouth philosophy and ethics.


Another concession, gladly accepted.

Again...not a concession but a politer way to say: fuck you.


No. I am taking the prevalence as a symptom of their importance. The importance stems out of the fact that rape is a gendered phenomenon, designed to "keep women in their places". If it is so, it would be very surprising that it would affect men and women in similar proportions.

Nobody said anything about similar proportions at all. Again you seem to need to add made up statements or argue things which weren't said and never argued for you to be able to have an actual point.

However...your view of rape and understanding of its role in patriarchy is of course severely lacking.


I think it is way better than your preferred method of speculating about abstractions and then pretending that such abstractions somehow relate to the material phenomena that happen to have the same name as them.

Aww...very cute. After a lengthy post in which you not only openly display your argumentative dishonesty, contradict yourself entirely, seem to step over certain important parts and in which you attempted to shift the focus of the debate several times away from its original to such an extend that none of what you are arguing here is actually has any bearing on what you originally attacked in your post...

You are getting a little tiresome.


I think you have it completely reversed, man. You are the one talking about abstractions, and diminishing actual rape because men are threatened into sex by women saying that they will quit the relationship, or will hurt themselves and then accuse them of battery. Needless to say, the proper response to rape is filing complaints at a police station; the proper response to those absurds is putting a definitive end to the relationship.

Luís Henrique


Actually...I never said any such thing. But I understand you need these obvious lies in order to safe face.

Ironic though...that some of what you level against me here...is exactly what VG1917 was arguing.

In the mean time you rape trivialization; rape dismissal and victim dismissal are duely noted.

Good night...and thank you for playing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Nope, see above.

Which of what?

Regardless, I am no legal authority, my personal, completely unbinding, classification is hardly of interest.

Give me an actual legal system, and I can tell you where I think it is flawed, and how I believe it should be improved. And rational discussion might ensue.

But I have no privileged access to the Muses, so I cannot answer with presumptuous generalisations, or with blueprints for the Perfect Society, no.

Luís Henrique


Spoken like the true liberal you are. Improving the bourgeois legal system to properly classify rape.

You are a fucking joke.

[Luís Henrique]

Spoken like the true liberal you are. Improving the bourgeois legal system to properly classify rape.

You are a fucking joke.

So again... which of what?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think it's right to say that rape is only a juridical concept. The juridical concept reflects a considered social judgment about human ethics and appropriate sexual conduct.

Well, yes. But then all juridical concepts reflect social judgements about what is appropriate conduct and what should be State-sanctioned.

Point being, sexual aggression is human conduct; "rape" is a way to frame such conduct within a legal system. Not the "true name" of something that can be defined trans-historically.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

no...sorry. Do your research again. St. August's argument was made specifically in the light of when and when not abortion is allowed. This predates your 19th century attempts to restrict abortions with several centuries.

Mkay.

First, who is this St. August that you keep citing? Do you mean Augustine? If so, explain me how was Augustine a legislative authority. Because he wasn't. He gave private or religious opinions about abortion; no actual jurisdiction ever adopted such opinions as law.

First actual ban on abortion only came on the 11th century, and had nothing to do with "personhood"; it applied to married women who had abortions without the compliance of their husbands. Evidently, the juridical value that such kind of law sought to protect wasn't "personhood", but some kind of right of the husband - the right to procreate and consequently have heirs. Absurd from the point of view of 21th century people, of course.

Indeed, absurd regardless if those 21th century people are "pro-choice" or "pro-life".

You can read some more here (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/When-Did-Abortion-Begin.htm).

On another note, your tone - the persistent flaming, the evident loss of composture - is quite clearly the symptom of realising you are losing at discussion. Keep calm and argue rationally, because you are starting to sound funny. And not in a good way of funny.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

On another note, your tone - the persistent flaming, the evident loss of composture - is quite clearly the symptom of realising you are losing at discussion. Keep calm and argue rationally, because you are starting to sound funny. And not in a good way of funny.


I am entirely calm if not somehwat miffed by the stupidity of your argument and your three argumentative shifts you had to apply in order to actually have a point...

Shifts which moved this discussion so far from the original points (VG1917's sexism/rape apologism) and which narrowed the debate entirely to the mere point of legislative authority of St. Augustine (on the topic of personhood).

Onn most other points you have been proven wrong...or were merely creating and framing these arguments half way through the debate in a pure legislative context when it was quite clear that this context has nothing to do with the original issue...

So no Louis. So far I am not loosing this discussion at all. I am however beginning to lose all respect I had for you given the nature of your arguments, what you are arguing and what that implies about you.



First, who is this St. August that you keep citing? Do you mean Augustine? If so, explain me how was Augustine a legislative authority. Because he wasn't. He gave private or religious opinions about abortion; no actual jurisdiction ever adopted such opinions as law.

Right. Bishop. No influence on canonical law at all. No judicial authority whatsoever.

It does however not matter if a jurisdiction did or did not adopt such a law. What does matter is that you stated that it wasn't debated in a legal sense.
And it was.

This is however the second time you shift the focus of the precursors which originated in you attacking my statement that it is a very long running debate about personhood in regards to abortion.

And you were entirely wrong on that point. Naturally you then took the position of "Oh...but I mentioned in a legal sense".

And now "Oh but it has to be actually adopted in law"

You do realize, let me repeat myself, that this issue started with you challenging me that the debate about personhood in relationship to abortion is not a very long running debate and one of its key elements.

Since the Stoics debated abortion and its legality saying that a fetus was only alive from the moment it breathed air and prior to that was a monster. Hence forth...abortion became legal in pre-christian Rome because of this argument.

Christian legal codes were based on the Didache which, incidentally, was also cited by Luke...expressly forbids "murder by abortion". St. Austine argued merely when this transsformation of humanity began: with entering the soul at the point the body became recognizable and had shape.


So no.. Not exactly losing the argument here Louis.



First actual ban on abortion only came on the 11th century, and had nothing to do with "personhood"; it applied to married women who had abortions without the compliance of their husbands. Evidently, the juridical value that such kind of law sought to protect wasn't "personhood", but some kind of right of the husband - the right to procreate and consequently have heirs. Absurd from the point of view of 21th century people, of course.

Indeed, absurd regardless if those 21th century people are "pro-choice" or "pro-life".

You can read some more here (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/When-Did-Abortion-Begin.htm).

See above.

[Invader Zim]

but since you are actually asking now, yes I was. A local, global, and admin.

And, as such, complicit in generating the episodic imbroglios which usually ended in you lot then doing something stupid, getting called on it, and then being beligerant about it.

[Invader Zim]

I of course do remember the CC...which came extremely close to what you actually seem to want and which immediately reverted in witch hunts and in which the members you defend would not have stood a chance at all anyway.



Me too. It was crap. But, trust, it was better than the bullshit situation which we have now.

[PhoenixAsh]

And, as such, complicit in generating the episodic imbroglios which usually ended in you lot then doing something stupid, getting called on it, and then being beligerant about it.

As I said way back when I wasn't even a mod...there are two sides to the story here. There is also the conduct of some members which is highly subjective and immediately questions every decision, demanding pages of justification and nitpicking each and every word taking it out of context going on for page after page after page spanning even threads and debates. Usually singling out members of the BA even over positions they were not a part of. Usually...these are the same people now as they were back then. Not seldom the imbroglios you refer to is created by these very same people and the methods they use and then blamed on the BA.

Of course some of the BA members that got blamed and singled out for all the problems back then are no longer here or, due to whatever reason, not very active lately. And yet still people attack the BA finding new people to blame.



Me too. It was crap. But, trust, it was better than the bullshit situation which we have now.

From what I have seen, heard and read...I disagree. The day that users as a collective stopped having the right to vote on bans, restrictions and exclusions was a good one. Members voting on other members was and is an awful idea.
But perhaps you could be more explicit what you thought would be better.

[#FF0000]

Me too. It was crap. But, trust, it was better than the bullshit situation which we have now.

why do i find you insufferable even when i agree w/ you

[Invader Zim]

Well..there you have it. What makes somebody human and an individual? And THAT is exactly why the article is interesting on so many levels. And THAT is exactly why it is relevant.

Because if you fail to understand that the question when somebody becomes human and an individual is the moral and ethical battleground of abortion legislation and the main construct on which the sexual repression of women is being argued then...yeah...the article is simply about killing neonates for exactly the same reasons as why abortions should be permissable. In other words...the reverse anti-abortion arguments.

No, it is not interesting and nor is it at all original. Indeed, the entire thing reads like an anti-choicers attempt at a satirical strawman argument of the pro-choice position.

It presents the issue of the right to choose as being about the status of the foetus as being relative to that of an individual of 'personhood', as seemingly do you. Because if the foetus has yet to achieve personhood, therefore it has no, or at least lesser, moral rights. The same can be argued of newborns, because clearly, other than birth, the point at which human offspring achieve this status of personhood is abritrary. Therefore there is no reason not to ban 'after-birth' abortions.
Of course, this is a load of spurious bullshit, becauise it rests entire on abritrary notions and definitions human existence with neither scientific nor material basis to underpin them. It also ignore the central reason why women should be granted unlimited choice:

First, the reason to oppose those who would restrict choice is because restriction of choice would limit the bodity autonomy of women. The 'personhood' of the foetus is an irrelevant distraction. Nobody, regardless of their legal or moral status has the right to demand the bodily resources of another human being, unless the individual donating these resources gives their continuing permission. So, regardless how many lives it may save, nobody can make you give blood, if you start giving blood you can change your mind mid-way through, and once you have given blooid you cannot be forced to return and give blood again. That is because your right to bodily autonomy is higher than that of another person's right to survive. If you disagree with that then the logical extension is that you are no longer sole owner of your body.

Second, the notion of 'personhood' in the context of this discussion is neither quantifiable and nor is it possible to subject it to coherant qualifiction; its beginning, is arbitrary, and the entire premise is absurd.


The article makes a terrible argument that makes a mockery of the peer-review process and is a damning indictment on the wider irrelevence "scholarly" philosophising.

[Invader Zim]

why do i find you insufferable even when i agree w/ you

A better question is: why do you imagine that i care what you think? You could be hit by a bus tomorrow, and I wouldn't even notice your absence from the board. And that is because you're an idiot that writes banal and derivative shit that 90% of the time I skip past as a reflex action rather that be paralysed from the neck-down under the weight of crushing boredom.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, it is not interesting and nor is it at all original. Indeed, the entire thing reads like an anti-choicers attempt at a satirical strawman argument of the pro-choice position.

It presents the issue of the right to choose as being about the status of the foetus as being relative to that of an individual of 'personhood', as seemingly do you. Because if the foetus has yet to achieve personhood, therefore it has no, or at least lesser, moral rights. The same can be argued of newborns, because clearly, other than birth, the point at which human offspring achieve this status of personhood is abritrary. Therefore there is no reason not to ban 'after-birth' abortions.
Of course, this is a load of spurious bullshit, becauise it rests entire on abritrary notions and definitions human existence with neither scientific nor material basis to underpin them. It also ignore the central reason why women should be granted unlimited choice:

Actually if you had read this thread and the debate you would have read that I counter posed the article to people who do indeed argue personhood and fetal autonomy as being relevant.

But yes...what ever.

Will deal with the rest later when I get back

[Invader Zim]

Actually if you had read this thread and the debate you would have read that I counter posed the article to people who do indeed argue personhood and fetal autonomy as being relevant.

But yes...what ever.

Will deal with the rest later when I get back

I'm not interested in why you brought it up. I'm interested in what you went on to say about the article as a valuable contribution to the debate. I don't think it is, I think it is built on clearly problematic and unfalsifiable series of premises, and that it hones in on an issue that is not and should not be a serious point of discussion because it is a distraction from the real issue of the abortion debate - which is that people want to make pregant women into second-class citizens without the mandate to even control their own bodies. In other words, the problem is that whether not a foetus has personhood is a total red herring, because even if a foetus is deemed to have equal personhood and equal rights to an infant/juvenile/adult human then it would not make one iota of difference to the unanswerable point that the right to choose is a issue of bodily autonomy and personal ownership of your own body and bodily resources. The entire is a foetus a 'person' and should it have 'rights' is a distraction from the point that anti-choicers want to restrict women's rights to control their own body - and it is an obfuscating sub-debate that leftists should call out and not pander to.


As I said way back when I wasn't even a mod...there are two sides to the story here.

Well, not to dredge up any specific incidents, which are (again) episodic to the point they could almost be scripted and which anybody can look up, the issue was that you're right that there often were two sides of the story - the ones the admins favoured, and then the one which was silenced by the admins.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not interested in why you brought it up. I'm interested i what you went on to say about the article as a valuable contribution to the debate. I don't think it is, I think it is built on clearly problematic and unfalsifiable series of premises, and that it hones in on an issue that is not and should not be a serious point of discussion because it is a distraction from the real issue of the abortion debate - which is that people want to make pregant women into second-class citizens without the mandate to even control their own bodies. In other words, the problem is that whether not a foetus has personhood is a total red herring, because even if a foetus is deemed to have equal personhood and equal rights to an infant/juvenile/adult human then it would not make one iota of difference to the unanswerable point that the right to choose is a issue of bodily autonomy and personal ownership of your own body and bodily resources. The entire is a foetus a 'person' and should it have 'rights' is a distraction from the point that anti-choicers want to restrict women's rights to control their own body - and it is an obfuscating sub-debate that leftists should call out and not pander to.


And which we do. Maybe you failed to notice but there are long term members which hold this position of autonomy, individual rights and the consequential weighing of rights. Not only that but the debate about personhood is in fact an important argument outside the left...even within the pro-choice movement where that fast majority wants to restrict late term abortions for exactly these moral and ethical reasons.

Not to mention the fact that the pro-choice movement itself is not limited to abortion only but includes euthanasia as well.

this position makes it relevant. Every abortion debate eventually will focus on the ethical question of personhood either implicit or explicit ..and, in spite of LH's protestations of the contrary, even the legal ones.

Hence why the debate is interesting as is the logical ethical consequence of autonomy and the weighing of rights that imposes on the debate. Whether or not it is a distraction from what we think as the central issue. You quite correctly made some statements about why abortion restriction should be opposed Those statements however invariable touch directly on the question of value of life.



Well, not to dredge up any specific incidents, which are (again) episodic to the point they could almost be scripted and which anybody can look up, the issue was that you're right that there often were two sides of the story - the ones the admins favoured, and then the one which was silenced by the admins.

Yes. The question then of course is why it was silenced and if that wasn't a direct result of what was demanded, how it was demanded and for how long.

[Invader Zim]

You're right that some of our members get the wrong end of the stick on this issue, and fall into the trap of trying to debate the question of personhood, and build an argument for choice based on that, but they are in the wrong (perhaps for not having yet adequately picked up on it) to even engage with the canard, which is to miss the point.

The question of 'personhood' makes no odds to the actual pro-choice argument. I couldn't care less whether a foetus is a fully fledged human being, to be granted all the rights we accord to the born, at the moment of conception. Or at 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or whenever. Until the foetus is born, it benefits from the bodily resources of another human being. In ever other instance, humans are given the right to withdrawn their concent to their bodily resources being emplyed by another regardless of the cost in terms of life, to withdraw that right to pregnant women is totally inconsistent and borne of the kind of bullshit assumptions that the article you provided tries to discuss. Again, the rights of a foetus is all a canard. It doesn't matter.


Every abortion debate eventually will focus on the ethical question of personhood either implicit or explicit

Only because the anti-choice lobby has twisted the nature of the debate the place the focus away from the rights of the concrete rights of women to the speculatative rights of the foetus. This is to be opposed and we should be trying to bring the debate back to reality of existing legal and social presidence as opposed to what ultimately is academic and subjective philosophising about unpickable existencial questions. So, my issue isn't with your poisition per say, rather it is one of general annoyance that we are still pandering to rightwing strawman argument which deliberately obfuscates the issue by destracting us from the central concern, the right to bodily autonomy, and into the murky territory of existencial subjectivities that actually have zero relevance to the central question.


...from what we think as the central issue.

Which I take to be the rights of women to be able to control their own bodies, and I'll go further and suggest that anybody who doesn't has either not sufficently considered the issue or is a misogynist attempting to muddy it.

As regards to the issue of euthanasia and assistend suicide, it is a different issue with different rules.

[#FF0000]

A better question is: why do you imagine that i care what you think? You could be hit by a bus tomorrow, and I wouldn't even notice your absence from the board. And that is because you're an idiot that writes banal and derivative shit that 90% of the time I skip past as a reflex action rather that be paralysed from the neck-down under the weight of crushing boredom.

u sound like u care (◕‿◕✿)

[PhoenixAsh]

You're right that some of our members get the wrong end of the stick on this issue, and fall into the trap of trying to debate the question of personhood, and build an argument for choice based on that, but they are in the wrong (perhaps for not having yet adequately picked up on it) to even engage with the canard, which is to miss the point.

The question of 'personhood' makes no odds to the actual pro-choice argument. I couldn't care less whether a foetus is a fully fledged human being, to be granted all the rights we accord to the born, at the moment of conception. Or at 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or whenever. Until the foetus is born, it benefits from the bodily resources of another human being. In ever other instance, humans are given the right to withdrawn their concent to their bodily resources being emplyed by another regardless of the cost in terms of life, to withdraw that right to pregnant women is totally inconsistent and borne of the kind of bullshit assumptions that the article you provided tries to discuss. Again, the rights of a foetus is all a canard. It doesn't matter.

Only because the anti-choice lobby has twisted the nature of the debate the place the focus away from the rights of the concrete rights of women to the speculatative rights of the foetus. This is to be opposed and we should be trying to bring the debate back to reality of existing legal and social presidence as opposed to what ultimately is academic and subjective philosophising about unpickable existencial questions. So, my issue isn't with your poisition per say, rather it is one of general annoyance that we are still pandering to rightwing strawman argument which deliberately obfuscates the issue by destracting us from the central concern, the right to bodily autonomy, and into the murky territory of existencial subjectivities that actually have zero relevance to the central question.

Our opinions regarding the outcome don't differ at all. So there is no disagreement on that side of the debate.

Demonstratively there is no shortage however of people within the larger pro-life and pro-choice movements (as well as on this site) that do however find the element of personhood and the resulting weighing of the value of life an important aspect and factor. Ultimately our own position is, as you demonstrated here, based on a decision on the very subject that we value the life and autonomy of the woman more than that of the fetus, for whatever reason.

That is not a pandering too pro-life sentiments. That is the reality of the debate which has been raging for centuries and which remains unresolved and probably will be for a long time. This debate is heavilly fuelled, as you probably will agree, by the patriarchal nature of society and its large religious elements and the weighing of value of life can not be seen as detached from these very core issues.

Personally I think the debat can not be seen seperate from the position of women in society and socialized patriarchal gender normativity. As Louis Henrique argued (by citing property violations) the rights of women and their bodily autonomy have been limited because they are women and the consistent framing of the abortion question in the context of the central role of the fetus (for religious, social, ethical or whatever reason). With this I mean that the rights of women and as such women themselves are seen as less of an individual as a fetus. This is essentially the central core of the personhood debate and that is what should be challenged.

I agree that these issues should not have bearing on the abortion question at all. But they regrettably still do and they severely influence legislation and social perception.


Which I take to be the rights of women to be able to control their own bodies, and I'll go further and suggest that anybody who doesn't has either not sufficently considered the issue or is a misogynist attempting to muddy it.

I quite agree.


As regards to the issue of euthanasia and assistend suicide, it is a different issue with different rules.

We don't agree on this however.

The issue is largely the same and based on the same issues and outcomes. They can't really be seen as seperate. And interestingly touch on a subject you mentioned in a previous post: who has the right to decide about the body of another individual and what they choose to do with it.

This is an interesting discussion piece for another time perhaps. Personally for me the answer is that this falls entirely on the individual themselves who, given the means to do so, is very well able to make an informed decision and the only role society or state (if we still haven't managed to overthrow it) should play in this issue is one that facilitate and enable individuals to make the decisions that these individuals feel is right.

Where the situation however does get murky is when an individual can not actually make a decision on the matter.

[Invader Zim]

I think you're right that we have no real disagreement on the central questions at all. For instance, in the 'All you restricted pro-choicers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-you-restricted-t190035/index.html) thread, you nailed exactly my view of the issue in the following comment:

"He merely frames pro-choice as wanting to restrict womens rights and forcing them to go through certain painful and dangerous medical procedures during part of the pregnancy...because of "OMG think of the children" and how they have rights. So fuck the rights of women and force them to serve our moral and ethical qualms by making them do things we will never actually have to go through ourselves but feel we can have an opinion on because we are men...and women are of course not really as much human and as much of a person as an actual fetus...."

Though, I would suggest the last sentence is unnecessary - because, again, who cares if a foetus has rights? Even if they did, would that void the central issue that nobody else has the right to dictate another person's bodily autonomy regardless of whether a life hangs in the balance? The answer is no.

Indeed, the discourse is entirely, and linguistically, framed in this fashion. Anti-choicers talk about the 'baby' and 'child', the destruction of 'life', and all that guff - and it all is geared towards suggesting that if the foetus is 'alive' then it has rights then it is unethical to infringe those rights via an abortion. Bullshit. Because, regardless of whether they do or not, because legal, social, cultural and ethical precedence all determine that modern human societies assume that the right to life is secondary to the right to autonomy. Nobody advocates that shady government officials be mandated to abduct people from the streets and harvest their organs/blood or any other bodily resource. Quite rightly that would be viewed as a vicious dystopian society. Except, of course, if you then apply that logic and precedence to the issue of a foetus' right to life then whether or not it has rights becomes a non-issue - unless you are willing to concede that the dystopia sounds like a good idea.



Demonstratively there is no shortage however of people within the larger pro-life and pro-choice movements (as well as on this site) that do however find the element of personhood and the resulting weighing of the value of life an important aspect and factor.

That is true - that there are people who bring this up. In the anti-choice (I refuse to call them pro-life, because that is a weasle-worded rhetrocial device to skew the discourse away from the central issue, because again whether or not the foetus is 'alive' bares no relevance to the issue) camp it is inherently fundermental trope from which all their "argument" is essencially derived. People in the pro-choice lobby, because that is the way that anti-choice reactionaries, who have until very recently (in the grand scheme of things) held a monopoly on authority, have framed the discourse. It allows them to avoid dealing with the inherent logical extension of their position - that they would reject calls for their own bodily autonomy to be subservient to another's needs - by centring the debate on the issue of whether the foetus should be accorded rights. Understandably, many people in the pro-choice camp then subconciously bow to this orthodoxy and frame their own arguments within the context of that trope. I know I certainly did for a long time, it was only reading Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) that the irrelevance, and indeed obfuscating malignance, of trying to argue with the anti-choicers on their own spurious intellectual turf became clear.



Where the situation however does get murky is when an individual can not actually make a decision on the matter.

It is also made problematic when we consider who has the 'right' to aid the person who want's to die, and questions of informed consent. That's why I suggest it is a different issue with different rules - not that it isn't a similar breed of ethical animal with overlapping questions, but that it isn't the same.

[Invader Zim]

u sound like u care (◕‿◕✿)

Case in point regarding what I said earlier - I didn't even notice you'd replied until I was skimming back through recent posts to PA. Be more interesting and maybe I will start to care.

[Ele'ill]

Case in point regarding what I said earlier - I didn't even notice you'd replied until I was skimming back through recent posts to PA. Be more interesting and maybe I will start to care.

but you are replying with a lot of passion and anger so you def. care

[Five Year Plan]

but you are replying with a lot of passion and anger so you def. care

I think you are confusing sarcasm with passion.

[Ele'ill]

(lol okay) sarcasm and anger

[Ele'ill]

And, as such, complicit in generating the episodic imbroglios which usually ended in you lot then doing something stupid, getting called on it, and then being beligerant about it.


folks do dumb stuff other users complain mods/admins ask for it to stop dumb stuff doers get mad and become more disruptive they get banned, a few stragglers who weren't brave enough to fully knight for their friends the first time hang around the forum for all of eternity doing pretty much nothing but moan about past times pretty much like the knight from Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade

"Hey folks we'll be here forever guarding the truth up holding the glory of our friend circle that got banned 67 years ago" :lol:

http://corysgold.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/grail-knight1.jpg

[Invader Zim]

(lol okay) sarcasm and anger

If you thought that my reply was angry then you are emotionally stunted. I feel bad for you.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If you thought that my reply was angry then you are emotionally stunted. I feel bad for you.

Did seem a tad aggro and assholey tbh

[Ele'ill]

If you thought that my reply was angry then you are emotionally stunted. I feel bad for you.


what about now?

[Invader Zim]

Did seem a tad aggro and assholey tbh

That's how it seemed did it? Well, see what I said to the guy with the username about shit admin decisions and multiply by one.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That's how it seemed did it? Well, see what I said to the guy with the username about shit admin decisions and multiply by one.

That's not very nice. If you're a good boy I might give a you a piece of candy. But you must play nice with others.

[#FF0000]

folks do dumb stuff other users complain mods/admins ask for it to stop dumb stuff doers get mad and become more disruptive they get banned

yea i mean there were/are definitely some people who should've never been banned tho e.g. holden caufield, dude chicken, a lot of the left-com dudes who got banned in the last big ol' wave and i think a lot of people end up acting out cuz like i said there's no recourse for people who have issues w/ admins decisions.


That's not very nice. If you're a good boy I might give a you a piece of candy. But you must play nice with others.

i dunno if it's a good idea giving candy as a reward for behavior, not to second-guess you in front of the kids or anything

[Invader Zim]

That's not very nice. If you're a good boy I might give a you a piece of candy. But you must play nice with others.

1. I don't care about your opinion. 2. Stop being an apologist for zionism and I might care. 3. See one and two.

Threre

[Invader Zim]

folks do dumb stuff other users complain mods/admins ask for it to stop dumb stuff doers get mad and become more disruptive they get banned, a few stragglers who weren't brave enough to fully knight for their friends the first time hang around the forum for all of eternity doing pretty much nothing but moan about past times pretty much like the knight from Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade

"Hey folks we'll be here forever guarding the truth up holding the glory of our friend circle that got banned 67 years ago" :lol:

http://corysgold.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/grail-knight1.jpg

Which is basically a load of fluff. But basically, if you read it as such, translates to: "I have no ability to defend my actions, I conceed the point but don't want to admit it. But I'm not bright enough to say something amusingly disparaging despite my best effots."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

i dunno if it's a good idea giving candy as a reward for behavior, not to second-guess you in front of the kids or anything

Probably not but it works in most cases. I appreciate your concern for appearances tho <3


1. I don't care about your opinion. 2. Stop being an apologist for zionism and I might care. 3. See one and two.

Threre

Well, considering I don't apologize for Zionism I can assume then you must care because if you really expect me to believe you don't care about or like candy, you must be crazy. Everyone loves candy.

[M-L-C-F]

That's how it seemed did it? Well, see what I said to the guy with the username about shit admin decisions and multiply by one.

But, when you multiply by 1, you get the same number... That makes absolutely no sense at all. :ohmy:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

but, when you multiply by 1, you get the same number... That makes absolutely no sense at all. :ohmy:

math slam!

[Invader Zim]

But, when you multiply by 1, you get the same number... That makes absolutely no sense at all. :ohmy:

Yes... you get the same result you started with. Think about it.

[PhoenixAsh]

IZ,

Thank you for the Violinist article. I had heard varieties of the analogy but never this clearly expressed. It is hugely interesting.

I want to post your Violinist article in the articles section of the forum....or if you want to you can do it yourself. I'll sticky it for easy reference.

[Invader Zim]

IZ,

Thank you for the Violinist article. I had heard varieties of the analogy but never this clearly expressed. It is hugely interesting.

I want to post your Violinist article in the articles section of the forum....or if you want to you can do it yourself. I'll sticky it for easy reference.

Yeah, Thomson outlines the issue very clearly. Maybe it would be useful for newer members to have it linked in a sticky. But not in the articles section, that kind of implies that I wrote it, sadly not.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well if you properly accredit it

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

hell yeah this thread got better over the weekend. Desperately seeking catharsis via internet ITT

[Luís Henrique]

Shifts which moved this discussion so far from the original points (VG1917's sexism/rape apologism) and which narrowed the debate entirely to the mere point of legislative authority of St. Augustine (on the topic of personhood).

Well. It is your point of contention that the debate on abortion has been permeated by the debate on "personhood" since Antiquity. It has appeared in this thread by one post of yours (# 101), which was a response to Rosa Partizan, who in turn was commenting about a ridiculous paper you brought into discussion - about "post-birth abortion".

You can hardly blame me for this shift.

As for Augustine, he entered this thread, disguised as "St. August", by your invitation, in post #144:


As the debate about when something becomes a person was actually started by St. August which stated termination of pregnancy before three months is permitted because the developed fruit stops being a monster and becomes a human after 3 months.

So it would be difficult to assess the issue you brought forth about "personhood" without addressing the authority of Augustine - who according to you "started" this debate.

You can hardly blame that on me, either.


Right. Bishop. No influence on canonical law at all. No judicial authority whatsoever.

If each Catholic Bishop could poop out laws out of his ass at will, the Catholic Church wouldn't be (in)famous as an extremely centralised organisation.

Obviously Augustine would have influence on canonical law - directly, when assembled with other bishops in a Council - or indirectly if other bishops, again assembled in Councils, read him and used his arguments and ideas in concocting new Canonic Law rules.

But as an individual, Augustine would have had very limited power to enact legislation. Limited to his diocese, for starters.

The first point however is, what do the philosophical ideas expressed in Augustine books have to do with Canonic Law? Was it ever written in Canonic Law that abortion was tantamount to homicide after the first trimester, but not before? And the second point is, to what extent Canonic Law was either reflected or copied into secular law, or functioned as secular law in times of extreme weakness of civil power or extreme strength of religious power?

In other words, if you can make the case that the actual laws that binded the lives of ordinary people throught the middle ages were influenced by Canonic Law to the point of using its arguments regarding abortion, and that Canon Law was influenced by Augustine to the point of making his distinction between soulless and soulful fetuses, you may have a point.


And now "Oh but it has to be actually adopted in law"

It actually doesn't. It only needs to have been discussed in a legal sence. Ie, it may have been proposed as a bill, but rejected, or it may have been discussed by jurists, pointing to inconsistency of written law. But what we see is that abortion, to the extent that was illegal, was illegal as an infringement of the legal rights of fathers, not of fetuses, or was illegal as a logical consequence of the illegality of any out-or-wedlock sexual activity.


Since the Stoics debated abortion and its legality saying that a fetus was only alive from the moment it breathed air and prior to that was a monster. Hence forth...abortion became legal in pre-christian Rome because of this argument.

Hm. So the Stoics debated abortion way before "St. August" started the debate. Indeed, we might point out that Aristotle was discussing this even before the Stoics. So these pesky Greek philosophers had the bad habit of debating things before the debate on those things started. Bad, bad Greek philosophers.

Then we have a huge logical leap. Abortion became legal in pre-Christian Rome because of this argument.

So, when exactly were the previously extant Roman pre-Christian anti-abortion laws repealed, due to Stoic subversion?


Christian legal codes were based on the Didache which, incidentally, was also cited by Luke...

And when and where did Luke cite the Didache? There are two extant texts attributed to Luke, his Gospel, and the "Acts of the Apostles", and I fear neither mentions the Didache.

Plus you would have to realise that the Didache has been considered apocryphal from a very early time.


expressly forbids "murder by abortion"

Well, it does so - when translated to modern English. But then it relies on the Ten Commandments, which say "do not kill" instead of "do not murder", so I am not so sure that it means what it seems to say when translated. Plus, it tells people not to murder, but doesn't ascribe any kind of earthly penalty for those who do. Perhaps because it is a document written by, and for, a small sect of subversives, with little or no hope of influencing actual law.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

Well. It is your point of contention that the debate on abortion has been permeated by the debate on "personhood" since Antiquity. It has appeared in this thread by one post of yours (# 101), which was a response to Rosa Partizan, who in turn was commenting about a ridiculous paper you brought into discussion - about "post-birth abortion".

As for Augustine, he entered this thread, disguised as "St. August", by your invitation, in post #144:

You can hardly blame me for this shift.


I can however blame you for the shift when you question the validity the statement that the issue being debated since millenia because of a narrowing scope towards being debated in a legal sence which need to be adopted into law.

Augustine was mentioned in that respect of you questioning the validity of the statement that it was debated for millenia.


So it would be difficult to assess the issue you brought forth about "personhood" without addressing the authority of Augustine - who according to you "started" this debate.

You can hardly blame that on me, either.

Actually I can again blame this on you. As you do note that you were the one questioning the validity of the statement that the issue was long since debated in respect to abortion. You continue to question the validity of that statement based on a narrow legislative scope....which you introduced contrary to what was being discussed.

St. Augustine was mentioned in that respect, not as the originator of the debate, but as an example that it has in fact been going on for millenia.


If each Catholic Bishop could poop out laws out of his ass at will, the Catholic Church wouldn't be (in)famous as an extremely centralised organisation.

Obviously Augustine would have influence on canonical law - directly, when assembled with other bishops in a Council - or indirectly if other bishops, again assembled in Councils, read him and used his arguments and ideas in concocting new Canonic Law rules.

But as an individual, Augustine would have had very limited power to enact legislation. Limited to his diocese, for starters.

The first point however is, what do the philosophical ideas expressed in Augustine books have to do with Canonic Law? Was it ever written in Canonic Law that abortion was tantamount to homicide after the first trimester, but not before? And the second point is, to what extent Canonic Law was either reflected or copied into secular law, or functioned as secular law in times of extreme weakness of civil power or extreme strength of religious power?

In other words, if you can make the case that the actual laws that binded the lives of ordinary people throught the middle ages were influenced by Canonic Law to the point of using its arguments regarding abortion, and that Canon Law was influenced by Augustine to the point of making his distinction between soulless and soulful fetuses, you may have a point.


You contradict yourself again here. The legality question...which you yourself in yout quote directly below...so stop trying to be cute on the issue.

I also gave you another example of Roman law directly influenced by the Stoics who argued that personhood was dependend on the first breath of air and therefore abortion should be legal.


It actually doesn't. It only needs to have been discussed in a legal sence. Ie, it may have been proposed as a bill, but rejected, or it may have been discussed by jurists, pointing to inconsistency of written law. But what we see is that abortion, to the extent that was illegal, was illegal as an infringement of the legal rights of fathers, not of fetuses, or was illegal as a logical consequence of the illegality of any out-or-wedlock sexual activity.


no...what YOU see with your selective and subjective view



Hm. So the Stoics debated abortion way before "St. August" started the debate. Indeed, we might point out that Aristotle was discussing this even before the Stoics. So these pesky Greek philosophers had the bad habit of debating things before the debate on those things started. Bad, bad Greek philosophers.

Yes. Because I never said the debate was started by St. Augustine but used him as an example of it being discussed long before you alledge by subjectively narrowing what you find relevant discussion. Even using your narrow view of what constitutes a legitimate discussion you are however completely and utterly wrong.


Then we have a huge logical leap. Abortion became legal in pre-Christian Rome because of this argument.

Yup



So, when exactly were the previously extant Roman pre-Christian anti-abortion laws repealed, due to Stoic subversion?

Approximately 200 AD



And when and where did Luke cite the Didache? There are two extant texts attributed to Luke, his Gospel, and the "Acts of the Apostles", and I fear neither mentions the Didache.

Plus you would have to realise that the Didache has been considered apocryphal from a very early time.

Again...still we are now deabting the issue millenia before you stated the issue became an issue. YOu were obviously entriely wrong on that statement. So thank you for actually admitting that.

Now as for your limited view of what actually constitutes debate in the legal sense of positions influencing legal positions....they are mostly subjective serving to prove a narrowing scope you use to find some way in which you can conceivably be right.


Well, it does so - when translated to modern English. But then it relies on the Ten Commandments, which say "do not kill" instead of "do not murder", so I am not so sure that it means what it seems to say when translated. Plus, it tells people not to murder, but doesn't ascribe any kind of earthly penalty for those who do. Perhaps because it is a document written by, and for, a small sect of subversives, with little or no hope of influencing actual law.

Luís Henrique

Yeah...you should read more about the Didache and which status they actually had contemporarily speaking.

[Ele'ill]

Which is basically a load of fluff.


if by fluff you mean cotton candy loaded with sugar

[Luís Henrique]

Approximately 200 AD

So before 200 AD Roman laws forbade abortion under the notion that fetuses were persons?

And what exactly did they say, when were they passed, and how were they reconciled with a culture that allowed infanticide?


Yeah...you should read more about the Didache and which status they actually had contemporarily speaking.

Well, for starters, you could point to me where Luke cites the Didache; perhaps I can begin my education about it by reading what Luke wrote about it.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

So before 200 AD Roman laws forbid abortion under the notion that fetuses were persons?

And what exactly did they say, when were they passed, and how were they reconciled with a culture that allowed infanticide?



Well, for starters, you could point to me where Luke cites the Didache; perhaps I can begin my education about it by reading what Luke wrote about it.

Luís Henrique


Before 200 Ad Roman law did not forbid abortion because of the argument that to become a person somebody has needed to draw first breath.

But we have pretty much established that there is not point whatsoever in continuing the debate:

1). The premisses that personhood is a very long running debate has been quite clearly established
2). We have quite clearly established that this isn't an argument which is only recently discussed and debated in the context of abortion, but is actually debated for centuries
3). We have established that it was discussed in a legal sense millenia ago.

So far...at every contestation point you have made...you have actually been wrong.

The debate so far has widdled down to the smallest of details where you demand ever more narrowing focus of the debate eventhough all your original points have vanished like snow before the sun.

[Luís Henrique]

So back to serious discussion, do you think that "rape" in a post-patriarchal society is the same thing as "rape" in current society? Or is it the same thing now as it was in feudal societies, or Ancient Rome?

Is "rape" a social construct, or a pre-social reality? Can "rape" be construed trans-historically?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Thank you for the Violinist article. I had heard varieties of the analogy but never this clearly expressed. It is hugely interesting.

Have you read it all?

Including this?


My argument will be found unsatisfactory on two counts by many of those who want to regard abortion as morally permissible. First, while I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible. There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a standard we must not fall below. I am inclined to think it a merit of my account precisely that it does not give a general yes or a general no. It allows for and supports our sense that, for example, a sick and desperately frightened fourteen-year-old schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape, may of course choose abortion, and that any law which rules this out is an insane law. And it also allows for and supports our sense that in other cases resort to abortion is even positively indecent. It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad. The very fact that the arguments I have been drawing attention to treat all cases of abortion, or even all cases of abortion in which the mother's life is not at stake, as morally on a par ought to have made them suspect at the outset.

Second, while I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child. It is easy to confuse these two things in that up to a certain point in the life of the fetus it is not able to survive outside the mother's body; hence removing it from her body guarantees its death. But they are importantly different. I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument. A woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the child be detached from her, but more, that it die. Some opponents of abortion are inclined to regard this as beneath contempt--thereby showing insensitivity to what is surely a powerful source of despair. All the same, I agree that the desire for the child's death is not one which anybody may gratify, should it turn out to be possible to detach the child alive.

Emphases mine.

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

you should all check out some of these tumblr fashion blogs they've got great pictures

http://watchanish.tumblr.com/archive

[PhoenixAsh]

So back to serious discussion, do you think that "rape" in a post-patriarchal society is the same thing as "rape" in current society? Or is it the same thing now as it was in feudal societies, or Ancient Rome?

Is "rape" a social construct, or a pre-social reality? Can "rape" be construed trans-historically?

Luís Henrique

Second wave feminism argues that rape can not be detached from genderized violence and patriarchy. I do not agree with the latter part of the statement entirely. Post-patriarchal society does not rule out individuals with patriarchal notions. Rape as a social construct as a means of genderized domination within the patriarchal system though would obviously end. Rape in the context of and as an exponent as patriarchy has not changed much.




Have you read it all?

Including this? Emphases mine.

Luís Henrique

Yes, It is the authors opinion not supported by the tought experimental logic and ethics which is the main body of the text. Hence why it is missing. Have you noticed that the article I posted touches on the same premisses as this one?

[Luís Henrique]

Second wave feminism argues that rape can not be detached from genderized violence and patriarchy. I do not agree with the latter part of the statement entirely. Post-patriarchal society does not rule out individuals with patriarchal notions. Rape as a social construct as a means of genderized domination within the patriarchal system though would obviously end. Rape in the context of and as an exponent as patriarchy has not changed much.

So, "rape", in your view, is tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?


Yes, It is the authors opinion not supported by the tought experimental logic and ethics which is the main body of the text. Hence why it is missing. Have you noticed that the article I posted touches on the same premisses as this one?

You mean the article that supports infanticide?

I think these articles are very different. Thomson argues that even if the fetus was a person, abortion should still be legal (exception made for the clauses in the final paragraph, wich follow quite logically from her premises). Ie, she thinks that "personhood" is not the point. Giublini and Minerva, on the contrary, take for granted that "personhood" is the point, but then question where does "personhood" begin.

What both articles have in common is that both mistakenly assume that "personhood" in the abortion debate is "personhood" in the philosophical sence. It is not; it is the strictly juridical concept of "personhood", which only relates tangentially with the philosophical concept.

But since you bring back Giublini & Minerva... how would their position deal with the issue of slavery?

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

So, "rape", in your view, is tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

You mean the article that supports infanticide?

I think these articles are very different. Thomson argues that even if the fetus was a person, abortion should still be legal (exception made for the clauses in the final paragraph, wich follow quite logically from her premises). Ie, she thinks that "personhood" is not the point. Giublini and Minerva, on the contrary, take for granted that "personhood" is the point, but then question where does "personhood" begin.

What both articles have in common is that both mistakenly assume that "personhood" in the abortion debate is "personhood" in the philosophical sence. It is not; it is the strictly juridical concept of "personhood", which only relates tangentially with the philosophical concept.

But since you bring back Giublini & Minerva... how would their position deal with the issue of slavery?

Luís Henrique

Actually no...personhood is not strictly juridicial as juridicial is necesserilly a reflection of social structures. Therefore "juridicially" means exactly nothing aside from regional cultural interpretations and social reflections. This is what you do not seem to understand.

[Luís Henrique]

Actually no...personhood is not strictly juridicial as juridicial is necesserilly a reflection of social structures.

This only means that there is a philosophical concept of "personhood", which is a reflection of social structures, and a juridical concept of "personhood", which is also a reflection of social structures. But they are very different reflections, and should not be confused.

Again, is "rape", in your view, tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

Again, don't you realise that Thomson argues exactly the opposite way than Giublini & Minerva? That Thomson tries to prove that "personhood" is irrelevant to the debate on abortion, and Giublini & Minerva accept that "personhood" is the key issue in that debate, and then propose that "personhood" doesn't start at birth?

Again, if we assume that "personhood" doesn't start at birth, but later, how does this impact on our ideas about slavery?

************************

The false debate on the relation between "personhood" is whether a fetus is a person or not, and as such, whether it can or cannot be legally killed.

But the issue is the other way round: since fetuses can be legally killed, it follows that they are not persons.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

This only means that there is a philosophical concept of "personhood", which is a reflection of social structures, and a juridical concept of "personhood", which is also a reflection of social structures. But they are very different reflections, and should not be confused.

Again, is "rape", in your view, tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

Again, don't you realise that Thomson argues exactly the opposite way than Giublini & Minerva? That Thomson tries to prove that "personhood" is irrelevant to the debate on abortion, and Giublini & Minerva accept that "personhood" is the key issue in that debate, and then propose that "personhood" doesn't start at birth?

Again, if we assume that "personhood" doesn't start at birth, but later, how does this impact on our ideas about slavery?

************************

The false debate on the relation between "personhood" is whether a fetus is a person or not, and as such, whether it can or cannot be legally killed.

But the issue is the other way round: since fetuses can be legally killed, it follows that they are not persons.

Luís Henrique


The similarity is between equating the value of personhood/life of one being in respect to another being.

The judicial aspect is brought into the debate by you and therefore it seems to me that when you bring it up to attack the philosophical position and then suddenly pose here that they are two different entities...you actually are admitting that you didn't have a point in the first place. Lets clarify that:" you brought up the judicial argument...so the confusion is on your part if you think we are arguing similar entities. Like I said from the outset after you narrowed the definition to being judicial in nature...the debate stopped being about comparing equal values and introduced a completely different value into the equation not part of what was being discussed.

So far you haven't found any counter argument to the fact that placing the debate in the context of judiciality...it doesn't really account for the fact that there is not uniformity in the judicial system.

So the entire argument is basically completely useless.

*-***


That logic implies that since it isn't illegal to rape your wife in marriage in Egypt...women aren't raped in marriage in Egypt. Seems to me that that is a really problematic kind of logical application of bourgeois law...as the basis of definitions

[Luís Henrique]

The similarity is between equating the value of personhood/life of one being in respect to another being.

Nope.


The judicial aspect is brought into the debate by you and therefore it seems to me that when you bring it up to attack the philosophical position

Well, no.

There is no such thing as the "philosophical position". There is something like a "philosophical debate" on the issue of personhood. One can, of course, dismiss this whole debate as metaphysical, but the problem is not that one or other of the many different philosophical positions on "personhood" is "wrong". It is just that the philosophical debate is irrelevant, or only merely tangentially relevant, to the issue of abortion.


and then suddenly pose here that they are two different entities...

They are two different debates, yes.


you actually are admitting that you didn't have a point in the first place.

Maybe. But since the debate on abortion (or rape, if it matters) is certainly a juridical debate, I fear I don't follow your reasoning.


Lets clarify that:" you brought up the judicial argument...so the confusion is on your part if you think we are arguing similar entities.

Nope. The discussion is eminently juridical. Philosophical arguments are tangential here. The problem is not of similar or dissimilar entities, but of proper or improper method.


Like I said from the outset after you narrowed the definition to being judicial in nature...the debate stopped being about comparing equal values and introduced a completely different value into the equation not part of what was being discussed.

That would be because a debate on abortion based on philosophical views of "personhood" is misplaced. It is like saying that a "sphere" is a "ball" and then trying to discuss rugby "football" on such a base.


So far you haven't found any counter argument to the fact that placing the debate in the context of judiciality...it doesn't really account for the fact that there is not uniformity in the judicial system.

Of course there isn't uniformity in the judicial system. But you have a very narrow view of what "juridical" means if you think that it is impossible to have a juridical debate about any issue in the absence of such uniformity.

Juridical systems are systems, and they have an internal logic. A juridical debate is the discussion about that logic and its inconsistencies. A juridical debate about abortion is a debate on whether this or that juridical take on abortion is compatible with the legal system as a whole, or with the society on which it is based.


So the entire argument is basically completely useless.

On the contrary, we may see where superimposing philosophical ideas into juridical debates takes us: either comparing violinists with fetuses (which will lead us, like Thomson, to deny the right to abortion from the moment that the fetus is viable) or questioning the necessity of forbidding infanticide, which is even unwiser.

Instead, let's realise that a legal system that allows legal infanticide will either break itself under the contradictions that this prompts, or cause a social crisis in a post-slavery society, while a legal system that allows legal abortion up to birth is perfectly able to rule a capitalist society as long as it is able to endure. And that is the reason that a child is a person, and a fetus is not.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

Nope.
Well, no.

There is no such thing as the "philosophical position". There is something like a "philosophical debate" on the issue of personhood. One can, of course, dismiss this whole debate as metaphysical, but the problem is not that one or other of the many different philosophical positions on "personhood" is "wrong". It is just that the philosophical debate is irrelevant, or only merely tangentially relevant, to the issue of abortion.

They are two different debates, yes.

Maybe. But since the debate on abortion (or rape, if it matters) is certainly a juridical debate, I fear I don't follow your reasoning.

No...they are not. You however spend an awful lot of time and energy to try and maintain that they are. This is, as I have told you several times, hugely problematic.



Nope. The discussion is eminently juridical. Philosophical arguments are tangential here. The problem is not of similar or dissimilar entities, but of proper or improper method.

Yes...and you are using patriarchal/bourgeois definitions to classify what is ultimately the contestation of bourgeois/patriarchal reality.

I am wondering why the hell you don't seem to understand that.


That would be because a debate on abortion based on philosophical views of "personhood" is misplaced. It is like saying that a "sphere" is a "ball" and then trying to discuss rugby "football" on such a base.

Ultimately again...you are using bourgeois/patriarchal systems in order to classify defintions. Ultimately...that is incredibly stupid.



Of course there isn't uniformity in the judicial system. But you have a very narrow view of what "juridical" means if you think that it is impossible to have a juridical debate about any issue in the absence of such uniformity.

Given the development of your argument...I in fact think you really do not understand how incredibly contradictory you are and that there is not one iota of logic in your argumentatitve construct aside from the fact that you seem to want to enforce the entire debate into a bourgeois/patriarchal construction while this is exactly the problem. Your view thereby is entirely anti-thetical to revolutionary thought.


Juridical systems are systems, and they have an internal logic. A juridical debate is the discussion about that logic and its inconsistencies. A juridical debate about abortion is a debate on whether this or that juridical take on abortion is compatible with the legal system as a whole, or with the society on which it is based.

Which entirely deviates from your earlier stated position that there is a legal definition of rape and deviating from it is problematic in your view. So basically...your entire argument is nonsense and, in fact, entirely bullshit "look how clever I am" word soup.



On the contrary, we may see where superimposing philosophical ideas into juridical debates takes us: either comparing violinists with fetuses (which will lead us, like Thomson, to deny the right to abortion from the moment that the fetus is viable) or questioning the necessity of forbidding infanticide, which is even unwiser.

Instead, let's realise that a legal system that allows legal infanticide will either break itself under the contradictions that this prompts, or cause a social crisis in a post-slavery society, while a legal system that allows legal abortion up to birth is perfectly able to rule a capitalist society as long as it is able to endure. And that is the reason that a child is a person, and a fetus is not.

Luís Henrique

Do you even understand what you are saying and on how many levels you either were proven wrong or were entirely contradiction your own argumentative construction?

You just link sentences that have no bearing whatsoever on anything you are arguing while continuously shifting paradigms in order to find some bizar way in which your argument may seem to work...but actually doesn't.

In fact...your progression in this debate is so fucking contradictory to your own initial arguments that I am wondering if you are entirely lucid while performing this debate.

[Luís Henrique]

That logic implies that since it isn't illegal to rape your wife in marriage in Egypt...women aren't raped in marriage in Egypt. Seems to me that that is a really problematic kind of logical application of bourgeois law...as the basis of definitions

Women aren't raped in marriage in Egypt. That is a fact - and is also the problem that must be addressed. Because married women are subjected to sexual violence by their husbands in Egypt, and they do not have legal remedy for that situation.

You are confusing the material situation (women being beaten or threatened into sex) with the legal framing of that situation (which can vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Namely, you are taking the bourgeois law of the place where you live, more or less adjusted by oppositionist debate in the same place, sublimated into "philosophy", as an objective, transhistoric parameter to discuss other legal systems. In other words, you are falling into the trap of evaluating positive law with some ill-defined "natural law", that cannot fail to be delusional (and utterly "unnatural").

What I am saying is that if we are to debate the Egyptian legal system and its take on "rape", we should do it in terms of its own juridical consistency. For instance, it seems odd that married men can force their wives to have sex with them, as if they had some kind of right over the bodies of said wives, which we only usually associate to the rights of owners over property, while at the same time those wives are considered persons, not property, in several other aspects. One could say that, to keep consistency, either the Egyptian legal system would have to reinstate slavery (and repeal several rights that the Egyptian women already have), or admit that married men cannot force their wives to have sex.

But this should be done to whatever positive legal system, even that of the Netherlands.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

[Lots of incoherent abuse]

Again, is "rape", in your view, tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

Again, don't you realise that Thomson argues exactly the opposite way than Giublini & Minerva? That Thomson tries to prove that "personhood" is irrelevant to the debate on abortion, and Giublini & Minerva accept that "personhood" is the key issue in that debate, and then propose that "personhood" doesn't start at birth?

Again, if we assume that "personhood" doesn't start at birth, but later, how does this impact on our ideas about slavery?

Why can't you answer these questions?

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

Again, is "rape", in your view, tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

Again, don't you realise that Thomson argues exactly the opposite way than Giublini & Minerva? That Thomson tries to prove that "personhood" is irrelevant to the debate on abortion, and Giublini & Minerva accept that "personhood" is the key issue in that debate, and then propose that "personhood" doesn't start at birth?

Again, if we assume that "personhood" doesn't start at birth, but later, how does this impact on our ideas about slavery?

Why can't you answer these questions?

Luís Henrique

The direction of argument is irrelevant to the central premise of the argument: personhood and weighing value of life. I am not entirely sure how you do not see this.

You attacked one article for making the abstract premise; while the abstract premise of the second...which is the same...you see no problem with.

Your subjectively attacking the abstract, while it is the context you actually have a problem with. This means that your initial attack is subjective and actually not warrented on the grounds you attacked it on.


Narrow down your definition of slavery? Are we talking about sexual slavery? White slavery? Ottoman Slavery? African Slavery? Slavery in the Roman empire? Slavery in contemporary Asia?

As you have been prone to use considerably more limited definitions of any term...I'd like you to first define what you exactly mean by the terminology you use...since I would not like to "misunderstand" you so that you suddenly have to declare that you actually have brought up an entirely different issue in order to attack an issue which your point has no relationship with in the first place. (translation: so far you have conveniently shifted your argument and your defnitions so many times...I am simply not trusting your intentions in this debate at all)

[Luís Henrique]

The direction of argument is irrelevant to the central premise of the argument: personhood and weighing value of life. I am not entirely sure how you do not see this.

Man, this is a thread about "revleft purges". If we are not discussing revleft purges, we are already off topic, and, as such, being "irrelevant" to the purpose of the thread.

And I am absolutely not interested in "weighing value of life". This is an utilitarian passtime, in which I don't engage.


You attacked one article for making the abstract premise; while the abstract premise of the second...which is the same...you see no problem with.

The articles have very different, indeed opposite premises. One's premise is that "personhood" is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion. The other accepts that "personhood" is the key issue in the abortion debate, and tries to make the case that "personhood" starts later than at birth.

Of course, Thomson's article is what we would call reasonable - even though you don't seem to realise that its conclusion goes frontally against what you uphold as a central tenet of leftism: legal abortion on demand up to the last day of pregnancy. While the other article, as Invader Zim quite well puts, "reads like an anti-choicers attempt at a satirical strawman argument of the pro-choice position". But that doesn't mean that I see no problem with the former. Which I have made clear in previous posts, btw.


Your subjectively attacking the abstract, while it is the context you actually have a problem with. This means that your initial attack is subjective and actually not warrented on the grounds you attacked it on.

Sorry?


Narrow down your definition of slavery? Are we talking about sexual slavery? White slavery? Ottoman Slavery? African Slavery? Slavery in the Roman empire? Slavery in contemporary Asia?

Slavery proper, ie, "African" slavery and Classical Rome and Greece slavery.

Ie, a system in which some post-birth human beings are not persons, but property.

In other words, can you expand on how do you think an article that proposes that some post-birth human beings are not persons impacts on our views of a system under which some post-birth human beings are not persons?


As you have been prone to use considerably more limited definitions of any term...I'd like you to first define what you exactly mean by the terminology you use...since I would not like to "misunderstand" you so that you suddenly have to declare that you actually have brought up an entirely different issue in order to attack an issue which your point has no relationship with in the first place.

Noblesse oblige. Above you have it narrowed to a point it should be tractable.


(translation: so far you have conveniently shifted your argument and your defnitions so many times...I am simply not trusting your intentions in this debate at all)

Yeah, I have already grasped that from the torrent of abuse you spout. It is cute and funny, but unimpressive, but don't let that stop you!

Now, again...

* is "rape", in your view, tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

* don't you realise that Thomson argues exactly the opposite way than Giublini & Minerva? That Thomson tries to prove that "personhood" is irrelevant to the debate on abortion, and Giublini & Minerva accept that "personhood" is the key issue in that debate, and then propose that "personhood" doesn't start at birth? (well, you made it pretty clear that you don't, so you can change this to a new question - how on earth don't you realise that?)

* if we assume that "personhood" doesn't start at birth, but later, how does this impact on our ideas about slavery - in the strict sence of slavery as a system of production, based on unpaid labour, and ownership and direct commodification of human beings, as it was in Modern Brazil, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Modern Caribbean, or Southern United States - more exactly, a system that relies on the premise that not all already born human beings are persons?

Thank you in advance.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

Man, this is a thread about "revleft purges". If we are not discussing revleft purges, we are already off topic, and, as such, being "irrelevant" to the purpose of the thread.

And I am absolutely not interested in "weighing value of life". This is an utilitarian passtime, in which I don't engage.


sigh. Cute.

The central premise which we are currently debating. Both articles use it. The direction in which these articles individually take the argument is actually irrelevant to the fact that they both use the same abstract: personhood and the value of life.

Interestingly enough...though written in the 70's...the article is still debated...on the grounds of ethical and moral obligations of the weighing of value of life.


The articles have very different, indeed opposite premises. One's premise is that "personhood" is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion. The other accepts that "personhood" is the key issue in the abortion debate, and tries to make the case that "personhood" starts later than at birth.


Actually...the premise of the article of the Violinist is that eventhough personhood is a valid argument this does not logically lead to the restriction and denial of the personhood of another. This is valuing.

Both articles thus...use personhood as a premise. What you attacked the first article of doing.


Of course, Thomson's article is what we would call reasonable - even though you don't seem to realise that its conclusion goes frontally against what you uphold as a central tenet of leftism: legal abortion on demand up to the last day of pregnancy. While the other article, as Invader Zim quite well puts, "reads like an anti-choicers attempt at a satirical strawman argument of the pro-choice position".

Except of coure the conclusion of the Violinist is not carried by the argument but is based on the opinion of the author and is explicitly stated as such throughout the article.


Sorry?

Its ok, fine...you don't have to ask. I forgive you.




Slavery proper, ie, "African" slavery and Classical Rome and Greece slavery.

Ie, a system in which some post-birth human beings are not persons, but property.

In other words, can you expand on how do you think an article that proposes that some post-birth human beings are not persons impacts on our views of a system under which some post-birth human beings are not persons?

The original article poses that an infant is equal to that of a fetus. I am not entirely sure how you impose that on slavery. So you have to clarify that.

If we apply your logic though; then you validate the comparison between abortion and the holocaust by creating the equal (logically) valid counter question: how do you equate making the life and personhood irrelevant to the termination of it....with the systematic execution of people?

I don't think we should go there. But realize that that is the applied logic of you bringing up slavery in the debate.




Noblesse oblige. Above you have it narrowed to a point it should be tractable.

And I have answered



Yeah, I have already grasped that from the torrent of abuse you spout. It is cute and funny, but unimpressive, but don't let that stop you!

I am immensely cute and funny.



Now, again...

* is "rape", in your view, tantamount to sexual violence of any kind?

Define sexual violence? Are we talking about it in a legal sense again? I never know.



* don't you realise that Thomson argues exactly the opposite way than Giublini & Minerva? That Thomson tries to prove that "personhood" is irrelevant to the debate on abortion, and Giublini & Minerva accept that "personhood" is the key issue in that debate, and then propose that "personhood" doesn't start at birth? (well, you made it pretty clear that you don't, so you can change this to a new question - how on earth don't you realise that?)


See above. I think I answered that several times now.



* if we assume that "personhood" doesn't start at birth, but later, how does this impact on our ideas about slavery - in the strict sence of slavery as a system of production, based on unpaid labour, and ownership and direct commodification of human beings, as it was in Modern Brazil, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Modern Caribbean, or Southern United States - more exactly, a system that relies on the idea that not all already born human beings are persons?

Thank you in advance.

Luís Henrique

Again....see above.

Also..interestingly...you should know that the pro-life crowd actually links abortion to slavery. The more you know...

[Luís Henrique]

Both articles thus...use personhood as a premise. What you attacked the first article of doing.

Of course, both articles discuss "personhood". But a premise is a statement, a proposition. "Personhood is irrelevant" is a proposition, it can be used as a premise. "Personhood is completely irrelevant" is also a proposition, it can also be used as a premise. But "personhood" as an isolated word isn't a proposition, it cannot be used as a premise.

Thomson's premise is "'personhood' is (or should be) irrelevant for the debate on abortion". Giublini & Minerva's premise is the opposite: "personhood is relevant to the debate on abortion".

"The earth is flat" and "the earth is a sphere" aren't the "same premise" because both use the same word, or concept. Because isolated words aren't premises.


Except of coure the conclusion of the Violinist is not carried by the argument but is based on the opinion of the author and is explicitly stated as such throughout the article.

An opinion that is quite obviously grounded in her argument. As she says,


I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him.

How clearer can it be?


The original article poses that an infant is equal to that of a fetus. I am not entirely sure how you impose that on slavery. So you have to clarify that.

Mkay.

Slavery (as a juridical concept; of course its material existence is base on quite different things) is based on the idea that not all human beings are persons. Since they are not persons, they are not entitled to the right of property (not even the property of their own labour power), and, on the contrary, they may constitute the property of other human beings.

So what Giublini & Minerva are saying is, "children are not persons up to some time after their birth". Since they are not persons, why would it be wrong to sell them?


If we apply your logic though; then you validate the comparison between abortion and the holocaust by creating the equal (logically) valid counter question: how do you equate making the life and personhood irrelevant to the termination of it....with the systematic execution of people?

Well, of course. Are Jews persons? If they aren't, what exactly is wrong about systematically executing them, or using them as slaves to produce to the master race?

Giublini & Minerva can argue, of course, that their definition of "person" precludes that, because Jews fulfill the requisites for being considered "persons". But then their definition of "person" isn't the only possible or existent one.

However, under Giublini & Minerva's definition of person, selling newborns doesn't seem absurd though. Why can't a woman sell her newborn to someone else, if it isn't a person?


I am immensely cute and funny.

Yes, you would be just perfect if you just were a little less humble...

But I wouldn't make you the discourtesy of referring to you as "it", so I was probably not talking abour your persona.


Define sexual violence? Are we talking about it in a legal sense again? I never know.

The way I see it, "sexual violence" is a material phenomenon. "Rape" is the way legal systems frame such phenomenon. Do you disagree with that?


See above. I think I answered that several times now.

Mkay, so you haven't understood at least one of the articles.

Again....see above.


Also..interestingly...you should know that the pro-life crowd actually links abortion to slavery. The more you know...

They also link abortion to "personhood" (indeed, the bills they have more recently tried to pass in the US are nicknamed exactly "Personhood Bills"), but I am aware that they make a very different link than you intend to make ("personhood" is not a premise, so no, they don't "use the same premise" as they do), so I am not going to hold this against you to suggest that you are an anti-abortionist.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think it is you who understands what you are talking about yourself given your paradigm shifts in definitions and making comparisons based on a logical approach which are in fact used by both sides of the equation in the same way.

Your comparison to genocide and slavery is used in exactly the same way, with exactly the same rationale as the opposing side...both arguing the opposite point arrived from applying the same logic. Applying your own arguments made previously in this thread regarding the judicial and legal defintion being the central important definition we should use (in the case of establishing if something is rape or not)...then your own argument shows its invalidity. Ironically applying this same rationale you yourself applied previously would mean that personhood is legally defined. If it is legally defined as some person not actually being a person...then according to your logic...that person is not a person. See what my issue is with your arguments.



Both articles however deal with the same central issue: personhood, its relevance, and its weight towards the personhood of another.

What you seem to confuse is the conclusions and the context in which it is argued.

BOTH however use the cenntral premise: how does personhood of the fetus affect the central issue.

[Luís Henrique]

Your comparison to genocide and slavery is used in exactly the same way, with exactly the same rationale as the opposing side...both arguing the opposite point arrived from applying the same logic. Applying your own arguments made previously in this thread regarding the judicial and legal defintion being the central important definition we should use (in the case of establishing if something is rape or not)...then your own argument shows its invalidity. Ironically applying this same rationale you yourself applied previously would mean that personhood is legally defined. If it is legally defined as some person not actually being a person...then according to your logic...that person is not a person. See what my issue is with your arguments.

And again you miss the point completely.

If the legal system allows for slavery, it must consider some human beings not persons. If a legal system consider some human beings as non-persons, then it at least doesn't close the door to slavery. You cannot have slavery without a juridical concept of (human) non-persons, and if you have a juridical concept of human non-persons, you would have to either allow slavery or rely on some convoluted legal clauses to forbid it.

That's what is considered "discussing the issue under a juridical point of view"; not taking a given legal system (be it that of 2014 Netherlands or 1863 CSA) and then concluding from it whether Blacks are or are not persons (in 1863 CSA, they weren't; in 2014 Netherlands they are).

You can of course discuss those issues from an ethical or moral or biological or religious standpoint. But then your conclusions won't have much juridical standing.

(You can discuss "lying" from a moral point of view, and quite probably conclude it is morally wrong. It doesn't follow that it should be legally forbidden. You can discuss "lying" from a juridical point of view, and quite probably conclude that it is impossible, or undesirable, to forbid it. It doesn't follow that it is morally right.)


Both articles however deal with the same central issue: personhood, its relevance, and its weight towards the personhood of another.

They do deal with the same central issue. Just like an article by Ptolemy and an article by Copernicus would deal with the "same central issue": whether the Earth is the centre of the universe or not. It doesn't mean that they use the same premises, or that their truth value is the same.


What you seem to confuse is the conclusions and the context in which it is argued.

BOTH however use the cenntral premise: how does personhood of the fetus affect the central issue.

This isn't a premise. A premise is not a question (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise).

What you seem impressed by is the fact that I (and of course others) reacted far more violently against Giublini & Minerva's than against Thomson's. That would be because Giublini & Minerva sound as a ridiculous strawmaning of "pro-choice" positions, while Thomson is quite within what one would consider "reasonable". The difference is in their conclusion, of course; but such conclusions are based on their premises. Since neither seem to use particularly faulty logic, it seems that the premises of either one are false. Since the basic premise of Thomson is "personhood is irrelevant for the debate on abortion", and Giublini & Minerva's basic premise is that "personhood is the central point in the debate on abortion", this is more clear: either it is relevant, and Thomson is wrong, or it is not, and Giublini and Minerva are wrong.

Of course, a further point of contention is that both articles confuse the ethical with the juridical debate. And so, the concept of "personhood" they are discussing is not the juridical concept, but the ethical one. This partially explains why Thomson's article is better than Giublini & Minerva's: because the ethical concept of "personhood" is indeed irrelevant to the juridical debate on abortion. It however doesn't show whether the juridical concept of "personhood" is or is not irrelevant to the juridical issue of abortion.

About this, I started this debate with you convinced that the juridical concept of "personhood" is basic to the debate on abortion. On further thought, I am tempted to change my position. It seems to me now that instead of the juridical concept of "personhood" being the base on which legislation on abortion should be conducted, that on the contrary, the juridical concept of "personhood" has to be based on the debate on abortion. But then not the ethical debate on abortion, but the juridical debate on abortion. That the juridical concepts of "personhood" and "abortion" are intimately intertwinned, though, I have little doubt.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

And again you miss the point completely.

If the legal system allows for slavery, it must consider some human beings not persons. If a legal system consider some human beings as non-persons, then it at least doesn't close the door to slavery. You cannot have slavery without a juridical concept of (human) non-persons, and if you have a juridical concept of human non-persons, you would have to either allow slavery or rely on some convoluted legal clauses to forbid it.

That's what is considered "discussing the issue under a juridical point of view"; not taking a given legal system (be it that of 2014 Netherlands or 1863 CSA) and then concluding from it whether Blacks are or are not persons (in 1863 CSA, they weren't; in 2014 Netherlands they aren't).

You can of course discuss those issues from an ethical or moral or biological or religious standpoint. But then your conclusions won't have much juridical standing.

(You can discuss "lying" from a moral point of view, and quite probably conclude it is morally wrong. It doesn't follow that it should be legally forbidden. You can discuss "lying" from a juridical point of view, and quite probably conclude that it is impossible, or undesirable, to forbid it. It doesn't follow that it is morally right.)



They do deal with the same central issue. Just like an article by Ptolemy and an article by Copernicus would deal with the "same central issue": whether the Earth is the centre of the universe or not. It doesn't mean that they use the same premises, or that their truth value is the same.



This isn't a premise. A premise is not a question (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise).

What you seem impressed by is the fact that I (and of course others) reacted far more violently against Giublini & Minerva's than against Thomson's. That would be because Giublini & Minerva sound as a ridiculous strawmaning of "pro-choice" positions, while Thomson is quite within what one would consider "reasonable". The difference is in their conclusion, of course; but such conclusions are based on their premises. Since neither seem to use particularly faulty logic, it seems that the premises of either one are false. Since the basic premise of Thomson is "personhood is irrelevant for the debate on abortion", and Giublini & Minerva's basic premise is that "personhood is the central point in the debate on abortion", this is more clear: either it is relevant, and Thomson is wrong, or it is not, and Giublini and Minerva are wrong.

Of course, a further point of contention is that both articles confuse the ethical with the juridical debate. And so, the concept of "personhood" they are discussing is not the juridical concept, but the ethical one. This partially explains why Thomson's article is better than Giublini & Minerva's: because the ethical concept of "personhood" is indeed irrelevant to the juridical debate on abortion. It however doesn't show whether the juridical concept of "personhood" is or is not irrelevant to the juridical issue of abortion.

About this, I started this debate with you convinced that the juridical concept of "personhood" is basic to the debate on abortion. On further thought, I am tempted to change my position. It seems to me now that instead of the juridical concept of "personhood" being the base on which legislation on abortion should be conducted, that on the contrary, the juridical concept of "personhood" has to be based on the debate on abortion. But then not the ethical debate on abortion, but the juridical debate on abortion. That the juridical concepts of "personhood" and "abortion" are intimately intertwinned, though, I have little doubt.

Luís Henrique

That last part of your post is exactly what I was trying to get at when we first started the discussion about the legal system's defintion of rape. The original position I had and still have is that the legal system is based on the basis of patriarchal and (petit)bourgeois attitudes. Which have no bearing on what we, as feminists, revolutionaries or whatever, hold as being the actually social and economic analysis of these terms.

We can discus the legal system from the perspective of our views as we analyse how it contributes to these concepts (patriarchy/ bourgeoisie society etc) but using the legal system to define the concepts as we analyse them is in my opinion not really the way to go.

I view the articles from the ethical argumentative perspective and their thought rationale that develops from their logical application rather than about their influence on the legal standing. For me, as Rosa said, the abstract of the logic is interesting to follow. The eventual conclusion is for me, merely a thought experiment, which clarifies positions or hands arguments and counter arguments which can be used debating or gives insight in the logical reasoning and consequences of those you are debating with.

I have to keep my reply short because I am currently at work.