…and this is a 
It's odd, but several of the major sex abuse cases involving the Catholic church involve deaf kids. I didn't understand why, until I heard this song. And now I have to get some q-tips and sulfuric acid and scrub out my ears.
For a not-quite-so entertaining story, read this account of Father Oliver O'Grady, a despicable monster who committed all kinds of depravities.
O'Grady has admitted abusing many children of various ages, boys and girls, and said he slept with two mothers to get access to their children. He was convicted of child sexual abuse in 1993 and spent seven years in prison.
Now here's where the Catholic church simply doesn't get it. The few priests who didn't like this fellow, who wanted to get rid of him, are making excuses for their inaction even after his criminal conviction. It was too hard to defrock a priest, they say, it took a long time and lots of paperwork, and there was no guarantee the process would even come to a successful conclusion, which says to me that there are some serious problems of the institution of the church, and that maybe they should be working on fixing it so the kind of moral turpitude involved in molesting five year old girls would be sufficient grounds to swiftly eject someone from the priesthood. But no! Institutional change in the church is not a goal to which they aspire.
But still, they didn't like having O'Grady around: he smelled bad to the press, and he probably spooked off some of the less gullible marks in the pews. They had to get rid of him, but simply finding him morally unfit does not get you out of the priesthood. So what to do?
They bought him off. They got him to voluntarily leave the priesthood for the price of a monthly annuity for his retirement. It wasn't a lot — $788 a month — but there's a principle involved. Father O'Grady raped small children for 17 years, was convicted of his crimes by a secular court, but the Catholic Church is paying him money. And they don't see the problem with that.
"Yes, he did a terrible thing," Doerr [associate director of the office of Child and Youth Protection for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] said, but a bishop has a responsibility to take care of priests in any case — he can't just kick them to the curb.
I guess the Bishop didn't see his responsibilities to the innocent church-goers of O'Grady's diocese as very important; they can be kicked to the curb. Once a priest, always a priest, though, and no heinous crime against children is sufficient to warrant stopping the payment of hush money.
Comments
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 4, 2010 3:47 PM
And once again we are face with the fact that in the Catholic Church a nun is automatically excommunicated for approving a medical procedure to save a woman's life, but a priest can't even lose his priesthood after being convicted of child rape. Some priorities.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 4, 2010 3:50 PM
I saw Cuttlefish around today so I wanted to try to write a poem about this. It didn't go well. See for yourself:
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
June 4, 2010 3:50 PM
Pedophiles never stop, he will continue to abuse children until he breathes his last, given the chance. The only "cure" for Pedophilia is locking them up and throwing away the key. You can't cure it. And the catholic cult seriously makes my skin crawl.
Posted by: davehog.myopenid.com
|
June 4, 2010 3:54 PM
What's terrible is that the shear volume of incidents of the catholic (sic) clergy raping children is actually serving to desensitize the public to the horrible reality of it. It is truly and thoroughly disgusting.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 4, 2010 3:56 PM
I don't want them kicked to the curb, I want them marched into the police station.
Also, it's funny how they have "responsibility" to take care of pedophile priests, but not for nuns who taught school or worked in hospitals for decades.
Posted by: cervantes
|
June 4, 2010 3:59 PM
Well see, the really great part of the whole deal is that we're all sinners, but all you have to do is pray to Jesus, go to confession, say a few rosaries, kiss a relic or two, and Shazzaaam! You're forgiven. You get to wipe it all clean and start over.
You can do that as many times as you like. So not a problem.
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
June 4, 2010 4:00 PM
Gus, KOPD, Zoot: You said it all for me.
And Harry Shearer pretty much nails it. I expect Bill Donohue of the Catholic League to issue a fatwa against him, calling him an Evil Hollywood Jew.
Posted by: Sunday Afternoon
|
June 4, 2010 4:01 PM
Words escape me on the subject, but this is one of the best pieces of black comedy I have seen for a long time.
This should be distributed far and wide. Oh wait, it's on Pharyngula...
Posted by: raven
|
June 4, 2010 4:01 PM
I've been reading accounts of refugees from the fundie churches lately, something I knew little about. There aren't that many fundies around here and they have never run in my circles.
They also have routine problems with pedophiles and sexually aggressive ministers too. It seems to be endemic and common.
Same goes for the Mormons.
About all I've learned so far is that financial and moral corruption is common in authoritarian organizations. The more controlling and cultlike the churches, the more likely they will have these sorts of problems. And they all seem to have them to some extent.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 4, 2010 4:03 PM
I'm sure they also are paying the victims, right? I mean, a bishop has a responsibility to take care of the victims of priests in any case — he can't just kick them to the curb. Right?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/1Izyn_kth_xsRmHxxtSXZ3FlvUvWaBzy_.askSfxJcoBev1yPl1_#6f8c7
|
June 4, 2010 4:12 PM
I think I prefer Apoclyptica's "I'm Not Jesus" link.
Unfortunately I think that this isn't going to end soon. The veil of secrecy and fear that the Catholic church has kept over this issue is well and truly rent; and while I might hope that at least some of those in positions of authority will be brought before the courts its probably more likely that I''ll become catholic myself before it happens.
Posted by: Jimbo
|
June 4, 2010 4:13 PM
While I am as disgusted an everyone here with the behaviour of the Catholic church, what about our failed secular laws. How does a man (preist or not) convicted of molesting children get only seven years in prison. In my opinion the only acceptable sentence for any adult molesting a five year old child should be life without parole.
Posted by: legistech
|
June 4, 2010 4:13 PM
*cheers for KOPD's literary brilliance*
He didn't do "a terrible thing." He did many terrible things, over a long, long period of time.
I don't see how more priests don't simply quit in disgust.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 4, 2010 4:15 PM
"O'Grady has admitted abusing many children of various ages, boys and girls, and said he slept with two mothers to get access to their children."
Just when you think they couldn't get any skeevier...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 4, 2010 4:18 PM
Harry Shearer's song is a different way of expressing the idea in Tim Minchin's Pope Song.
Posted by: Doktor Jerusalem
|
June 4, 2010 4:19 PM
Y'know the Big Lie that Hitler wrote about?
Who would have thought the Big Lie was that the church *wasn't* systematically raping children and then rewarding the rapists with protection, money, and new victims?
(I hereby accept the incurred Godwin, and feel it was a worthy sacrifice).
Posted by: fireweaver
|
June 4, 2010 4:22 PM
@Zoot Capri #3: I don't want to lock them up. Maintaining them is too expensive. I say kill them as quickly as possible and move on.
Posted by: carver
|
June 4, 2010 4:30 PM
One of the things that has to be kicked to curb is the "sanctity" of the confessional. Lawyers have attorney/client privilege, as doctors have doctor/patient privilege, however, they can not withhold evidence if a court order is issued or if they have foreknowledge of an imminent crime. But, the church ignores those consideration and places their "sanctity of the confessional" above the law.
So any child humping priest just confesses his sins to each of his brethren and no one can then speak of it - how enterprising of them.
Screw their sanctity!
Posted by: geniusofevil
|
June 4, 2010 4:34 PM
Sure, pay the pedopriests and evict the retired nuns to sell their land to pay the lawsuits for the pedopriests.
That's Catholicism at work!
Posted by: ckitching
|
June 4, 2010 5:10 PM
And what of the falsely accused? Errors in the justice system do occur, and it's damn hard to reverse killing someone. So, no, don't kill them. Lock them up in a small, poorly lit room for the rest of their lives.
Besides, have you seen what it costs to execute someone? It's far more expensive than life imprisonment. There are endless appeals, which are almost always heard because of the fact that execution is very final. The actual process of execution is also quite pricey (doctors, technicians, etc have to be on hand).
Posted by: Givesgoodemail
|
June 4, 2010 5:13 PM
So it's difficult to defrock a priest--lots of paperwork and trouble, and no guarantee that it'll work.
Of course it's much easier to get completely excommunicated from the Church--just ordain a female priest, or approve an abortion to save the mother's life.
Posted by: MikeyM
|
June 4, 2010 5:40 PM
Nice touch: the vestments of the chorus change from priest to bishop to cardinal as the song progresses.
Anyone here able to read the sign language used during the song?
Posted by: bbgunn071679
|
June 4, 2010 5:45 PM
I think Mr. Shearer also appears to be channeling that allegedyly abusive catholic daddy, Bing Crosby.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 4, 2010 6:13 PM
Nonsense!
The punishment is appropriate to a non-violent crime, are you one of those irrational hysterical people that want an imprisonment for life for non-violent(injuries, beating) rape too?!
It is truly a perverse sick culture in which a person can even get more than 5 years for a sexual act that doesn't last 10 minutes.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 4, 2010 6:18 PM
Too obvious, troll.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 4, 2010 6:22 PM
How long is it going to take the rest of humanity to realise and understand the utter depravity and wickedness of the RCC?
It seems that the gloss is finally tarnished after 2000 years and the glamour and shine of authoritarian dogmatic pomp and circumstance are dimming to a level where the base black hearted filth and sheer hateful bigotry is becoming not only clear but embarrassingly apparently endemic throughout and top to bottom of this puerile disgrace to society.
They cannot survive people are starting to acknowledge the criminality inherent.
The priesthood is growing old and decrepit and young blood is drying up...fewer trainees at seminaries...churches facing closure because money is getting difficult to con...they are withering...
They are diminishing in relevancy and potency and their screams of outrage and fear are muffled and confused...it is beyond a tipping point...now they must slide into obsidian oblivion.
No one shall mourn.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 4, 2010 6:26 PM
What is obvious, the cultural hysteria and irrationality that enables the ruination of many lives because rape is viewed and sentenced harsher than manslaughter?
Of course it's obvious.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 4, 2010 6:28 PM
Rape is a violent crime, cretin.Posted by: MS
|
June 4, 2010 6:30 PM
The song is amazing. So cringe-making yet so perfect. And yes, as someone pointed out, I'm pretty sure he's channeling Bing Crosby, which makes it even funnier and even more uncomfortable. Sheer genius.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 6:50 PM
When one counts the psychological damage caused to the victim, rape is a much, much worse crime. You are a real winner fuckwit. Stick your idiocy where the sun don't shine.Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
June 4, 2010 7:01 PM
That video is really well done. Too bad it lags so much for me.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 4, 2010 7:05 PM
You are a sick ignorant man, the "psychological damage" of anything mostly depends on the culture itself so it's a vicious cycle.
Posted by: Poor Wandering One
|
June 4, 2010 7:09 PM
Rape always involve premeditation not so for manslaughter. While the effect on the victim in the case of manslaughter is infinately more severe than in the case of rape. It can be argued that a person who lies in wait on a jogging trail and rapes a passerby is more deserving of prison time than a drunken brawler who unknowingly triggered a vagus nerve response.
Both are severe crimes. However I can see why rape draws the higher tarrif.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 7:10 PM
I don't see any citation to the scientific literature, so I'm just going to assume you are a rapist in your spare time until you produce some real evidence to back up your inane and insane assertion. Put up, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 7:16 PM
Listen, you loathsome assclown, rape is violent. It seems you are also unaware that rapists don't stop at one, it's a crime that is repeated throughout their lifetime. Rape is not a minor inconvenience, it's not something which is quickly over, it's certainly not a "sexual interlude" or anything else your fucked up rape apologist mind can come up with. Get the fuck out of here, no one is interested in listening to you justify rape.
PZ, can we possibly get a clean up here? I am so fucking sick and tired of rape apologists and I know I'm not alone on that one.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 4, 2010 7:27 PM
Caine: "PZ, can we possibly get a clean up here?"
Seconded. It's the best we can do since we can't castrate the motherfucker.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 7:35 PM
Wader, here's some good scientific evidence saying you are full of shit:
One
Two
Three
Search results
Only a 150,000 hits with Google Scholar. I can continue real evidence for a long time. You???
Posted by: Wader
|
June 4, 2010 7:37 PM
So you are for barbaric retaliatory irrational disproportional punishments instead of behavior/cognition modification through therapy?
I thought you were supposed to be a scientific minded and progressive people..what a nasty surprise...btw mystical serial predatory elaborate rapists you created in your minds is not what we are discussing here.
Posted by: mistereveready
|
June 4, 2010 7:37 PM
wader sounds fucked. a number of my female friends suffer for years and maybe even the rest of their lives for what people did in the supposed 10 minutes the motard states. people get pregnant and catch std's from rape as well.
i don't agree with removing his posts. let people see how stupid such a thing wader is suggesting. its one of those i wouldn't have believed if i hadn't saw it ordeals.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 7:40 PM
Serial rapists are neither mystical nor made up. I wasn't the first victim of the man who raped me, nor was I his last.
PZ, clean up, please?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 7:43 PM
mistereverready:
That's dandy. The rest of us have had more than our share of rape apologists the last few months.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
June 4, 2010 7:44 PM
Fuckthemotherfuckers!
Posted by: mistereveready
|
June 4, 2010 7:44 PM
i wasn't belittling your encounter them or the past retards that have plagued you and the board. but the wader person seems like a troll. something to look upon with pity and disgust. i dont' say he should be allowed to keep posting, but as a head on a post that shows how fucking stupid humans can be.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 4, 2010 7:48 PM
#32
The rape of an adult woman is a barbaric and senseless act in itself which does real "psychological damage" not only to the victim which is bad enough but to the family of the victim when they find out.
The rape of a child is so far beyond humanity as to make it a crime of such reprehensibility that the perpetrator should never ever be allowed back into the society that he betrayed.
Rape of a child is another league...they are not sexually or psychologically able to process the information...and how do they express in a language words and feelings they do not understand and are not familiar with.
Seemingly you feel 5 years for 10 mins is unreasonable...well indeed the 10 mins is a fleeting moment...to the rapist maybe...but to the raped it will last a lifetime...literally.
There is only one truly sick and perverse point..the inadequate that rape because they are incapable of anything else.
That is why is seems prevalent in the priesthood they are mentally sexually warped by their own dogma!
And such cowards that they prefer children to female adults...not so scary to the crows apparently and easily accessible and manipulated.
That is a truly sick and perverse culture for sure.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 7:49 PM
Yep, life without parole...Sorry rapist fuckwit. We are scientific. You have presented no evidence, like the criminal you are. You are a liar and bullshitter until you prove otherwise. You aren't scientific until you cite the peer reviewed scientific literature. Nothing cited to date. Another lie you tell. What a loser.No, it is exactly what we are discussing. You rapist, are a different story. We have no idea what you are discussing, since you have no evidence for your claims...Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 4, 2010 7:55 PM
What is it with men who have to display their hatred for women? This one hates children as well.
Posted by: raven
|
June 4, 2010 8:24 PM
Wader was babbling incoherently on earlier threads as well.
This guy obviously has serious mental problems in real life.
I suspect if he isn't posting from a mental hospital or prison, he will be sooner or later.
In some states they have indefinite sentences for the criminal and insane. Some of them like John Hinckly the Reagan wannabe assassin, will never get out. If that sounds cruel, just read what wader is writing and ask yourself, "should this inhuman monster be walking the streets among us?"
I vote no.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 8:34 PM
I too would vote no. The second molestation or rape conviction should be permanent jail time. The only way out is in a pine box, first turned to cinders/ashes, and the cinders buried six feet (or more) deep in an unmarked hole in the ground, or tossed out to sea...Posted by: Kirk
|
June 4, 2010 8:45 PM
Let's back up a moment. Are you saying rape is non-violent?
I'm ignoring the parenthetical remark that seems to imply that injuries and beating are unrelated to violence.
You have one or more mental problems. Are you a Catholic priest?
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
June 4, 2010 8:52 PM
Like I said above, Pedophilia has no "cure." Once a predator, always a predator. It behooves society to protect itself from these people, hence LOCK THEM UP FOREVER AND EVER! This keeps them alive for study, and protects society.
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
June 4, 2010 8:54 PM
ignore him, he will go back to his lair...
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
June 4, 2010 9:00 PM
Putting aside the reasons for why Rape is punished harshly, you know that by definition manslaughter is an unintentional killing, right?
Posted by: nickmatzke.ncse
|
June 4, 2010 9:02 PM
If you hadn't heard of it, there was a full documentary movie about O'Grady and his victims published in 2006, called "Deliver Us From Evil."
It is one of the most depressing things I've ever watched. It's particularly bad when O'Grady is interviewed and obviously doesn't really "get it" that what he did is wrong -- you get the impression that he is some genetic mutant lacking a sense of morality. He even suggested he'd like to talk to his former victims, not to apologize, but to talk about "the good times and the bad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliver_Us_from_Evil_%282006_film%29
...that said, it's not clear to me (I have not done a serious investigation) that priests as a class are worse than e.g. secular teachers or daycare providers in terms of rates of child abuse. In terms of the institutions, I suspect that schools mostly have improved reporting mechanisms etc. now, but this may be a product of the child abuse scandals in schools in the 1980s & 1990s.
What is clear is that the Church hasn't even gotten to that level yet, and should have gotten there years ago at a minimum...
Posted by: chaseacross
|
June 4, 2010 9:03 PM
Who made that video? How did they find a barbershop quartet willing to make it? Creepy as all hell.
Friend of a friend who was Deaf (as in, both deaf and involved in Deaf culture), killed himself some time back. He was Native American as well, which I understand would make him especially vulnerable to this sort of thing. I wonder if this could have been that... But I guess we'll never know now.
Posted by: nickmatzke.ncse
|
June 4, 2010 9:09 PM
Looks like the documentary is free online here:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2533329.ece/Convicted_Irish_priest_active_in_the_Netherlands
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 4, 2010 9:35 PM
I'm watching Wader. This is amazingly stupid:
As if the victim has sex for 10 minutes and then the suffering ends cleanly and neatly. As if rape were about sex. We could also argue that it only takes 10 seconds to put a bullet in his brain, so any punishment that stretches out for more time than that is grossly inappropriate.
He's an immoral idiot, but then, you need more trolls to chew on...so rip him up.
I might ban him later, but right now I think he deserves some public humiliation, first.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 9:39 PM
Here Wader, Wader, Wader. Where is your scientific evidence, rapist loser....?Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 4, 2010 9:44 PM
Regarding: A bullet in Waders brain.
Not that I'm saying its a bad idea, but dammit do you know anyone whose a good enough shot to hit such a small target?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 9:44 PM
PZ:
Okay, I can do that.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 4, 2010 9:45 PM
Well, in the Catholic Church this goes back at least to the 4th century -- yes, 1700 years.
Back in those days, the church had a quandary -- a lot of the church hierarchy had turned traitor during the Diocletian persecutions. They had named names, turned over writings, given the keys to the churches -- were willing to do anything to not be a victim.
Well, some folks (the Donatists) thought this was bad. That folks who turned over other folks to be arrested, tortured and have their lives destroyed shouldn't be kept as priests -- that their amorality dispelled their magic.
But that was a threat to the organization! They were declared schismatics, and themselves persecuted by those same priests in alliance with the Roman state to which they had turned.
And so, the principle remains -- it's more important to protect club-membership than ANYTHING, whether it's child rape or turning over your congregants for torture.
It's a fine, fine church.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 4, 2010 9:45 PM
@Wader (obvious troll)
So because it lasts 10 minutes it's not a major crime? If you do it right murder with an ice pick is done in like a second. Did I miss the memo about us not punishing people for hurting others but for their lack of efficiency in doing so?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 4, 2010 9:48 PM
Also, leave poor Wader alone...he's just lashing out in impudent rage because feminists have mad eit so the police won't stop girls from beating him up
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 9:48 PM
PZ:
Hyperon was on about the 10 minutes business too. Is there something about rape apologists and 10 minutes? (Okay, okay, I get the subtext...)
Really, I don't know why setting a minute limit on any particular rape makes them think "oh, that's not so bad!" It doesn't matter if it lasts a minute or days, it's bad.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 4, 2010 9:51 PM
What
arrogant
dickhead
excuses
rape
?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 4, 2010 9:58 PM
Oh shucky darn, it appears our troll has found a different bridge to lurk under.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 4, 2010 9:58 PM
That's as high as they can count. No more fingers, you see.
Posted by: heatherly
|
June 4, 2010 9:59 PM
It's not particularly odd that priests rape deaf children--disabled individuals are specifically targeted by rapists and pedophiles because they are easier "prey." Again, rape is power and control with a sexual component--raping a child gives them more control than raping an adult; raping a deaf child ups the sick getting their rocks off even more.
Deaf, mute, blind, physically disabled, mentally ill, mentally retarded--all are more at risk. I worked a case in undergrad with a schizophrenic woman who no one believed was actually being raped by a family member--she had delusions, obviously this was a delusion. Then she got pregnant. Not a delusion.
I hope I have time to check back on this thread this weekend and see what's left of the rape apologist. I'd try, but I'm all of out of wit for the week.
(re-lurks)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 10:06 PM
Josh, OM the geologist/army reserve ranger. Let him use his M-4...Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 10:06 PM
MrFire:
The kind of arrogant dickhead who thinks serial, predatory rapists are mythical.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 4, 2010 10:09 PM
Re: Josh and his M-4.
He's got my permission.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 4, 2010 10:11 PM
Wader is such an obvious troll, and not very good at it either.
He is most like a child who, upon finding a functioning radio away from adult supervision, yells "May-day" into the microphone until he find a channel where an adult responds. Then he gives the game away by giggling uncontrollably as he tries to keep the grown answering him (thus giving him attention).
Posted by: raven
|
June 4, 2010 10:13 PM
Strangely enough, the sex abuse scandals haven't really effected the RCC all that much. The available data is that membership and money is down but not a lot. This poll says 12% are "reevaluating ties to the church" despite everything. Presumably many of those will procrastinate or forget about it and stay in, taking the normal human default.
I guess when you are a member of a Dark Age, corrupt, and senseless church, nothing that happens is surprising or makes much difference. It doesn't look like people are church goers because of any sort of morality inherent in the sects.
Then again, the first world laity long ago stopped paying any attention to the priests.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 4, 2010 10:14 PM
That was "grown-up" in the last post (#71) - darn typos!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 10:16 PM
Steven, whatever he/she is, it's beyond tiring to deal with rape apologists, and for whatever reason, we've had a lot of them lately. I'm beginning to think we're getting invaded by guys from love-shy.com.
Posted by: raven
|
June 4, 2010 10:24 PM
Speaks for itself.
The RCC should drop their celibacy requirement. Doesn't look like too many priests pay attention to it and these days, when being a lifelong single virgin isn't too popular a choice, they draw mostly from very weird males for priests.
Posted by: gregvalcourt
|
June 4, 2010 10:29 PM
Wow! I can't believe Wader made such comments. Perhaps the local authorities and the neighborhood of Wader's residence needs to be notified to keep an eye on this person.
What possible good can come of arguing that rape is less serious then we perceive it to be? Maybe Wader is trying to make the case that the cover up of abuse in the institution that gives Wader their belief isn't so bad as some make it out to be. In such a case, Wader is a prime example of how damaging religion can be.
Or perhaps Wader is an offending priest?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 4, 2010 10:30 PM
*throws roses*
Though, arguably, any suitably authoritarian organisation/hierarchy could also be slipped in there. It's heart-breaking, and all so tediously familiar....
(Incidentally, does anyone know why the verse refuses to space itself correctly on blockquote?)
And speaking of tediously familiar, perhaps this "Wader" character has spewed here before, recently, under a different name?
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 4, 2010 10:30 PM
Caine: Just want to make sure, you got the wordplay, right?
*crosses fingers*
Posted by: raven
|
June 4, 2010 10:32 PM
Agreed. These guys are mentally ill and are getting off on being monsters on the internet.
They aren't trolls, just routine loser perverts. Society has always had these and knows how to deal with them. PZ shouldn't give them any slack at all. When they show up, I point my browser elsewhere.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 10:33 PM
MrFire, yes, I did, no worries. I was just still spitting out some left over fire.
Posted by: sudomabinusri
|
June 4, 2010 10:41 PM
Wader's rant about rape resulting in a longer sentence than manslaughter makes me wonder if he hasn't been on the receiving end of such a sentence.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 4, 2010 11:02 PM
Cicely,
Blockquote strips line breaks for some reason. You have to put <br> where you want the line breaks.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2010 11:10 PM
It is a bit browser dependent. I notice a difference between home (Mac OSX 10.6.3 with Firefox 3.6.3) and work (Windows XP SP 3 with IE 7). Preview is your friend.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 11:16 PM
sudomabinusri:
Who knows? What's clear is that there is a distinct inability to think things through along with a lack of empathy.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 4, 2010 11:29 PM
Rather than a "drive-by troll," consider that Wader may indeed be a pedophile priest who's afraid his fun and games will be taken from him? Wader is assuredly a certifiable idiot, but I'm just saying . . . .
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 4, 2010 11:29 PM
Ah. Thanks, KOPD; I'll have to try to remember that for next time.
Posted by: mistereveready
|
June 4, 2010 11:48 PM
wow just watched that video about ogrady. that man is absolutely rabid. to just ruin lives in such a manner. how the fuck did he do all that w/o being killed? i would have thought someone would have killed him in a fit of rage.
catholicism and their holy trinity:
physical abuse;
mental abuse;
legal abuse;
Posted by: Robster
|
June 5, 2010 12:05 AM
Soo, the catholics have an office devoted to the protection of the young called the: office of Child and Youth Protection for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Can I please get a job there? Must be the easiest gig on the planet, because they don't actually do anything. Haven't read of any actual child protection going on. They probably have a nice office building. Probably wear lots of colouful robes to work. They're probably on a hundred grand (dollars, or Euros. the more I hear of this mob, the more they disgust me and i hope many others.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 5, 2010 3:31 AM
More Christian LoveTM.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 3:44 AM
Wow, at least you answered my question whether you are rational/hysterical.
You aren't even able to have a coherent discussion without devolving into frantic, hateful and toxic rhetoric. You are anti-scientific extremists that have a bronze-age view of dealing with unadjusted individuals.
Amazing, so much projection here. I haven't been so unpleasantly surprised by people on a forum for a long time.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 4:55 AM
Let's try it this way-
culture determines "psychological damage"
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 4:57 AM
I don't know why embedding didn't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zZYCb-hyQ
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 5, 2010 5:07 AM
Can we get the fucked in the head sicko removed please.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 5:10 AM
Awww, talking about rape is too tabu for irrational atheists.
*sigh* so much for rational discourse and objectivity...
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
June 5, 2010 5:22 AM
I thought that Wader was either the dreadful Dendy or the less coherent alter ego of Hyperon, unleashed by the fall of the ban hammer. Either way, he is so overbrimming with bile, he's going to do himself a mischief.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 5, 2010 6:25 AM
#91
Waderple, please explain in simple terms, it is not expected that you would know the longer ones anyway, why 'culture determines "psychological damage"'
Are you trying to imply that child rape, indeed female rape, would not bother unduly, a religious culture more then a secular one?
Or the only reason rape of any gender or age is an atheist/liberal pearl clutching reaction?
Or indeed maybe women, and some men fail to appreciate the point of rape of child or woman full stop?
Enlighten me/us, it seems an important point, but then again I am an atheist so perhaps I unintentionally miss your meaning!....(probably peer pressure!...but what ya gonna do?)
Is your position that rape is okay in certain cultures and that generally the perception of rape as a natural endeavour is distorted the more secularity encroaches on social memes?
Curious minds would appreciate clarity of your thoughts...what they are?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 7:13 AM
No, asshole, we're objecting to your callous hatred of women and children.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 7:14 AM
I'm a little surprised by the vitriol directed at wader.
As far as I can tell, he seems to be saying that the reasons that cause rape should be explored holistically, and the punishment made to fit crime. This seems on the face of it a fairly banal observation, barely worthy of acknowledgment, let alone a massive outpouring of invective and abuse.
Even the slighly more provocative 'culture determines psychological damage' is really not that wild is it? For example consensual pre-marital sex can be a guilt inducing trauma for a southern baptist teenager and simultaneously a rather pleasent evening for the 17 year old French exchange student on the other side the equation. The diametrically opposed reactions of these parties to the same shared experience is directly and clearly a result of cultural factors. That is, I think, what wader is getting at there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 7:27 AM
coughlanbrianm #98
Perhaps you missed Wader's post #24 where he responded to a comment about life imprisonment for child molestation:
Wader apparently thinks rape is "slam, bam, thank you ma'am" with the two parties adjusting their clothing afterward and walking away with no consequences for either.
Rape is not a minor inconvenience for the rapee. Most rape victims suffer psychologically for the rest of their lives. If we're to consider rape "holistically" then this suffering should be taken into account when punishing the rapist.
Wader apparently thinks rape is a simple 10 minute inconvenience for the victim and the rapist should get a "naughty boy, don't do that again" slap on the wrist. We're objecting to his callous hatred for women and children. And no, I don't think "callous hatred" is hyperbole.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 7:30 AM
Awww, talking about rape is too tabu for irrational atheists.
No, this is unlikely to be the case. There have been discussions on this topic in the past. You've really touched a raw nerve somewhere.
I think have overstated your cause fairly dramatically here : It is truly a perverse sick culture in which a person can even get more than 5 years for a sexual act that doesn't last 10 minutes.
I certainly don't agree with you, but I'd be interested in hearing why think this. Moreover, while the idea that 'culture determines psychological damage' likely has a bearing on the topic, I'm don't know of any contemporary cultures where rape is considered a minor issue; on the contrary, most societies have views that make the suffering and stigmitisation of the victim even worse. For example, In deeply religious societies the victim is often viewed as "damaged goods".
I'd be interested in a direct response to my comments.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 7:30 AM
consensual pre-martial sex is like rape?
fuck me, that's stupid and insulting. the reason the psychological damage from fucking is so obviously cultural is because there's no other source for it. are you going to claim that somewhere in the world, women find it just peachy to have men violate their self and their bodily integrity and make them ill and pregnant against their will?!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 5, 2010 7:33 AM
Were you going to provide some, Wader? Because so far your sole claim to fame is arguing that the duration of a rape is too short to justify serious legal penalties, and you're looking kind of moronic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 7:33 AM
Still no evidence you are right Wader the
No, the invective is earned. Once he has been challenged to back up his allegation with citations to the scientific literature, he is obligated to either put up or shut the fuck up. Idjits like Wader the Rapist who can't do either are liars, bullshitters, and just plain idjit trolls.Rapist. You aren't being scientific. Check out the real science in my #37. Then cite the literature instead of making stoopid inane allegations. Until you do, you are just an idjit loser troll, incapable of civilized discourse.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 7:37 AM
@Jadehawk.
I'm still working my way through all the comments in the thread. You'll note that we simultaneously posted comments which are, at least in their conclusions, quite similar.
Lets see if wader can meaningfully clarify his position. All we are getting at the moment is defensive noise, which given the pretty ferocious verbal assault that has been invoked isn't terribly suprising.
Wader? You wanted a rational discussion, well here it is.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 7:44 AM
Wader apparently thinks rape is "slam, bam, thank you ma'am" with the two parties adjusting their clothing afterward and walking away with no consequences for either.
I don't think that is what is meant. Rather, he is focusing on the fact that a victim of homicide is dead, while a victim of rape is not. Certainly the long term effects, the scope of premeditation involved and the level of violence used to subdue the victim is being overlooked in this assessment.
Wader care to comment on that?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 7:47 AM
coughlanbrianm:
I take it you haven't been raped. I have been. It was a violent, brutish, nightmarish experience. My "culture" had nothing to do with any of the physical or psychological damage I went through. The actual experience causes the psychological damage. The reactions of others afterward most certainly can be a factor, however, don't kid yourself that if everyone was supportive and justice was immediate, that there would be no fucking damage.
Rape is not a sexual encounter, it is assault. Jesus effin' Christ...Why don't you go ahead and explain Wader's (and the rest of the rape apologist's) "oh, it's 10 minutes of your life, no big deal." Wait, how about if you don't, and you stop being an apologist for a rape apologist. Meta.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 5, 2010 7:53 AM
#98
Why so?
The thread had an opening subject about the systematic and callous sexual abuse of children,...including rape... particularly deaf children by Roman Catholic clergy.
Wader seems to be of an opinion that the act of raping those children and the 'psychological damage' inflicted should be judged on a sliding scale of culture and therefore as an act it is at the moment judged and punished far to draconian in reality, by presumably, the American courts!
By inference the rape of adult woman, and by default younger females, is also dealt with far to harshly, after all 10 mins of jolly does not deserve 5 years jail time, according to Wader.
But I am prepared to re-evaluate my impression of Wader if he clarifies what he judges to be the appropriate punishment for the rape of deaf children and indeed the rape of females of all ages deaf or otherwise...what should the punishment be? or indeed lack of (maybe dealt with as a misdemeanour),but Wader would put all those speculative possibilities aside if he clarifies, simple like so!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 7:57 AM
coughlanbrianm, save your effort in trying to get an idjit who believes there are no long psychological effects of rape to say anything cogent. Which is why he is being challenged to produce real evidence for his claim. My Google Scholar search turned up for the 150,000 hits for the opposite, but a good chuck of that is redundant. Still, Wader has a lot 'splainin' to do, with something other than his inane opinions.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 7:57 AM
not even close, which suggests you didn't get what i was saying.rape is psychologically and physically damaging all by itself, no extra help needed. that extra cultural layers of pain are inflicted by woman-hating cultures just adds insult to injury.
Additionally, you're completely ignoring the fact that rape apologists don't claim that slut-shaming makes rape psychologically damaging, but femininsts' insistence on people taking rape seriously.
Because without feminists telling women that rape is supposed to be a horrid, traumatizing experience, they'd never notice by themselves! If we just stopped talking so much about rape, women wouldn't feel so bad about getting raped anymore.
excuse me while I go throw up.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 8:12 AM
@Caine. #106
My comments relate clearly to the idea that 'culture determines psychological damage'. This is fairly uncontroversial as outlined in my example which has nothing whatever to do with rape.
Of course rape is assault, you are simply stating the obvious.
Lets see if Wader will be willing to explain himself. I will be amazed if a clarification to the explicit questions I've put bears out your assumptions about him. What we have here is surely a failure to articulate clearly.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 8:18 AM
Additionally, you're completely ignoring the fact that rape apologists don't claim that slut-shaming makes rape psychologically damaging, but femininsts' insistence on people taking rape seriously.
That may well be the case, but that isn't something that Wader has claimed; at least not that I've seen in this thread.
I really don't think it's unreasonable to put the relevant questions to wader and get a response that either clarifies him as a woman and child hating potential rapist, or an inarticulate commenter who surprised by the scale of reaction his comments provoked, has retreated into silence.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 8:30 AM
rape is psychologically and physically damaging all by itself, no extra help needed. that extra cultural layers of pain are inflicted by woman-hating cultures just adds insult to injury.
Agree completely. Rape, like any violent act, leaves terrible scars. Nonetheless, how society treats the victim is terribly important (as you yourself acknowledge) and should be open for discussion. I want to know exactly what Wader meant when he used the formulation 'culture determines psychological damage'. I get the impression you feel you already know, and while you may well have the guy bang to rights, I'd be interested to hear it put explicitly. In the interests of fairness if nothing else.
After all, the guy has been called a woman and child hating rapist in this thread, I know that if that happened to me I'd be interested in setting the record straight.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 5, 2010 8:36 AM
#110
So where does the psychological damage determined by culture come from then if not by rape?
Rape is rape...the forceful, often violent, sexual act against a person without his/her consent and in the case of women usually with threats of further violence if they do not 'shut the fuck up and bend over?'...(graphic but in anger I tend to be unbalanced..it is the sub human atheist in me)
Any culture, indeed any society, that can condone or dismiss such a brutal and vile act by definition is not a society or a culture..it is a crude and barbaric abomination of a 'society' or 'culture'.
(I apologise for my anger...actually no I fucking don't is is part of being sub-human)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 8:47 AM
coughlanbrianm, If you have anything constructive to say other than we should be nicer to wader the rapist, say so. You are becoming repetitive with your semi-apologies for Wader. Wader can post anytime and speak for himself as he isn't banned. My guess is he flew the coop when he saw PZ ready to apply the banhammer for his deliberate trolling.
If there are issues you want to discuss, start with "this is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up".
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 8:54 AM
So where does the psychological damage determined by culture come from then if not by rape?
I think Jadehawk captures the essence at #109 where she says :
rape is psychologically and physically damaging all by itself, no extra help needed. that extra cultural layers of pain are inflicted by woman-hating cultures just adds insult to injury.
So it's intrinsically an awful, damaging experience, but society can make it even worse. To avoid that we need to discuss what the cultural factors are that exacerbate the trauma. For example : considering virginity a "good" that once lost reduces the "value" of a woman or girl. Clearly that attitude is to be avoided. Hopefully, there are more subtle shades of gray than THAT; I think identifying and addressing those could be pretty productive in reducing the intrinsic trauma of rape.
Although I'll grant you it's unlikely this is what Wader was driving at.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 8:56 AM
coughlanbrianm:
I'm not interested in anything a rape apologist has to say. Wader has demonstrated his beliefs fully already and I'm getting pretty tired of you doing nothing but Wader apologetics.
Uh huh. Well, I won't be surprised in the least at you being wrong. Anyone who says that serial, predatory rapists are a myth is not someone who is going to turn around and be rational with a suddenly developed sense of empathy.
Wader has been trolling in other threads as well, so it's not like we're all talking out of our hats here. Wader also isn't the first rape apologist we've dealt with.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 5, 2010 9:11 AM
Oh no. He said 20 minutes.
He was smart enough to discover his toes, you see.
All quoted line breaks are eliminated by the stupid ScienceBorg software, all the way to the first double line break (empty line). You have to use the <br> tag to override that.
So you commented before you had read all the comments that were already there???
What the fuck?
Most rapes are committed by people the victim already knows and trusts, if not outright loves. That shock is not easy to get over, culture or no culture.
Being raped by a random stranger instead, one who has been lurking on the jogging trail or something, is certainly no better in this respect. Living in constant fear is not a cakewalk.
Posted by: SEF
|
June 5, 2010 9:17 AM
@ coughlanbrianm #98:
While it doesn't seem (to me) to be what was being said at all, that scenario would be a way of isolating the (comparatively minimal) cultural factors.
Suppose you do indeed have a population of religious "abstainers" (eg the ring-bearing crowd) who nonetheless entirely willingly, consensually and even enthusiastically engage in sexual intercourse (of any kind which they can't continue to pretend to themselves didn't really count!). To whatever degree they then experience personal guilt and/or are shamed by other people in their warped environment, that can be allocated as being cultural damage.
But for your example to work you do need such an extremely evil culture to be applied directly to them for the effect to be large and it can't possibly account for the huge amount of anguish experience by non-members who were sexually attacked (ie didn't consent) - even in those cases where the physical damage was surprisingly minor (eg they were easily subdued, drugged, didn't get an STD or end up pregnant etc etc). They've still had their autonomy violated and quite possibly their trust in someone previously close to them - which could be a huge knock to their worldview, regardless of most cultural concerns.
And then there are the religious nutters who claim (quite possibly falsely) that their faith has helped them brush aside the fact of being raped - despite being in a remarkably similar evil culture. Any genuine difference is more likely to be an individual one - just as individuals have completely different responses to other forms of mental stress and physical damage.
A comparable situation exists over physical illnesses which are falsely labelled as mental ones, eg ME/CFS - where pretty much the entire society (including doctors, employers, friends and parents) is blaming the victim. The victim is frequently additionally traumatised by this unjustified blame (depending on how well they recognise that all the people around them are stupid, ignorant, incompetent, dishonest scum who are dead wrong in believing what they do) but they're already feeling terrible anyway just from the seriously debilitating effects of the illness. And the bulk of the symptoms arise from that physical problem and not from the cultural factors at all.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 9:22 AM
Wader can post anytime and speak for himself as he isn't banned.
Of course he can, but the environment is hardly conducive to a fair hearing as things currently stand. Perhaps if he is presented with a more neutral discussion partner we can find out what he really believes, and talk him around if he is a "rape apologist". That, I suppose, is the motivation of my post insofar as I had any clear motivation at all when I began contributing on this thread. Generally I post about global governance, and even then fairly rarely.
If there are issues you want to discuss, start with "this is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up".
I'm much more interested in hearing from Wader, my views are pretty pedestrian as should be obvious from my comments such as :
Of course rape is assault, you are simply stating the obvious.
and
Agree completely. Rape, like any violent act, leaves terrible scars.
You almost seem to be suggesting some kind of byzantine effort on my part to disguise my real intentions and views, although perhaps I'm just being paranoid or overly sensitive.
Wader on the other hand, has been pretty justified in taking umbrage and stalking off with his ball. Being accused of women and child hating will often offend even those with quite thick skin. But perhaps I'm being repetitive again.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 9:26 AM
David Marjanović:
I stand corrected. If he had figured out to unzip, he could have graciously granted us 3 more minutes.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 9:31 AM
coughlanbrianm:
You, on both hands, are full of shit. Wader stated that serial, predatory rapists were a product of make believe. No such animal according to Wader.
How do you think that made me feel, considering the man who raped me is a serial, predatory rapist? Golly gee, poor, poor Wader - I'll be sure to cry some crocodile tears. You just lost your credibility.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 9:31 AM
@SEF.
Agree with pretty much everything you've posted at #118. One quibble : I was not drawing an equivalence between rape and the example I gave; I was merely supplying a scenario to illustrate how cultural factors could change the perception of a shared experience for the relevant parties.
In my example, the experience shared could be positive for both parties given the relevant cultural milieu; in the case of rape culture can only ameloriate or exacerbate the effects of what is always going to be a negative experience (other than for a minority of extreme outliers) for the person being attacked.
Posted by: SEF
|
June 5, 2010 9:37 AM
@ coughlanbrianm #119:
No, not like any violent act. They differ a lot in the degree to which they are personally directed and how much they destroy someone's place within the world. It's not just some simplistic quantisation of the amount of physical injury.
Burglary has a disproportionate effect on victims (ie compared with actual damage done to people who were fully insured and haven't lost personal heirlooms) because they tend to have previous had an unreasonable(?) belief that they were safe at home.
Rape and various other assaults can destroy trust in one's intimate social network or one's wider community, where people previously assumed they could bimble around quite happily without a cordon of personal bodyguards.
Despite gods having been fictional all along, disabused believers can often experience huge amounts of betrayal and loss. Obviously it's worse if their family etc does indeed then shun them for not believing any more. But the shattering of the worldview set up by the religous web of lies, and the recognition that huge numbers of people were untrustworthy all along, is itself reportedly traumatic.
Posted by: Mike
|
June 5, 2010 9:40 AM
$788? I've never committed any crimes, and Social Security says I get $473 a month after age 67. Maybe I should start molesting. Seems to pay better.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 9:44 AM
Wader stated that serial, predatory rapists were a product of make believe.
I'm pretty certain that is not the only interpretation of his comment. I got the impression it was specific rather than general. He absolutely did not baldly state what you claim (unless he did so in another thread).
I can certainly see that thinking he said that would be upsetting, especially given your own experience. If this seems condescending (it does even to me) I apologize, but I find it tricky to respond appropriately to such deeply personal revelations.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 9:51 AM
Yawn, the tone apologist for the rape apologist is boring, inane, and repetitive. I think I can safely speak for a good percentage of the blog in saying we are almost totally uninterested in what Wader has to say. He has had a chance to speak for himself, he still can, and doesn't need an apologist to clear the way for him.
Here Wader, Wader, Wader, bring your alleged evidence. Lead with it in fact...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 9:55 AM
coughlanbrianm, you've found yourself a possibly unique niche: apologist for a rape apologist.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 9:56 AM
@SEF
No, not like any violent act.
Well actually yes. Saying "All violent crimes leave scars" is correct. Saying "Rape leaves especially awful scars" is also correct, but merely a subset of the former. My comment wasn't on the scale of trauma rape causes, rather it was to put rape in the correct context i.e. that of a violent attack.
Agree wholeheartedly with everything else you've said.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 10:03 AM
oh, I'm just fucking dying to know what you think "serial predatory elaborate rapists you created in your minds", especially directed at someone who was just describing their own rapist, can possibly mean.
why are you so invested in pretending wader isn't minimizing rape?
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 10:07 AM
Yawn, the tone apologist for the rape apologist is boring, inane, and repetitive.
This isn't really about tone. Or at least I don't think so. Verbal savagery is useful when you are dismantling a troll who is not genuinely interested in having a real discussion. Not for the troll of course, but for the observers that see the verbal beating being administered, the bad idea forcefully examined and laid bare.
However, it seems to me that Wader is not that kind of poster and if he had an environment conducive to airing his views, could be talked round. This would be pretty useful for any observers too. Eviscerating him publically only has utility once his actual views are known. It looks to me like you've missed a step and consequently some of his complaints seem to have merit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 10:16 AM
Sorry, he is that type of poster. He has posted similar idiocy on other threads. He is just a troll. Why you think otherwise is beyond my comprehension.Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 10:17 AM
serial predatory elaborate rapists you created in your minds
It means exactly what it means. What it isn't is a claim that such a person doesn't exist.
I'm invested now, perhaps perversly, because the treatment meted out to Wader seemed premature and excessive. To use a more familiar term it simply struck me as unfair.
The people on this blog are articulate, clever and numerous; you can afford to give a guy like wader a little extra space to explain himself, or more rope if you prefer. That's it really.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 10:20 AM
Sorry, he is that type of poster. He has posted similar idiocy on other threads. He is just a troll. Why you think otherwise is beyond my comprehension.
All I've seen of Wader is what occurred on this thread. I'm pretty happy to concede he has said crazy stuff elsewhere, in fact I'm desperate to extricate myself from a ghastly verbal sparring match I'm poorly equipped for. Plus I have to paint the house.
Somebody throw me a frickin' bone.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 10:21 AM
ah of course; because something is imaginary, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.you're an idiot
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 10:29 AM
Seriously Jade. Parse the statement carefully : An imaginary serial rapist in your mind is a single specific instance of a serial rapist. That you have this imaginary specific idea in your head doesn't preclude the existence of real serial rapists generally.
Without saying to Wader "Are you claiming that serial rapists don't exist?", and getting an answer, you can't know what he was getting at. I certainly don't, it seemed that he was talking directly and specifically to you. Although I conceed I may be trying too hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. As caveated earlier, if he made this claim on another thread this changes things. You should feel free to point me to such a post.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 5, 2010 10:33 AM
Brian Coughlan,
I had a high opinion of you until today, when you've shown yourself a complete idiot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 10:36 AM
BCM, the bone you need is silence. When in a hole over your head stop digging. First rule of holes.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 10:38 AM
@Knockgoats.
Damn, I am genuinely horrified to hear that. Please, consider it an example of "someone is wrong on the internetz" syndrome.
I still think this Wader guy was savaged far to early in the exploration of his views for the experience to by useful to either him or lurkers.
I shall now return to painting.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 5, 2010 10:39 AM
coughlanbrianm:
Read Wader's original comment again (with the quote he responded to provided for context):
Seriously, it's indefensible.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 5, 2010 10:44 AM
me @139:
...with the further point, that I forgot to add, being: what he said @24 pretty much wiped out any benefit of the doubt he might have deserved with regards to his further comments.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 10:58 AM
and you're accusing me of not being able to parse a statement correctly?he was, as a matter of fact, not talking to me, since I hadn't joined the conversation at that point. and if you parsed that phrase as carefully as you claim to have done, you'd have noticed that he said "minds", not "mind"; he does that, responding to all people at once; but anyway, a single rapist in multiple minds is not an individual, but a (stereo)type. that's what that phrase, parsed correctly, actually means; that he accuses people of having imagined the serioal rapist type. so yes, he's claiming serial rapists don't exist.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 11:00 AM
Rape apologist apologist:
Yes, he/she certainly did fucking baldly state what I claim, in response to me, you fucking assclown. Just how many interpretations do you think that can be subject to? Either you have a functioning brain and know there are such creatures as serial rapists, or you're a rape apologist.
I didn't think he said it, I read his words. Why, exactly, are you going so far out on a limb to defend a rape apologist? Never mind, I'm not that interested in your twisted thought processes.
As you found it condescending, perhaps you should have gone with the smart choice: shut the fuck up. What deeply personal revelation? That I was raped? What I wrote was a statement of fact, I didn't go into any detail. Rape is not rare, you dipshit. It happens all the time. Women, men and children are being raped as we sit and type. There are a whole lot of people here on Pharyngula who have been raped - that is a statement of fact. You may have figured out by now that those of us who have been raped or know people who have been raped have little use for armchair assholes who wish to philosophize over rape and even less use for those who would make up a category of apologetics for fucking rape apologists. We know the realities and reality is what makes you uncomfortable. If you can't even manage to talk with people who have been raped, you're not mature enough to handle or understand the discussion.
Posted by: george.wiman
|
June 5, 2010 11:02 AM
coughlanbrianm, how fascinating that you would provide cover for Wader, who provides cover for rapists. You probably know people who have been raped, but are not aware of it, or of the suffering they privately endure.
Yes there are people who are raped and who afterwards seem to recover and live well. I couldn't say how common it is, but it shouldn't be held up as an example to blame other rape victims who don't recover easily.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 5, 2010 11:07 AM
Fuck me sideways, Wader has reiterated several times that , to cut a long story short, that seemingly rape is not the social faux pas that the rest of civilised society seem to think it is.
Fine, free speech etc etc, but to equate 10 mins of jolly to 5 years bird he finds an over reaction by society and seems to think that the fault lies with prevalent attitude of contributors to this blog and the latent atmosphere of culture.
I have lurked here for several years and contributed a while back under another name which the registration system suddenly decided to no longer recognise...long history of crap software.
But the point is that in all those perusals of threads by the prolific Dr Myers...I have witnessed time and again attitudes from a minority of folk that with the best will in the world could be regarded as medieval and certainly moronic in belief given the enlightenment filed quite a few nasty habits away as undesirable in society in general.
And always the concern trolls or apologists wade in and muddy the water no matter what the subject.
But that aside there is no excuse and no real debate to be had about the efficacy or impact that rape has either on a woman or, as this thread is dedicated to, deaf children.
I do respect the point that questioning dogma, whether religious or otherwise is a healthy pursuit and a sacrosanct right in Western society, but really, is rape as a subject defendable or excusable and is the punishment for said offence correct or not?
'Chuckles' seems to think rape is no big deal and the punishment is draconian, we are only asking by what measure does he consider it so!
So far is is a determination beyond resolution...in other words he has fucked off with his tail between his legs!
He does not require defence he requires an analyst.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 5, 2010 11:08 AM
1) Why don't you simply wait a few hours till he comes back online and speaks for himself?
2) Useful? If he's a troll, he's a sadist, which means nothing short of psychotherapy will be useful to him, and nothing short of bannination will be useful to us. If he's not a troll, telling him in clear words what he's actually saying can only help him.
Posted by: martha
|
June 5, 2010 11:17 AM
Not a Wader apologist, but there are lines and issues with how we define rape that are cultural.
Teenagers having sex with each other, in some places is defined as rape or child as they are younger than the age of consent. Other places require an age difference of 3 years.
What about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old? What about a 28 year old with a 17 year old? Doesn't seem to be rape to me. What if the younger person was 16? 15? 14? 13? Where do you draw the line? What about a 14 year old with an 11 year old? Or a 12 year old with a nine year old? Child molestation by a child?
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 5, 2010 11:27 AM
#146
What about a 20 year old raping a 17 year old? What about a 28 year old raping a 17 year old?...What about a 14 year old raping an 11 year old? Or a 12 year old raping a nine year old?
Do you see a difference beyond the law statutes?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 11:41 AM
Martha #146
Statutory rape is defined in various ways in various jurisdictions. What may be legal in one place is illegal in another. These differences really don't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
A definition of rape is sexual intercourse or other sexual activity forced upon a person without consent. It doesn't matter if that consent is described by legislation, i.e. a minor cannot legally give consent to sexual activity. Let's not get bogged down in a discussion of "in Lower Slobovia the age of consent is 15 whereas in Upper Slobovia it's 16 so should we rail at the Upper Slobovese for being too strict or the Lower Slobovians for being too permissive?"
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 11:53 AM
Caine, my heart goes out to you. Don't cut them any slack. I don't know if I know anyone who has been raped, highly likely that I do, but I clearly understand your position.
Wader is sick but CBM is an asshole. boy did he pick the wrong subject to play with.
my 2 ex wives were catlick. the 2nd deep into it. big part of the reason we split. her priest told her she should leave her atheist husband (me). years later I thought she was probably sleeping with him, but I have no evidence. anyway we don't talk. but I want to tell her something I think Hitchens said about members of th RCC who know about the abuse (how can they not) are complicent with the abuse crimes.
I'm sure she wouldn't listen or agree with.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 11:57 AM
'Tis Himself, OM @ 148:
Thank you.
Posted by: martha
|
June 5, 2010 11:59 AM
I know that the priest/child sex is rape. I know the definitions of rape, I was a lawyer. The point I was making is that lines are drawn based on your culture. Sometimes I agree with where those lines are drawn and sometimes I don't. For example, child marriage is allowed in some countries, I don't approve. That is my only point.
Sorry for expanding the discussion!
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:05 PM
coughlanbrianm And other things, I forget now.
But what is really strange here is that this functional illiteracy going on here is a direct result of culture where you can't even say that maybe it would be more beneficial for everyone to have behavior/cognition therapy instead of draconian disproportionate punishments.
Especially when we know that women use rape as both a weapon(against figures from which benefits can be gained) and as a defence(when parents and location are very conservative).
Remember that young black man that was convicted of rape, and the supposed victim got on Oprah, I still can't forget how she disgustingly lied and pretended to wipe off her CLEARLY non-existent tears.
And even in true regular non-violent rapes there is a lot of grey area where misunderstanding in communication and reaction interpretation can occur.
Hysterical culture even makes many women to change the actual memory of the encounter to be construed as rape under such pressure of witch-hunting.
And don't get me going how many lives was ruined by fucked-beyond-belief-nonsense of statutory rape.
Let's just tone down the rhetoric and condemnation and be more rational regarding rape.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:06 PM
creating trons, thank you and I don't cut them slack. Sorry to hear about your ex. I know what you're talking about, I was raised catholic, suffered through catholic school for 8 years, etc. I saw a lot of unthinking acceptance when it came to church practice, including unsavoury behaviour by priests and nuns. A lot of catholics are well and truly brainwashed.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:07 PM
coughlanbrianm, you are amazing, you correctly interpreted the culture reference, the elaborate serial mystical rapist reference(That's why I posted that youtube video, it pertains to both).
And other things, I forget now.
-----...................................
I have no idea why it didn't post the beginning....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:10 PM
Because you are an evidenceless misogynistic fuckwit with delusions of sanity.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:14 PM
called it in post #109. case closed.Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:17 PM
You never heard of scientific research on how memory works and the extent of its malleability?
Posted by: Mike Crichton
|
June 5, 2010 12:18 PM
Poor wandering One:
Rape always involve premeditation not so for manslaughter.
No, it doesn't. Frequently, it's a spontaneous, opportunistic act on the part of the rapist. Which when you think about it, makes it scarier.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 12:18 PM
@Wader. #154
Your posts are actually quite disjointed and a little hard to follow. So help me out here by answering the following series of questions as simply and straightforwardly as you can. I've given some options in brackets.
1) Do you accept that serial rapists do exist? (Y/N)
2) What kind of penalty would be appropriate for violent rape? i.e. where there is no scope for interpreting a crime as consenual sex somehow gone wrong. (1,5,15,20 years)
3) At what age should sex with a minor absolutely not be acceptable? (5,9,11,12,13,14,15 years etc.)
Please give clear answers, if you have to expand on the answers supplied please try not to waffle.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:20 PM
MRA trolls suck. I need to make an MRA bingo card, I think; should be an easy game, since they never have anything original to say.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 5, 2010 12:22 PM
Quantify "many" then please provide the citations necessary to support that assertion.
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 12:22 PM
WTF is wanker talking about @ 152.
and then he says this:
"And don't get me going how many lives was ruined by fucked-beyond-belief-nonsense of statutory rape."
look here fuckface, if I caught you sniffing around my teenage child, I'd show some serious fucking nonsense.
what a sick fuck.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:23 PM
Where's your citation rapist trash? And make is specific about rape. Either do your homework, or shut the fuck up. What a loser.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:23 PM
irrelevant to the fact that I called you on the MRA-talking point of "rape-victims would suffer less if feminists would stop telling them they were rape victims"I'm totally making that bingo card...
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:26 PM
1.yes, but that has more to do with pathology, when people use the term "rapist" they are deluding themselves into thinking that these special "rapist" creatures are somehow engineered by nature to be that way and all rationality goes out the window. Nothing is left but for that label.
That is why it was very important to address this from the very beginning and should be only reserved for elaborate movie-like serial rapists.
2.no more than 10 years, non-violent rape-less than 5 years + mandatory therapy
3.12-14, since there is a great degree of variation in sexual maturation.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:29 PM
I think in Russia the legal age is 14...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:29 PM
Rape Apologist #152
He's playing blame the victim now. Does his hatred of women know no limits?
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 12:30 PM
Fuck me...
Wader, please explain to me what "non-violent rape" is. be as graphic as you like.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:30 PM
Irrelevant to anything we are discussing. Except your lack of scientific evidence for you insanity.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:31 PM
if he's sane, he means teenagers who got arrested for fucking other teenagers; if he's not.... fuck knows.Anyway, he's repeating standard Man's Rights talking points now: lots of women make fake rape accusations, because being treated like a rape-victim is fun for them; talking a lot about rape makes it worse for women, so let's stop talking about it; divorce courts are evil and controlled by feminists and take men's children and paychecks away from them unfairly; etc.
America's statutory rape laws are like the only sane talking point these d00dz have, and they generally pretend like it was women's & feminists fault that they exist, not right-wing "tough on crime" anti-sex, anti-youth politics
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 5, 2010 12:31 PM
And for his next trick, instead of pulling numbers out of his ass he'll try a rabbit!
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:32 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:34 PM
Wader, guarantee us a punishment methodology, where compared to life in prison, another woman/child won't be raped by the convicted perp. That is your baseline for successful treatment...
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 12:34 PM
@Wader. #165
Can I suggest you ignore the other posters for a few minutes, while we try and get to the bottom of your real postions? I'm not your friend, let's be clear about that, but I am the closest thing to a neutral objective discussion partner you'll find here today.
Your answers to 2 and 3 are pretty clear, but I'm still puzzled by what you mean by 1.
Let me have a stab at it. You accept that there are people that exist that regularly (lets say every few months) attack and rape women, but they are quite rare.
The term "rapist" has become so emotionally charged that it is essentially useless.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:35 PM
moron. rapists are the result of rape culture; the stronger the rape culture, the more rapists and the more rapes are committed. no one said anything about "nature", so stop with the strawmenPosted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 5, 2010 12:35 PM
Where are these facts you are talking about?
Citations please.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:36 PM
WTF, I posted a youtube video and referred to it several times already, pay attention.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:38 PM
That isn't evidence. Pay attention. Cite the peer reviewed scientific literature loser. Try Google Scholar. But they do use big words...Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 12:41 PM
the video the creep posted is to the spousal/date rape scene in Mad Men in which Joan's fiancee forces her to have sex on the floor of the office.
physically forces her to have sex.
that's non-violent rape to this fuckface.
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 12:41 PM
Wader I missed it, sorry. give me the post number or post again, if you will. I am interested in your understanding of rape.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 12:45 PM
The term "rapist" has become so emotionally charged that it is essentially useless.
Exactly, it makes a cartoon out of reality.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:49 PM
Only in delusional sick minds like Wader. What a loser. Still no evidence insane fool, just your inane and insane opinion, which is meaningless...Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 12:50 PM
Me #167
Apparently not. His answers to his lickspittle apologist's questions are quite interesting. The questions, in bold, are from #159 and his answers are from #165. My comments are in italics:
1) Do you accept that serial rapists do exist? (Y/N)
1.yes, but that has more to do with pathology, when people use the term "rapist" they are deluding themselves into thinking that these special "rapist" creatures are somehow engineered by nature to be that way and all rationality goes out the window. Nothing is left but for that label. [emphasis in original]
Wader says "yes" but he means "no, not really." In real life a rapist is someone who rapes. A serial rapist is someone who rapes on multiple occasions, often with multiple victims. The question doesn't consider the motivation for a serial rapist, it just asks if they exist.
That is why it was very important to address this from the very beginning and should be only reserved for elaborate movie-like serial rapists.
This is a complete non sequitur. The only one who finds the distinction important is the rapist apologist. As usual for his disjointed statements, he asserts the importance but neglects to explain why it's important.
2) What kind of penalty would be appropriate for violent rape? i.e. where there is no scope for interpreting a crime as consenual sex somehow gone wrong. (1,5,15,20 years)
2.no more than 10 years, non-violent rape-less than 5 years + mandatory therapy
The rapist apologist pulls these numbers out of his ass without giving the slightest justification for them.
3) At what age should sex with a minor absolutely not be acceptable? (5,9,11,12,13,14,15 years etc.)
3.12-14, since there is a great degree of variation in sexual maturation.
Sexual maturity shouldn't enter into the picture. Emotional maturity is the measure by which the age of consent is determined. The Brazilian rape victim who needed an abortion was sexually mature at the age of nine.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 12:55 PM
@Wader #181
Let me make a few observations. English is not your native language, and this is causing some confusion. You should try and keep your responses as short and specific as possible. Like you did above.
I'm certainly getting a clearer idea of what your position is.
Now, could you confirm that you accept that some serial rapists actually exist? Just to put that particular question to bed.
You have obviously given this subject quite a lot of thought, however a side effect of this is that much of what you say comes across as extremely dismissive of rape, this is part of what is causing the feeding frenzy. We can see some of the posters here have had personal experience of rape and this partly explains the intensity of their reaction to your posts. Why do you feel so strongly about this topic?
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 12:59 PM
@Wader. Can I strongly urge you to completely ignore any other posters for the moment.
Guys, would it be possible to simply lurk for a fifteen minutes or so? We might all learn something.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:04 PM
nothing that we haven't heard from the five million other MRA trolls that wander the internets. At best, he might come up with another personal story, like Hyperon's overbearing, nagging mother.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 5, 2010 1:05 PM
The only thing we'll learn from this misogynist asshole is how much he hates women.
Besides, the sun is shining, the birds are coughing in the trees, there's not a thunderstorm around for 200 miles, and I'm going for a sail.
Posted by: Wader
|
June 5, 2010 1:08 PM
ctlly, t wld b nc f thy wld rspnd frst t th bvs fcts tht wmn lrnd t s rp s wpn nd s dfns.
ls thr hv bn css whr ndr pr prssr(whch ws n trn cltr prssrd) wmn ltrd thr mmrs f ctl vnts t cnfrm wth xtrnlly ppld nrrtv.
Y gnrng ll tht s mkng y lk flsh.
s fr my sxlty, 'm n sxl rbt, t hs n brng t nythng wht w dscss, nd t try t nfs yr mgnd prsnlty f m n ll f ths s dtc.
[Goodbye, rapologist! -- pzm]
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 5, 2010 1:11 PM
A feature, not a bug.
If it is not appropriate to be emotionally charged about this, of all things, then emotion itself has no use or meaning, anywhere or anytime, for anything.
And please note that I have lurked for this entire thread, before posting now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 1:13 PM
Citations needed loser.No, your unevidenced assertions make you look foolish. Either give some real evidence, or shut the fuck up. Your word is worthless being it comes from a loser.Actually is does rapist apologizer. The fact that you don't see that confirms your loser status. Still nothing cogent you have said all thread...Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 5, 2010 1:16 PM
I'd make a substantial bet that Wader, who hates and despises women, has at some point been convicted of date rape or similar, and sentenced to more than 5 years in prison.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:17 PM
Jadehawk, OM:
It certainly is. Good call.
Don't forget to add women using rape as both a weapon and a defense to the bingo card.
Rape apologist:
No, moron. When people use the term rapist they mean someone who rapes. Full stop. It has nothing to do with motivation.
No, moron. Television and movies aren't real. I think you need a bit of help in that area. The rest of us are talking about actual rapists.
Posted by: sudomabinusri
|
June 5, 2010 1:18 PM
The old "If they're old enough to bleed..." arguement. What a worthless POS is Wader the rapist.
Why anyone would need to see anything more from this moron is beyond me.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 1:20 PM
@Wader #188
Actually, it would be nice if they would respond first to the obvious facts that women learned to use rape as a weapon and as a defense.
I can assure you that that is never going to happen. Plus it is exactly the kind of red flag waving that infuriates many of the posters here. Can you see why that might be?
Also there have been cases where under peer pressure(which was in turn culture pressured) women altered their memories of actual events to conform with externally applied narrative.
You ignoring all that is making you look foolish.
I think it pretty unlikely that anyone will dispute that instances of this occur. Disagreement is likely to centre on the question of scale. What % of these "non violent" rapes in your view fall into these categories?
As for my sexuality, I'm an asexual robot, it has no bearing to anything what we discuss, and to try to infuse your imagined personality of me in all of this is idiotic.
Why then is this topic of such intense interest?
Can you also have a stab at the outstanding questions from my previous posts?
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 1:23 PM
"12-14, since there is a great degree of variation in sexual maturation."
wanker, what if any would you set the age limit of the above's partner?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:28 PM
what the fuck does that have to do with rape, you fucking moronPosted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:28 PM
sudomabinusri:
I started to bleed before my 10th bday. Goes to show what a bad argument that happens to be. Anyway, our idiot rape apologist didn't seem to have the brainpower to actually answer that particular question, which was:
3) At what age should sex with a minor absolutely not be acceptable? (5,9,11,12,13,14,15 years etc.)
His answer was: 3.12-14, since there is a great degree of variation in sexual maturation.
Not surprisingly, our rape apologist missed the "not" in the question.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 1:28 PM
So are you fuckwit. Still no evidence cited loser rapist...Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 1:29 PM
@Wader. Dude just talk to me. These people all despise and hate you, that much is surely clear? I am the only person remotely interested in getting to the bottom of what you really think and why, so focus on my posts.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 5, 2010 1:31 PM
coughlanbrianm (#185)
You mean you might learn what everyone else here seems to already understand? Your belief that your own stubborn confusion over Wader's motivations is "open mindedness" and "fairness" and the rest of us are operating under some prejudice is pure idiocy, much less appropriate grounds for asking everyone else to shut up, even temporarily. If you're asking the troll simple and clear questions and he's not answering those simply and clearly, you should take that as a sign of his trollishness rather than assuming everyone else is at fault for distracting him and making it hard for him to reply.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:31 PM
coughlanbrianm, why don't you two run off and get a room, I'm sure you'll be very happy together, discussing rape apologetics.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 5, 2010 1:31 PM
I'm suddenly reminded of the conservative mindset towards welfare: they'd rather the poor starve than to see a few people cheat the system. Similarly here, we have someone who thinks the legal system around rape needs to be overhauled because of a few cases where someone was falsely accused.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 5, 2010 1:32 PM
Can someone explain to me why it is that when someone gets banned, the vowels get removed from their posts? Is there some technical reason for this? Or is it symbolic in some bizarre way? I just don't get it.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
June 5, 2010 1:34 PM
As amphiox said, that's a feature, not a bug. It describes an ugly, upsetting reality. There's no way to make it sound bland, unless you are already desensitized to the suffering of others. (Guess why rapists are both unwilling and unable to see why their actions are horrendous?)
And here, our brave wading troll essentially lost his contact with planet Reality.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:36 PM
Walton, not everyone gets disemvoweled, just particularly loathsome posts.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 1:40 PM
coughlanbrianm, why don't you two run off and get a room, I'm sure you'll be very happy together, discussing rape apologetics.
Because I want everyone else to see his responses. It's very easy to pepper an inarticulate poster with invective and dismiss them when the can't keep up, but it doesn't really achieve anything meaningful.
Plus isn't the old "when did you stop beating your wife" shtick a little worn? If you don't want to read this ... well don't read this. I'll do a summary at the end of the evening, assuming we even get that far, tune in then if you like.
Posted by: Mike Crichton
|
June 5, 2010 1:43 PM
In Wader's defense, there is _some_ support to the whole "rape is only traumatic because our society says it is" view, like Malinowski's "The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia", and Gilbert Herdt's studies in New Guinea(IIRC, it's been years since I read them). However, Malinowski wrote prior to WW2, and Herdt has been heavily criticized by other anthropologists. Grains of salt are recommended.
Now, that said:
btw mystical serial predatory elaborate rapists you created in your minds is not what we are discussing here.
Exactly, we're discussing Catholic priests. (rimshot)
Anubis:
There is only one truly sick and perverse point..the inadequate that rape because they are incapable of anything else.
We like to think this, but the majority of rapists are otherwise "normal" individuals who don't fit the "pervert in an alley" stereotype. This is how they get away with it for so long. "I'm a rich popular successful lawyer/doctor/businessman. Why would _I_ have to rape anyone/molest my children?"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 1:43 PM
Yes, PZ has a script to do it, and he uses it for obnoxious posts. Keep in mind it is all PZ, disemvoweling, banning, and the like.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 5, 2010 1:48 PM
Coughlan, what the fuck are you doing cozening up to an apologist for violence against women, a vile thug who wants to blame the victims for the violence against him? He is a deserved pariah here, and that kind of slime will not be permitted to spread his loathsomeness. Nor do I look kindly on people who just want to be friends with someone who is unperturbed by molesters.
Posted by: pistoreyu
|
June 5, 2010 1:49 PM
Please, BMC, who do you think you are? Hannah Arendt, grappling with deep issues? You're just engaging a stupid, very vulgar, psychopathic troll without any brains to speak of, who emits disjointed and woman-hating babblings we've all heard a million times. To me, this bit of dialogue could sum it up: From Caine's excellent answer in 142: She was far from the only person to write intelligently and eloquently in this very thread (thanks to all, by the way). But of course, it is "tricky" for you that some answers are so "intense," huh? Do we smell stupid pretensions of objectivity? I think a lot of people know that beast here.And you'd like the rest of posters to hush while both you and the troll show the depth of your ignorance? Please.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 5, 2010 1:51 PM
Oh, Smoggy, I think there are a couple of guys who want to meet Floyd. They're saying that rape is only traumatic due to strictures of society. Let's see how quickly they recover after taking Floyd's salami up the poop chute.
LOOK, FUCKWITS. RULE NUMBER ONE: NEVER DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE.
I don't care if my own mother says something that sounds like rape apologism, I will tell her it's bullshit. If you haven't been raped, you have nothing worth saying on the topic unless its sympathy for the victim.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 5, 2010 1:51 PM
Yeah, but why? I can understand deleting an obnoxious post, but what does the removal of vowels symbolise? :-/
I wasn't asking how it was done, but rather what the point was.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 5, 2010 1:56 PM
the point is that if you really really want to read it, you can, but you have to put effort into it, so it's very easily ignorable.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 5, 2010 1:56 PM
In this case, to leave the post marker with the banhammer picture, but muddy the message.Posted by: Mike Crichton
|
June 5, 2010 1:56 PM
Walton: It's so that if anyone really wants to read the disemvowelled post, they can work through it, but at the same time it tells them it probably won't be worth the effort.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
June 5, 2010 1:58 PM
@ Walton
About disemvowelling:
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 5, 2010 1:59 PM
PZ ... I don't see that this is what I'm doing at all. However, clearly I'm really swimming against the stream here and if this is honestly what you think this was about ... well I'm quite shaken and chastened by that. Goodnight all.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 5, 2010 1:59 PM
Disemvoweling, and also the inclusion of links on the dungeon page, are techniques to mark the foul posts without simply making them disappear so that others can learn from them. Most people are NOT so engrossed in the comment threads that I can simply delete some vile comment and they will know why, or for that matter, even notice.
Think of disemvoweling as being rather like taking the head of the reprehensible interloper and putting it in a public place on a stake. Now you can see what we do to vermin.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 5, 2010 2:04 PM
"Wader. Dude just talk to me."
I know his type, he'll ignore you in favor of making cheap points about the tone of the argumentation. Sastra gets the short shrift from trolls all the time because she actually tries discussing with them, often at length*. I think they're afraid of that.
* Which is not to say that I don't love her for it, but it really is a case of pearls before swine most of the time.
Posted by: BdN
|
June 5, 2010 2:11 PM
Wader surely sounds like someone we had about a week or two ago... Almost the same exact arguments and tone...
Posted by: irenedelse
|
June 5, 2010 2:12 PM
@ Mike Crichton #207:
Regarding the "cultural differences" objection, I find useful to read what another anthropologist, Greg Laden, has to say in his post "A rape in progress":
(Emphasis mine.)
Many cultures (including ours) have different standards, expectations and norms for men and women. And it often includes attitudes toward rape.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 5, 2010 2:12 PM
Rey Fox,
Could you elaborate what you're saying here, perhaps? Are you referring to cases where people were falsely accused but acquitted, or cases where people were falsely accused and convicted?
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 2:12 PM
I like trying to read disemvoweled posts. its a chalenge, for me anyway.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 5, 2010 2:15 PM
Warning, this is a very bitter joke based on Wader's contribution.
A male virgin in forced onto a roof because of a flood of females of all ages. The man dies of exposure to the elements.
In heaven, he meets god. He asks god, "Why did you allow me to die a virgin?"
God replies, "I sent you thousands of females. You could have taken ten minutes to have a non violent rape."
Mean spirited? Fuck, yeah. No lose having that scum bag gone.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 5, 2010 2:17 PM
No, he's not Hyperon. Different writing style, smaller vocabulary and less precise in his communication. I am 98 percent sure they're not the same person.
(It's always easy to tell when someone is returning under a new pseudonym. When Piltdown returned as "Mary O'Nette", for instance, I spotted him within seconds. It's not just about the views expressed; each person has a subtly different style of self-expression.)
What he might be is a deliberate copycat-troll (perhaps from 4chan) who read the previous rape threads and decided to imitate Hyperon in order to piss people off.
Posted by: creating trons
|
June 5, 2010 2:18 PM
Walton, I would say both. Is the only thing worse than being accused and acquited of a crime is to be convicted and jailed? am I on the same page with you?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 5, 2010 2:20 PM
I'm sure a culture could have a custom of raping young girls routinely, and people could get inured to it; they could even tie it into all kinds of rewards so that a girl who was not getting raped regularly would feel unloved.
However, we are not in that culture. I also believe that some cultural practices are better than others, and a people who raise girls to believe they are cheap receptacles subject to the violent whims of boys are not a people I want to learn from. I would not want to live in such a society, nor do I want my children to grow up in that environment.
Posted by: BdN
|
June 5, 2010 2:47 PM
@Walton
You're right. What I meant was more along the lines that it is surprising (or not, actually) how some people advocating for an untenable and mostly stupid position sound very much alike. And of course, this doesn't apply only to the subject at hand as appropriately exemplified by the "you're supposed to be rational and skeptical over here" gambit as played in 38 "I thought you were supposed to be a scientific minded and progressive people..what a nasty surprise..", similar to the one by apophaticattic on the acupuncture thread.
It was more about certain patterns discerned than something as specific (and since we're talking about cultural anthropology, relativism and patterns.... Benedict?).
Posted by: Mike Crichton
|
June 5, 2010 4:53 PM
All else being equal, a rape victim from a society which teaches that rape victims are horribly sullied sinners who have an obligation to kill themselves to redeem the family honor, is probably going to be much more traumatized than a victim of an identical crime who comes from a culture where rape victims are held blameless.
Also, there are legitimate arguments against "excessive" criminal sentences. The first one is that the longer the potential sentence is, the less likely a jury is to convict for the crime. This is why prosecutors do their darnedest to keep jurors ignorant. The second argument is that victims are also less likely to come forward and press charges. Most rape victims knew their rapists, and don't necessarily want them to die or spend life in prison. If little Susie knows her daddy could be executed, she's much less likely to tell anyone else about him touching her inappropriately. Of course I don't think a life sentence for this particular pervert priest would be excessive, but if the choice is giving him a relative slap on the wrist, and not punishing him at all, the slap on the wrist _might_ be the better choice.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 5, 2010 11:53 PM
"Are you referring to cases where people were falsely accused but acquitted, or cases where people were falsely accused and convicted?"
Uh, either one, I guess, I'm not the one who originally brought up false accusations and false memories, that would be our banned friend. I'm just thinking of the type of person who derails a discussion on rape to complain about how unfairly some unspecified number of men have been treated in rape cases. While it has certainly happened, it's not exactly germaine to the subject of how very sharply tilted the playing field has been against women for pretty much the whole history of our species.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 7, 2010 3:51 PM
PZ:
Very good comment. For a Roman slave, rape was the least of their worries -- I doubt that it was particularly traumatizing, given that their entire sense of self had often been obliterated. That was probably a common condition throughout civilization's history -- that a significant portion of the population, slaves, serfs, proleteriat, etc, had developed personality structures that were adapted to being continually assaulted.
And it's all terribly irrelevant to how we should analyze events today. Today, it is essential to all of us to have physical and psychic integrity. We are non-functional in most contemporary societies if we've been mutilated and reduced -- there is no place for humans used as beasts of burden.
One can recognize that the meaning of every event is culturally determined, without affecting one iota how we, in our cultures at this time, understand the meaning of events. Because we are cultural animals, for something to be culturally relative makes it no less real than a collapsed skull. Destroying a personality is as worse, if not worse, than puncturing a lung, or amputating limbs.
This error of considering something less "real" because it is culturally constrained is another of the vestiges of the absurd mind/body duality. Some events are considered "only in your mind" -- as if that wasn't exactly something occurring on your body, and visa-versa. Culture is as real as gravity -- you can't change it by simply wishing it be something else.