Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

softwareNerd

Admin
  • Content count

    12990
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    189

softwareNerd last won the day on July 19

softwareNerd had the most liked content!

About softwareNerd

  • Rank
    Proud Father

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://practiceGoodTheory.blogspot.com
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info
    [email protected]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    My wife and kid. Software. Finance.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    sNerd
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    55 yrs old
  • Occupation
    Software Development

Recent Profile Visitors

50918 profile views
  1. Immigration as related to loyalty

    Wow! Amazing. Totally convinced now.
  2. Immigration as related to loyalty

    I think they're completely linked. His position on NAFTA is bad too: well correlated with his views on immigration. These are different variants of protectionist policies.
  3. Immigration as related to loyalty

    Sure: but it should be a reason, not a rationalization. When people talk about keeping Muslims out, even if I disagree, I can see how they would link that to self-defense. Similarly, I can understand applying it to gangs -- even though I think deportation is far less ineffective than putting people in jail. However, the real issue in immigration, and the biggest numbers are people who are kept out for no plausible rational moral reason related to self-defense.
  4. Immigration as related to loyalty

    No. JASKN was essentially saying "others should be free too:. That's being principled, not altruistic. You may be reading altruism into it via some assumptions you're making about the type of people who are immigrants, and the motives you're assuming. The words on the statue of liberty could be characterized as altruistic, though I would dispute that too. However, what JASKN said are much clearer than those words. He is saying that hard-working, honest people should not be restricted from coming to the U.S. The argument that US has the right to restrict who enters wiggles around the essential issue, by being incomplete. U.S. citizens have no right to enact laws that violate other people's individual rights, including their freedom of association and their freedom of movement, without good, moral reason.
  5. Are We Going to Go to War with North Korea?

    Large, rich neighbors are a strategic threat.
  6. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Thanks for the discussion. I hope it was of some type of value to you. I do understand the the frustration and partial invisibility that comes when two people find themselves talking across an epistemological chasm.
  7. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    That progression is what I meant when I said that if I were a juror, I'd want to roll back a minute or so before the penetration, to understand what happened. When I read the original example, the thing that immediately struck me as inexplicable is the sudden appearance of the penis in the vagina. What! where did that come from? That's not this works. In the movies, the guy will work wonders. He'll throw the woman here of there, sometimes lifted up and against a wall, like one of those virtuouso well-built porn starts, and hit is target spot on. Real life doesn't work that way. There's so much more groping and positioning, and most of the time, the woman has to help the guy or he has to probe like he has feelers. If a lawyer were to question the witness, I'd expect to find details such as: he'd got her underwear off with help from her. that he'd stimulated her, that he had repositioned his body in a way that made it possible to enter her, that he has using his penis to probe around her vagina... the details would vary but there would almost certainly be some such lead up, lasting some length of time. I'd be open to testimony that said otherwise, but I'd want to hear it specifically. The second thing I'd question is that she could not simply tut-tut him. Saying no is in pretty integral to couples who have not yet decided how far they want to go. For instance, a girl might tell a boy that she's okay only kissing him. They're kissing and he places his hand on the narrow of her waist and starts to caress her, moving it toward her breast. This probably happens a million times all around the world. It is not the act of some weirdo, but the method but which consent is probed. Heck, she may not even say she's okay being kissed. He might move in and she might allow it. A small twitch in this direction or the other is usually sufficient. Millions of women do this, even if it is their first time. Or maybe she allows his hands on her breast through her clothes, and then his lips go down to her neck. Again, no explicit permission was requested. He might progress lower moving from neck in the direction of her breasts. And so on... none of this is sexual assault as such. For it to be sexual assault, we'd need something more than the progression. We'd need some indication -- however small -- that the woman did not want this. And, importantly, in the progression above, we'd want this indication to be external. We'll agree that it is not sufficient to say that she was moaning with pleasure while being disgusted with herself. But, similarly, we can't take her unexpressed shyness or other internal state of mind as enough to make this sexual assault. We know that Sally had no problem talking about sex and limits. To me, as a juror, it does not sound plausible that she suddenly loses all agency and does not do what is so routine that it is almost second nature. These are the things I meant when I said that one has to make the concept concrete. One cannot simply scan for one aspect. Also, rape is mot just consent. Nor it is just sexual assault. Another way of answering "what is rape" is not to start with concretes first, but to ask why we need this concept. We're talking of a concept that is primarily a legal concept. Just as we have misdemeanors and felonies, to distinguish degrees to crime, we distinguish between rape and sexual-assault. Attorney's ill go further and may have multiple "degrees" of sexual assault. Rape comes beyond all that. So, when we ask "is this rape", we're asking "is this an extremely serious sexual assault that has gone beyond other types of sexual assault". But, there's more... if we keep the concept real, we understand that the whole idea of such concepts is to indicate the penalties. If we are in the U.S., the average sentence for rape is over 9 years, with the criminals ending up actually serving over 5 years. So, when we ask: "is this rape", we're asking "is this a sexual assault that is serious enough to send a person to jail for 5 years or so". One might reject this by saying that that is a different issue. Why talk about sentences? Well, take a rape where a taxi driver veers into a dark alley, holds his passenger down, tears off her clothes, and ignoring her screams and fists, violates her. Perhaps he is strong enough that he does not do her much lasting bodily harm. The bruises might heal in a few weeks, but we all understand that the trauma will be there for ages, perhaps forever. We understand that this goes beyond sexual assault where someone feels up a girl in a crowd. We understand that we want to get the perpetrator off the streets for a long time. All this is the reason we need a separate concept in the first place. So, when one thinks of concepts, one cannot divorce this from the need for the concept and all the concretes around that need. We need the concept of rape to describe serious sexual assault for which we're happy to deliver at least some serious jail time. All this is part of how one thinks about concrete instances. That's what I meant when I said that it goes beyond scanning words in an example.
  8. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Fair enough, but to me the most interesting part is how one draws the line. Not interested so much in a precise line. As with abortion, I realize its a continuum. I also purposely wanted to consider a blow-job, because I want to understand how much the actor's gender plays a role. If we assume that they agreed "no oral" and if we add in an assumption that he did not ask for one previously, it sounds like you think that Sally may be guilty of some degree of sexual assault if she starts to give him one. You say that she should stop if he tells her to stop. Would it be (minor) sexual assault even before he asks? If not, then isn't there an inconsistency in considering penetration rape ... since they agreed no oral and no penetration? What if she says 'no" and he immediately withdraws, realizing he has gone too far. I assume that would still be rape?
  9. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    That's the crux of the example, and when I read it, my first thought was that there's an unexplained gap in the narrative. We suddenly find the guy's penis inside the woman's vagina. If I were a juror, I'd want to roll the tape back about a minute and understand what actually took place. How does one approach such an example: does one try to hypothesize the possible realities? Or does one scan for consent within the example as presented? We know that rape is not a synonym for a lack of consent. I mean: lack of consent is clearly a crucial aspect, but what else? Lack of consent to what? Not to the use of a car (to be silly about this), Well... to sex. But...what is sex? I should apologize for sounding like Bill Clinton, but that's a legit question in a forum like this, where members want to dissect things minutely. Is the penetration of a vagina by a penis a crucial aspect in rape? I assume we can all agree that if he turned her over and penetrated her anally, that would be rape too? So, is some type of penetration essential? The example says they agreed no oral. So, what if he slipped down and started licking her clitoris? Would that be rape? What if she had slipped down and started giving him a blowjob? Would that be rape?
  10. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Do you mean you aren't sure how to classify that from a legal perspective, or that you'd need more facts? If it were to be legal rape, who would be raping whom? Would it always be the man raping the woman, or would it be the person who is less drunk?
  11. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Is that ambiguous or is it "not rape"?
  12. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    As I said to Eiuol, the original poster was trying to come up with an example that was borderline, yet one that would be a litmus test where he and those who passed his test would call this rape. I'm curious how you would alter some facts in this example to make it borderline/ambiguous. Or is that something that cannot be done?
  13. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    The author of the example wanted to present an example that he would call rape, but was using it as a litmus test. So, he was trying to come up with an example that might be consider a borderline type of case. Any thoughts on how one would alter the example to make it truly borderline and ambiguous, in your view?
  14. Are We Going to Go to War with North Korea?

    Wear their realpolitik hat, China understands that any move away from the Kim dynasty can lead to a slow opening of North Korea, where it starts to follow the Chinese model of 1978. However, with South Korea so much richer, we could end up with a unified Korea in one generation. China does not want a unified Korea on its doorstep: it sees a strong Japan as a bad enough problem. In addition, having Kim yap at the U.S. does give China an occasional bone they can throw to the U.S. in calming him down. But, this is not a big deal. A united Korea is -- in their reckoning.
  15. I saw this question on Facebook. The author has tried to make an example that is as close to the line of "ambiguous consent" as he could devise I wondered how folks on the forum would answer:
×