Comments on: Symbolic Consequences of the New Definition of “Forcible Rape”

By: quick hit: Debunking Hanna Rosin’s “End of Rape” Claim

quick hit: Debunking Hanna Rosin’s “End of Rape” Claim — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:18:21 +0000

[…] ridiculous, as I’ll show. Rape is difficult to measure, partly because of limiting state definitions, but the numbers are consistent enough from different sources to support the conclusion that […]

By: quick hit: Symbolic Consequences of the New Definition of “Forcible Rape”. | feimineach

Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:41:07 +0000

[…] [Read more: sociologicalimages] […]

By: [link] Debunking Hanna Rosin’s “End of Rape” Claim « slendermeans

[link] Debunking Hanna Rosin’s “End of Rape” Claim « slendermeans — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:24:47 +0000

By: [image] Symbolic Consequences of the New Definition of “Forcible Rape”. « slendermeans

Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:53:14 +0000

[…] more: sociologicalimages] [share]ShareEmailFacebookTwitterTumblrPinterestStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

By: Debunking Hanna Rosin, stop The End of Rape story edition « Family Inequality

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:21:17 +0000

[…] is difficult to measure, partly because of limiting state definitions, but the numbers are consistent enough from different sources to support the conclusion […]

By: anon

anon — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 23:35:00 +0000

I’d be happy to think through any substantive reply you’d like to
make. As it stands, though, your response is a (only slightly)
more sophisticated way of saying “shut up”. Which is
disappointing, not least because I was looking forward to reading
the sort of subtly argued and insightful comment that one can
only make with the benefit of advanced sociological degrees. Or
was that it?

By: Kiki

Kiki — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:14:00 +0000

if you think you’re making any sense at all, you’re hilariously mistaken. just give it a rest already.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:46:00 +0000

To review: you posted a comment expressing your frustration that other commenters don’t agree with you, suggesting that having the proper credentials should substitute for having persuasive arguments and evidence.

I disputed this at length.

Your only reply was to point out that I got your personal pronoun wrong.

If that’s all you had to say in response, should I conclude that you agree with me about credentialism, or should I conclude that you still think credentialism is the way to resolve differences of opinion, and therefore do not deign to offer a counterargument since I lack the proper credentials?

By: Kiki

Kiki — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:15:00 +0000

????????

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:23:00 +0000

The purpose of jail is to rehabilitate offenders, not to offer some sense of revenge.People who are clinically insane get alternate forms of rehabilitation instead of jail time, so if removing his tumor accomplished this there would be no need for future rehabilitation. Again, IANAL, but from my understanding the parole process is a way for people to get out out jail by proving they have been rehabilitated.

By: snuhfoo

snuhfoo — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:15:00 +0000

Okay, there are quite a few things here.

1. I think you and Xiao Mao are actually in agreement on the whole, but s/he misunderstood something and tried to push you down a line of reasoning that you weren’t headed in- but it’s a little hard for me to tell as I’m coming into this comment thread quite late.
2. I think you are taking issue with the idea that someone claiming they have an “uncontrollable urge” would absolve someone of their actions. On the surface, I agree with you. This does not absolve someone of their actions. Had Charles Whitman been caught alive and no one knew about his tumor, then he should be put in jail because there are no other realistic options.
3. However, you stumbled upon a major gray area by using Charles Whitman as your example. The common theory is that his brain tumor affected areas of the brain that control violence and self control. In short, he honestly could not control himself. Now assuming he was caught alive, and they found out about his tumor he probably would have hospitalized him instead of bringing him to jail. Let’s assume they were able to successfully remove the tumor, and he’s “rehabilitated.” Does he still have to serve out a jail sentence? Personally, that seems unnecessarily punitive to me. Like, it or not, as we learn more about the brain, I think this grey area is going to get bigger and bigger.
4. If we say Charles Whitman deserves another chance upon removal of the tumor, how about someone who was legitimately in control of their actions? Do they get another chance if they can show they are “rehabilitated?”

By: Redlinkdude

Redlinkdude — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:18:00 +0000

Oh, I see what you are saying. Yeah, don’t arrest someone before they commit a crime.

What I meant was IF he weren’t killed at the tower, saying it was an uncontrollable urge wouldn’t be “absolving him of any personal responsibility for his actions” as Xiao Mao seemed to imply.

By: snuhfoo

snuhfoo — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:35:00 +0000

The man committed no crimes before killing his family and the tower shootings. The police have no right to isolate someone (not even house arrest) if there is no crime committed even if there are violent urges. He died in the tower shootings, so what to do with him after is moot. The only way the tower shootings were preventable, were if his doctors took him more seriously and hospitalized him- but that’s asking a lot of any doctor to hospitalize someone who looks like there is nothing wrong.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:29:00 +0000

My apologies for the confusion. I take it from your short list of complaints that we agree about everything else?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:05:00 +0000

Change “possible” to “impossible” in my last sentence.

See what I mean about being unable to communicate effectively?