You think they would behave differently if they're sober?
Maybe, but ultimately everyone is responsible for themselves even when they make poor choices. "I was drunk" is no justification for rape.
Sober people fear consequences.
Yes, some do.
You think they would behave differently if they're sober?
Maybe, but ultimately everyone is responsible for themselves even when they make poor choices. "I was drunk" is no justification for rape.
Sober people fear consequences.
Yes, some do.
as to who did the incapacitating
'In and out of awareness' is incapacitated. Who did it is irrelevant to the question.
When both parties self-incapacitate, assigning malice becomes extremely difficult without cultural bias tipping the scales one way.
The 'incapacitation' of the accused is debatable. None are reported to have been in and out of awareness. ...which makes guilt obvious and one-sided.
She named all 7 as rapists or sexual assaulters,
And? Are you suggesting her naming them somehow means she consented? That doesnt follow.
Since you're having difficulty, the answer is 'no'. Consent requires a minimum level of mental acuity, and someone in and out of consciousness doesn't have it.
It was a simple question. I dont think anyone denies she agreed to have sex with certain individuals. The problem is that individuals she didnt agree to had sex with her. So, is there a right to a woman's body if they are incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent?
Do men have a right to a woman's body if she is incapacitated in their presence?
"The transcript shows she distinguished the initial sexual activity from what she says happened later, and when asked whether she was OK with the initial encounter, she said, "Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there ... But I was pretty OK with all of this."
Jane Doe added, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."
According to the transcript, she said she didn't remember the end of the night "where I was raped" and didn't know how many people had sex with her.
When describing what happened later in the night, the transcript says Jane Doe said, "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped."
[Link]
Imagine thinking society can exist with women having the freedom to take whatever drugs they want and then expect men to take responsibility for her choices at the same time.
How about men taking responsibility for their own choices?
Yes, 56 men should have stopped a woman from getting Drunk. And should have thrown a Hijab over her head while they were at it.
Imagine thinking the problem is her getting drunk, and not the 7 men who assaulted her or the others who treated her trauma like a spectator sport.
The problem isnt alcohol. It's that these individuals disregarded the most intimate and fundamental boundary. ...and at least 56 others did nothing to stop it.
Rapists should get raped by a machine.
State sponsored rape is a 'yikes' if I ever heard one.
Where is the 'should/ought' in the statement you highlighted?
She is beautiful, but not my preference
No judgement from me - to each their own.
SatanLucy wrote:
Where is the 'should/ought' in the statement you highlighted?
In my argument, it was about what should be done. That was pretty much clear from start. You saying what IS done in some countries is just is ought irrelevant fallacy.
Where is the 'should/ought' in the statement you highlighted? 🤔
Negative - there is no moral endorsement.
I clarified my position bunch of times
Not really. Even your clarifications don't rule out the problematic interpretation of your original statement [Post #5] Case in point:
"Same as legal punishment for murder/abortion."
The issue is that your 'clarifications' rely on a false equivalence. Everyone reading this knows that the legal system treats murder and abortion entirely differently. By conflating the two, you leave the door open for the interpretation that you support zero penalties for rape. If that is not your position, then ambiguity is doing you no favors.
editing my words when you reply to them.
Everyone can clearly see what I quoted came from you. That being said, I am happy you didn't mean what you said and that my alarm was unwarranted.
Legally, it should be same as for rape.
There is no punishment for having an abortion.
Punishment for rape should be same as punishment for abortion.
Given there is no penalty for abortion, this argues rape should have no penalty. I really hope that's not what you meant.
Nope, but I appreciate the strawman.
Okay, what is the punishment for having an abortion? Let's say an abortion after 6 weeks in a state with a 'heartbeat' bill. What's the punishment you want applied to rape?
...vast majority of people advocating against abortion would want exceptions for them
And this is exactly why 'rape should have the same penalty as abortion' is ambiguous. I want to hear his explanation. What is he advocating?
Eh, that's kind of jumping to a rare exception to avoid addressing the broader point.
What is the broader point?
Regardless, it was carelessly worded as abortion is only illegal where a particular ideology holds sway. Even then, there are typically exceptions. Murder and rape are pretty much universally illegal.
It could be he is arguing there should be no penalty for rape. Yikes. I was hoping he would clarify.
On paper, rape and murder are pretty much universally a crime. (Not so much for abortion)
Both murder and rape steal a life; the difference is only in who survives to mourn it.
I always thought that Halle Berry was gorgeous back in the day.
Right along with everyone else possessing a pulse.
She is still gorgeous at 60:
Punishment for rape should be same as punishment for abortion.
There should be a punishment for aborting an ectopic pregnancy, you say?
Sounds like an uninformed opinion to me....
Its not a promise, but a statement of fact. Interpersonal relationships teach us about other people - not just the broad picture, but the granular view. What motivates them, what scares them, their life priorities, etc. Its a completely different (and more accurate) view than what you might get from a distance or through a digital medium.
Even more, interpersonal relationships let us see ourself through another person's eyes - warts and all. It gives us a chance to see what is admirable and to polish what isnt.
SatanLucy wrote:
My updated thoughts are that relationships aren't worth it. I realized being alone builds brain while being in relationship makes person too busy to think.
Many valuable things can be learned from relationships - even bad ones.
No opinion on the penalty for rape then?
A man that rapes a woman deserves the same penalty that Lindsay Clancy will get for murdering her kids (I don't know the penalty she got yet).
I dont really see what Lindsey Clancy has to do with rape penalty. If your mother or sister was the victim, would you have an opinion then?
The claim that the heart is 60–65% neural tissue is false. The heart is almost entirely muscle cells. Its "little brain" consists of just 40,000 neurons used for local pumping reflexes. The human gut has 500 million neurons. If this theory had any merit, the gut should rate above the heart I'd think. Regardless, neither have a role in generating conscious identity.
The heart’s magnetic field is subject to physics (like everything in the physical world) and obeys the inverse-square law. It drops to near-zero millimeters from the skin. It does not project a 12-foot interactive bubble (that's demonstrably false), and the brain does not decode it to create our internal experience.
The most damning proof against a heart-centered consciousness comes from modern surgery. Patients who receive artificial hearts have their biological hearts completely removed and replaced with plastic pumps. They experience no loss of memory, no loss of emotion, and no loss of personal identity. On the other hand, a brain-dead patient can have a perfectly beating heart, but their consciousness is gone forever. Regular biological heart transplants go through denervation as well (the vagus and inputs are severed) - there is no effect to consciousness.
Ultimately, you're confusing something that can influence the mind with something that generates it. The heart provides feedback to the brain (eg. racing heart = anxiety), but it is the brain that compiles those signals into the consciousness, not the other way around.
Also, fwiw, chalk eating generally isn't about low calcium, but low iron. Chalk is useless in solving this deficiency. PICA is a neurological error that drives a craving for texture and eating useless things. ..Not some type of systemic (sub)consciousness.
The most puzzling part for me is that you're argument is meant to refute consciousness being emergent from the physical brain, but every part of your post advocates for consciousness coming from a brain of some type or other. If it weren't for the factual errors, psuedoscience, and running counter to scientific consensus I could be on-board. Its more plausible than independent spaceless mental stuff.
I can never find the time, I'm going to end up giving it in an abbreviated form, or in pieces in this thread. I retired a little over a year ago and I wondered what I would do with myself, but now I can't figure out how I found the time to go to work.
I hope to have the same issue when I retire. *fingers crossed*
You want the dualist perspective to be explained within your materialist framework;
I've never requested that. I was hoping you might explain your perspective a little better. That is all.
These are declarations of faith, rather than arguments.
It is a declaration of faith to point out how attacks miss because they assume a dualist perspective? Okay. If you say so. I'm not here to bicker.
Will you tackle the emergence problem head on?
I cant. Its called the "hard problem of consciousness" for a reason. Being unable to answer this question is not a reason to accept dualism though. Ignorance doesnt prove dualism.
That being said, I didnt see anything arguing for dualism - only attacks against materialism. Is your acceptance of substance dualism built on attacks of materialism? If so, I dont think your views are necessarily warranted.
More probably what happens is you have one consciousness that is aware of what happens in one half of the brain but not in the other.
...Aware of what happens in one half of the brain, but not the other? It's almost as if it was completely dependent on the matter of the brain. Tell me more.
Something that isn't material is nonmaterial"
This is a distinctly different sentiment than "this seems unlikely to have a material cause, thus the cause is probably nonmaterial".
One is a tautology. The other is a fallacy.