User talk:Zarboki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Citation Policy

Zarboki - saw your posts on Suicide by cop and I'd like you to take a look at this if you get the chance. Thanks -Snpoj 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Considerations on Rape

A response to my talk page

Heya. Thanks for actually putting up a bit of thought for your response. I disagree with you at large, however.

Let me explain: Consent is a serious issue. You can not be absolutely sure someone who has given consent is not going to change his opinion in the future. Someone may figure, on second thought, that this and that was a bad idea and it only happened due to the influence of drugs or whatever. Laws that try to outlaw rape in all cases possible, also outlaw sex in all cases possible. In a legal environment where rape is any act of sex that can be construed to have occured out of mental pressure, persuasion, lying etc, virtually any sex act can be construed as rape after the fact. That is why anti-rape laws are in fact anti-sex laws. Poor rape laws can create a bad atmosphere between potentially consensual partners.

I've talked to some girls meanwhile about their "rape" experiences. Some have recounted experiences that I would clearly call rape, where the perpetrator should be punished. But I had a number of experiences recounted, where I was just wondering how the fuck this was supposed to be a rape.

The problem with rape laws is that it gives victims a false pretext of how to handle themselves in a situation they perceive as rape. If rape laws function the way that fairly normal sex acts (like 2 drunk people committing adultery) can be construed as rape, women are basically in legal terms told to shut up, open their legs, and go to the police afterwards. Because this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for rape.

It is the result of those poor rape laws, that victims afterwards are laughed at by the police, that they are being blamed.

What I am in favor of is simply filing "rape" as an assault. No mental trickery hogwash - It gives a totally different message to possible victims of rape: They're supposed to defend themselves. If they got "tricked" into sex, well thats their own damn fault. People get tricked into things all the time, people learn, people get tricked less often.

Rape must be defined as a sex act taken by force. Force is the keyword. It can be defended against with a larger amount of force.

Remember: Victims of a non-sexual assault can also feel shame. If you are attacked, your natural instinct is to defend yourself, and failing to do so you fail nature's expectations. About rape, people are, at large, just very confused because many rape laws are in fact very poor and, at best, only usable as general anti-sex laws. Because they do not give sufficient guidance to explain people what a rape is and what not.

So I am not trying to defend rape, I am attacking bad anti-rape laws that confuse people more than anything. If its rape, the victim's been forced - by force. And that just so closely matches a broad definition of assault, that I'm inclined to argue that rape laws are not necessary at all.

About you dismissing arming everyone.

if people can get easy access to weapons, the perpetrators of these crimes are even more likely to be armed

But much more so, the victims are going to be. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

The problem with guns is that most people are idiots that never learned to deal with weapons (not just guns) in an orderly fashion. An armed civil population where you can learn "defensive shooting 101" in highschool would not have this problem - People pulling out weapons at the most inappropriate times would calmy be explained why and how what they just did was very inappropriate.

A sword is a very dangerous weapon once it is removed from the holster. Take a bad step, or someone bumping into you while you're holding a sword, and someone's going to lose an arm or worse. The ancient Samurai had this little rule that one would never display the blade of their sword in public - unless they were about to massacre someone.

I'm from switzerland. Every able-bodied swiss male has an assault rifle at home. Basically everybody knows how guns work, what they can do, and how they have to be respected - nobody is scared of them or their bearers. The only ones occasionally freaking out in presence of a gun, are, what I call, hippie kids that have neither had parents nor have themselves learned to deal with guns in a constructive manner. So it is basically just knowledge, or a lack thereof, that seperates gun advocates and hippie kids.

Modern society largely has not yet learned to deal with violence and force in an orderly fashion. This is what links the bad rape laws with the polarizing opinion on firearms. Dabljuh 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up.

You reduce "false rape" claims to people (women) changing their minds. But if rape is sex without consent, it does not require anyone changing his mind. It can be people feeling ambivalent or curious beforehand. Ambivalence or curiousity do not imply consent. Cooperation does not imply consent. And you cannot prove consent unless you have maybe signed a consent form, into which you could have been tricked / coerced to sign. Don't you see the huge plunge into plain old fashioned insanity the legal system takes when rape is sex without consent?

I am aware that it is hard for women to get rape claims heard etc, I am aware of that. What I am trying to explain to you is this is exactly the result of exaggerated rape laws. If rape was just a special form of assault, there would not be little misunderstanding to what constitutes a rape and what not. This would serve the potential victims as well as everybody else, especially the legal system and the police.

I am not familiar enough with the example of South Africa that you bring up. From experience, if a statisticly huge drop like 60% in a short time for something that is greatly influenced by social mores (which usually take ~50 to 150 years to change), then this is most likely caused by a change in the way the figures are obtained.

You bring up the example of date rape not being covered by the definition of "sex by force". You have some pretty messed up ideas. Drugs are force. For example, the police tries to use knock-out gas to remedy certain hostile situations, and they refer to these gases as "non-lethal force". Similiar to another example, where people are "just holding you down, not hurting you to rape you" - holding someone down - by force - is force. Locking someone up in a basement, only to offer food and water in exchange for sexual service - is also using force (if you have thought about bringing that example up).

The second half of your post mostly rambles about how expensive guns are. Yes, they are way too expensive, but the reason for them being expensive has a lot to do with government regulations regarding the manufacture and sale of firearms. As for an unsightly bulge when carrying a weapon - I've got some more unsightly bulges than that, and women tend carry purses perfect for concealed carry. So, women have an easier time to carry guns.

God, I want it to be socially acceptable for men to carry a purse. But then again, it looks like total ass.

Every civilized society requires all its citizens to be armed at all times. Because violence is the very foundation of a state - The state removes the right to be violent to each other from the people, and instead claims a monopoly on violence, and resolves disputes with a legal system, and enforces the laws with an armed police force. But when the state is the only one controlling violence in its controlled territory, nobody controls the state to prevent government abuse, totalitarian laws, dictatorships. Aside from discouraging small time petty criminals, an armed civil population has the benefit of being able to remove a government once it no longer serves its purpose - that is, the well-being of the citizens - and replace it with a new government, preferrably with the severed heads of the old goverment decorating the state capital just to remind the new goverment what happens when they step out of line. As such, any effort to outlaw an armed civil society must be punished harshly. Dabljuh 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: Oh boy...

I am simply saying no means no and if you carry on after that point it is rape. This is a simple barrier and it is not that hard a rule for people to follow.

By that standard, I have been raped many many times. Bullshit? Of course. Did I just give in after S.O. nagged and begged? Yep. Should I get her a nice set of professional vibrators? You bet.

Ok so maybe my definition of force is different to yours. Lets put a different example on the table. Lets say person A is drugged by person B. Person C (who is unconnected to Person B) notices that Person A is intoxicated and decides to take advantage. Person C has not used any force but this is still a case of unconsensual sex.

Lets say Person A is a bank. Person B goes into the bank A with a gun. Person C takes the money. Now did Person B rob the bank or Person C? Welcome to some parts of the legal system not totally fucked up. Nursing homes etc are a much more interesting subject, but also already covered by law. Assume the Kill Bill scenario. Someone's in a coma or otherwise KO. Now instead of raping (taking advantage, putting the wee wee into the hoo hoo, whatever you want to call it) he cuts the victim's hair in a really unfashionable way. Or amputates an arm. Whatever. Injury is done - thats an assault. Already covered by law, no need for weird anti-sex laws.

c’mon how often do we see a need for an armed uprising in civilized society?

RIGHT ABOUT NOW! VIVA LA REVOLUCION! FIGHT THE POWER! ETC!

The argument I was making about where to carry the weapon was saying that if you have a gun in your handbag it is not going to help you much if you are jumped by your assailant. In fact it might encourage risky behaviour that could get you killed.

So your argument is, a gun in your pocket is going to get you killed because... Uh-huh.

You fail. But thanks for trying.

Dabljuh 05:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is an issue that we are going to have to agree to disagree on as you ignore anything that you do not have an answer for and appear incapable of compromise. Zarboki 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of compromise or "Middle way" strategies. [1] Now, what do you really want an answer to? I mean, like, pick one thing. The problem is that your methodology of thinking appears fundamentally flawed. I cannot correct every single one of your flawed thoughts, which is what you seem to expect from me. If you pick one issue and compare my thoughts on the subject to your own, you may be able to figure out where, fundamentally, our schools of thought diverge. You need to find the underlying logic that we do not agree on, anything else is just a waste of time, even when it's fun to ridicule you. Dabljuh 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I really am not at all fazed by your thinking. As to compromising well I had thought from your user page that you were capable of changing your mind on some things but clearly Information Darwinism is simply code for pig-headedness. You say things like "flawed thoughts" and that I have lost. Well buddy, I think you'll find that I have opinions on these particular issues that are fairly mainstream. The holder of the minority opinion (you) is the one who needs to convince everyone else not visa versa. I can see the logic behind your arguments and that you think that they would be beneficial. But I can also see that most of what you propose would actually cause more problems than they would address. The only other thing I can say in your favour is at least you understand you are a Net.kook.

Issues that you have ignored/brushed over

• The data suggest rape victims suffer more psychological trauma than other victims of assault.
• You claim to want rape treated simply as assault in one instance and then go and suggest it should be a special form of assault. (which it is)
• Having rape as a separate category of crime allows for special systems to be in place for victims and court systems.

On the guns issues

• Who do you actually propose giving these weapons to?

OT but have you used popups? They display the first paragraph and picture that is at the target of an internal link. Your first display picture on it is somewhat different to the first picture on your site... You may be annoying someone a little bit. But I had nothing to do with it. Zarboki 08:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. First to your analysis. Information darwinism is the opposition to pig-headedness. Bring me the right arguments and I will be convinced - as anyone should be. But failing to do so you cannot convince me. You cannot convince me by begging, threats, bullying, bribing and whatever else you can think of. Only the argument is what counts. What's "right" is not defined by the mainstream opinion. If 2000 years ago, people largely figured slavery was the right thing, or that the earth was flat, or that violent computer games turn people into mass murderers, that doesn't make it anyhow right. The truth is not found by a demoscopic process, but instead, by an organic, darwinistic process that Information darwinism tries to understand and act in accordance with.

I do consider your thoughts on the subject flawed on a deeper level. Part of our problem to communicate is certainly because of the limitations of language. When we use words, and you understand certain words to have a different meaning than how I understand them (e.g. "Force") then we can not engage in a proper dialogue without first sorting out the terminology required. So if you do find that I use a word in a different way than how you would use it, or anything else "weird", request from me a definition of the term. This is purely the linguistic barrier that must be overcome.

Now to some items that I seem to have brushed over:

• The data suggest rape victims suffer more psychological trauma than other victims of assault.

What data? By what standards? Someone beaten into a bloody pulp, robbed, or whatever, may well suffer more severe psychological trauma than someone who is victim to "rape" by lax standards. These are problems rooted in terminology. If you want us to waste literally weeks to figure out the truthfulness of the statement "rape victims are off worse than regular assault victims" then I have to say, no thanks. Because as a categorical statement, I can tell you right away - that is false.

• You claim to want rape treated simply as assault in one instance and then go and suggest it should be a special form of assault. (which it is)

It is a (special) form of assault. That does not mean it needs to be treated with different standards than other, specicific (! better terminology?) forms of assault. Assault with a gardening rake is also a special form of assault, that doesn't mean it has to be treated fundamentally different from assault with a pitchfork. Again, terminology appears to be the problem.

• Having rape as a separate category of crime allows for special systems to be in place for victims and court systems.

This is not something that I have "brushed over". That is what you appear to be in favor of. I disagree strongly. If someone's victim of a criminal offense, he should not be treated "specially" - that is, not like other victims of criminal offenses. Otherwise you are just asking for rape victims being ridiculed by society / police / legal system while non-sexual assault victims get treated fairly. I claim that only if there is no legal difference between sexual assault and non sexual assault, that sexual assault victims (and perpetrators) can be treated fairly as everyone would wish.

• Who do you actually propose giving these weapons to?

How exactly is it my job to decide who should get weapons? I would assume, similiar standards to car ownership and gun ownership should be applied. Both cars and guns are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands - lethal weapons you might say - but both serve an useful purpose: Security and Transportation. I do not think that anyone should be denied the right to own a handgun. And I certainly do not credit a state institution with the rights to decide who gets to own one and who doesnt. But what exactly are you asking me for? Elaborate the legislature of my dreams? I don't see sense in asking me that.

Well, there you have it. Basically all of the issues I have "brushed over" in your mind come down to linguistic issues, terminology and the such. The answers are irrelevant as they can never be given without a ludicrous amount of detail given to the questions. I've known this - This is one of the underlying problems that you have - You fail to identify different uses of terminology and resolve them accordingly. But I would suspect that we have even deeper still disagreements on very many things than just the attitude of resolving conflicts of terminology. This is why I suspect your methodology of thinking is deeply flawed - rather than my own. And that is why I tried to tell you "You first need to get your shit straight" before we can argue on actual subjects like rape legislature and social consequences thereof in a productive manner.

I assume you will misunderstand many of the things I said in this post right away, and fail to realize the true meaning of many others for a long time. So I would ask you not to right away try to give me a rebuttal (you will fail, again) and instead reconsider the very basics of your discussion strategy. Things like these need time to sink in, and you need to practice. Maybe then I will reconsider my strategy of "making my opponent look like a dumb fuck" as well. Yeah I'm a jerk, but it saves everybody's time if I don't have to explain "Argument 101" to everyone who disagrees with something I say. Remember the bystanders - They might not understand "Argument 101" either, and just go by "whoever looks better" during the argument. Getting what's right out is also part of information darwinism. While teaching people the methods required to find the truth (the scientific method, proper argument etc) is fundamental, we just are not there yet, sadly.

Dabljuh 05:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts before I head of to Europe for a long pleasant holiday - I would like to make a few points. Yes you seem to be a jerk - this is not likely to win you many arguments as even if the people you are trying to convince agree with you on any points they will not concede them because, well you seem to be a jerk.

The question of who you would give guns to, well perhaps I was giving you too much credit as I just summarised it the last time rather than repeating my previous two posts. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit again, but it is more likely that I really don't care.

As to whether a separate category is warranted for rape, well you seem to have agreed that there is a low conviction rate for it and all the other indicators don't look so good either, why you can't acknowledge that a separate court system with perhaps specialist lawyers and judges might be a better option than simply reclassifying rape as sex-by-force may just be linguistic but probably more to do with you not wanting to change your mind. Your post to Talk:Rape indicated that you wanted someone to please explain (to) you why the system is as it is. I was simply responding to that. Maybe you wanted someone to explain you. Well that is something that is well beyond my abilities at present.

As to whether the majority is always right. If you actually read my post you will see that I did not say anything like that and was responding to your childish "you lose" comment. I said "The holder of the minority opinion (you) is the one who needs to convince everyone else not visa versa". This is to say, I may or may not be right but currently my way is the way things are done and so unless you convince me – and a lot of people like me – "you lose" (not visa-versa). Zarboki 14:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American strong ale

I'm proposing a redirect to Pale Ale. SilkTork