Quote :

"Well, I'll grant there could be significant randomness as well. Is that you mean by free will?"

Except you have yet to conclusively demonstrate a difference between what you call "randomness" and consciously directed action.

Look. I have yet to see anyone here deny the existence of consciousness. Do we know where consciousness comes from? Not really. But we all generally agree it exists - or at least no one has thrown up a bone of contention regarding it yet.

Meanwhile, we observe free will to exist. Determinists argue this is an illusion of consciousness, and simply a result of mechanistic processes. Yet no mechanistic process is proposed. We are simply given the following claim:

P1) Humans are influenced by genetics and their environment
P2) ?
C) Therefore, human action is exclusively directed by genetics and environment.

The fact that one's criteria for judgment can be influenced by genetics and environment is not the same thing as demonstrating that they are exclusively determined by these.

In other words, we have an observed phenomena - free will - which determinists claim is illusory. But the argument made is that "where does free will come from other than environment or genetics" again completely ignores the notion of emergent phenomena.

Once again - nobody's denying abstraction and awareness, and yet we can't mechanistically determine them (as of yet). So why then should we be expected to discard free will, which would seem to be a natural outgrowth of self-awareness?

Quote :

"No may about it. Psychological research shows that circumstances affect behavior far more than people tend to think. Fundamental attribution error and all that. Within the narrative of free will, environment still matters most, at least for groups."

Nobody's made the claim that these factors are irrelevant - they determine the values and norms one uses to evaluate sensory data and ideas to come to a decision-making process. But that doesn't mean they are the decision-making process.

Quote :

"What else is available?"

Again, begging the question. If consciousness and free will are emergent phenomena, then these are not the same as genetics and environment.

Quote :

"Getting back to the original topic, the rate of rape and sexual assault depends on how you define these things. By radical feminist definition, the rape epidemic exists. By other definitions, maybe not."

By the radical feminist definition, no woman is capable of giving consent, therefore nearly all heterosex is rape.

Which is why nobody listens to radical feminists: because they're (misandric) crackpots. We may as well listen to a KKK member give us a deconstruction as to why minorities are responsible for crime.

10/31/2008 2:47:27 PM

By the radical feminist definition a lot of guys are being raped too. By their definition I have been raped. Lots of people have had experiences where they were drunk and did things with a partner who was maybe less drunk.

Of course their is no outrage over this, because their is this belief that only men are the aggressors when it comes to sexual encounters. They need to know that you can't have it both ways, you can't have a sexual revolution but still think that men are always the aggressors or initiators of sexual encounters.


(i know someone will point out that in this state "rape" is specifically for women, and if you do i know you missed my point)

10/31/2008 3:07:19 PM

Quote :

"Except you have yet to conclusively demonstrate a difference between what you call "randomness" and consciously directed action."

Well, we seem to agree that circumstances largely influence human behavior. Currently, however, we can't predict individual action perfectly or even very well. Assuming this holds true with more complete information, a bit of randomness would explain that. Alternatively or additionally, the decision-making process could be acausal. Quantum weirdness does open up some interesting possibilities, and defenders of free will will try anything. See Penrose's microtubules for an example.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, we observe free will to exist."

We do? To the contrary, I say it's a philosophical view, not some measurable phenomenon. The doctrine of personal responsibility, at least, is a belief about how the world should. As such, it's beyond the purview of science.

Quote :

"We are simply given the following claim:"

Actually, it goes more like this:

P1) Humans are influenced by genetics and their environment.
P2) No other factors are known to exist.
C) Therefore, human action is exclusively directed by genetics and environment.

Quote :

"But the argument made is that "where does free will come from other than environment or genetics" again completely ignores the notion of emergent phenomena."

No, it doesn't. Rather, emergence explains how we get the appearance of free will from genes and environment.

Quote :

"If consciousness and free will are emergent phenomena, then these are not the same as genetics and environment."

See above. We ain't on the same page about emergent phenomena.

Quote :

"By the radical feminist definition, no woman is capable of giving consent, therefore nearly all heterosex is rape."

More or less. A member of the oppressed class isn't a liberty to consent to anything. I don't know if I fully buy that, but it's pushing the right direction. I'm convinced mainstream sexuality is a misogynistic mess that hurts countless women.

Quote :

"Which is why nobody listens to radical feminists: because they're (misandric) crackpots."

They get along alright with Robert Jensen.

11/1/2008 1:40:59 AM

Quote :

"More or less. A member of the oppressed class isn't a liberty to consent to anything."

If "choice" is a product of one's experiences (and genes, and ect), as you claim earlier, then wouldn't a member of the of the dominant class be JUST as able to shed responsibility for their own actions, since they have been bred, raised, indoctrinated (or whatever terminology you want to use) into thinking and acting in a certain way? It seems like the denial of responsibility could easily go both ways here, but that the only discriminating factor is history of the two groups.

11/1/2008 7:35:17 AM

^ Sure. I'd say we're all the sum of our nature and experience. But the debate about personal responsibility and free will was a tangent. One of my old favorites, but not particularly connected to campus rape and radical feminism. Plenty of radical feminists stress responsibility and punishment, at least for rapists. Dead men don't rape, as Andrea Dworkin used to say.

11/1/2008 12:08:23 PM

Quote :

"Plenty of radical feminists stress responsibility and punishment, at least for rapists."

And that's exactly the problem... that the responsibility is only put on the "rapist" in cases where both parties are drunk or both parties give consent... it is fair/just if both parties are held accountable for their actions, or if neither party is held accountable. Regardless of one's view on free will, it makes no sense that one party should be able to shed responsibility and the other should not. It's simply a sexist double-standard in multiple ways (sexist in that it advocates harsher treatment/higher standards of one sex over the other, and sexist in that is implies that women are not mentally capable of making informed decisions).

11/2/2008 7:06:53 AM

1. If you were not drugged.
2. If you did not have alcohol funneled down your throat.
3. If you did not contact the police within hours of it happening.
4. You slept in the same bed as your attacker.

It is not rape.

11/2/2008 9:12:28 AM

One of my ex-gf's friends said she was raped.

For two weeks all she talked about was how her guy friend from HS was coming over, and how much she used to like him. It was blatantly obvious what her intentions were. She was 18, he was 17.

Fast forward 2 weeks when my ex-gf's roommate came in crying because that girl was "raped."

She invited him over, to spend the weekend with her, she took him to parties, they were both drunk, they had sex in a random bathroom and she later invited him into her bed to sleep the rest of the night.

Yet, the next morning she applied for the emergency contraceptive pill for rape.

11/2/2008 9:16:33 AM

Sounds like she is just a slut

11/2/2008 3:59:34 PM

Perhaps the following bit from Twisty will help clarify the radical feminist position. I suggest reading the entire blog entry.

On one end of the spectrum in this splendid tableau of violent misogyny is the Nigel who cajoles ‘consent’ with guilt and low-level duress (“come on, just a little longer, I’m almost there.”). On the other, the jewel in the crown of patriarchal dominion: physical assault under threat of injury or death, or what is popularly thought of as rape.

There are 578,843 different little hate crimes in between. I’ve written about a few of them. High heels, blow jobs, street harassment, feminist dudes, the normalization of porn culture.

But for the level of intensity, these are all points on the same continuum.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2008/07/15/hed-hit-that/

11/3/2008 12:28:13 AM

if there is no free will then you cannot charge someone with rape, its that simple. it was not an act for which they are responsible since they were removed of the choice to have sex or not.

11/3/2008 12:00:48 PM

If there's no free will, then we can still imprison rapists on a purely behavioral model. Raped once, higher chance they'll do it again so lock 'em up or kill 'em.

You can make it as personal or impersonal as you want, but (in our think tank) punishment for severe crimes should not change IMHO.

11/3/2008 1:09:08 PM

even if you were to decide to punish them you could not objectively state that they had a responsibility for the crime, if there is no free will. that is, going with the train of thought provided by GoldenViper being involved in the activity does not necessarily bear responsibility if there is no free will and your actions are a result of your heredity and your environment.

11/3/2008 1:13:42 PM

Fine, then your combination of heredity and your environment caused pain to someone.

If the lack of free will in the universe invalidates claims of inherent brutality by the perpetrator, then it also takes away the moral burden of lethal injection so...

11/3/2008 2:56:03 PM

This tangent again points out why the anti-free will arguments, while pleasing from a solipsistic perspective, are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.

For instance, what do they tell us here? Supposedly, women are incapable of consent. Of course then, so too are the rapists of doing anything other than what they're doing. The only proposed solution is... the status quo.

Wonderful. Illuminating.

But, oh, wait - according to the radical misandrist feminist perspective, it's only women who are incapable of consent. Despite, you know, us letting them vote, drive cars, and generally act all uppity.

This is totally useful analysis.

Next up: we survey a Klan member about race relations. Is it the minority-run kleptocracy and the international cabal of Jewish bankers that's responsible for all cirme and social strife?

[Edited on November 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2008 3:18:07 PM

^ you put it much better than i was about to.

ty, ty, <3

11/3/2008 3:19:46 PM

yeah, props to Dr. Chaos.

11/3/2008 3:41:24 PM

Quote :

"So according to radical feminists, women are mentally inferior? Because if they can be conditioned (PROGRAMMED) by men into being mistreated, they are obviously not the equal of men cerebrally speaking, right? But isn't one of their fundamental tenets that women are equal to men when it comes to brain power? "

eat shit

give me 6 weeks, some rope and pair of pliers and you'll agree to anything I say, welcome my abuse and thank me for it

does that make you mentally inferior?

11/3/2008 4:31:16 PM

Quote :

"There are 578,843 different little hate crimes in between. I’ve written about a few of them. High heels, blow jobs, street harassment, feminist dudes, the normalization of porn culture."

High heels and blow jobs are a hate crime?

11/3/2008 5:08:10 PM