[RD] Does immoral behaviour outweigh accomplishment?

[Ryika]

And that's why you're part of the problem.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, I'm not going to be doing that. Die mad about it.

I gave you a functional solution that actually implements due process. I'd rather not see rationality nosedive against evidence but it's not like I have illusions about my ability to control other people doing that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's not much to say in response to this except that it's flagrant libel, intellectually rude based on what I wrote and devoid of coherent reasoning to support it.

Well, it was actually a reference to me having that said about me in response to espousing pretty much exactly the opinion you're espousing. I thought that was actually in this thread, but I see now that we just happen to be having pretty much the same conversation in two different threads at the same time. Suffice it to say that I do not actually think that at all and that it was sarcasm.

Edit: Linky (note the claim that I "disbelieve all rape victims" does not bare much resemblance to anything I've ever actually said, and is also probably libel)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, it was actually a reference to me having that said about me in response to espousing pretty much exactly the opinion you're espousing. I thought that was actually in this thread, but I see now that we just happen to be having pretty much the same conversation in two different threads at the same time. Suffice it to say that I do not actually think that at all and that it was sarcasm.

Edit: Linky (note the claim that I "disbelieve all rape victims" does not bare much resemblance to anything I've ever actually said, and is also probably libel)

My apologies, I completely missed that connection, too many streams at once in terms of replies (it doesn't help that some people actually believe the message you wrote). I don't come on here frequently enough to know everyone's patterns and recognize something out of character for a given poster.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, I do think that promoting a narrative that victims are lying for financial gain promotes rape, albeit only indirectly.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, I do think that promoting a narrative that victims are lying for financial gain promotes rape, albeit only indirectly.

By the same logic, proving that a victim lied and that an accused is innocent, does the same, does it not?

Things have consequences, independent from whether they're true or not. Rape accusers who lie for financial gain exist, rape accusers who lie for other reasons exist. It's not a bad thing to point out that they do - especially when it's as a response to your argument that w should just blindly believe an accusation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, I do think that promoting a narrative that victims are lying for financial gain promotes rape, albeit only indirectly.

The incentive exists whether you like it or not. Pretending it doesn't won't help, nor does acknowledging it have a known causal link to more actual rape incidents. People will lie for financial gain, to protect their reputation, to get revenge or attention, or to force someone else to take responsibility for their mistake. When these happen, the person in question is not a "victim", the accused is a victim. It happens. So does rape. That's the reality.

If victims are not lying the process can be sorted legally without making victims of people who didn't actually commit a crime, or in some cases do anything at all. The reason news won't reveal an accuser's name freely when it's part of a police report is the same reason the accused should not be revealed.

Public accusations without a police report are a vigilante action, I'm not seeing why we should feel inclined to be considerate of how people who choose that route feel. It's an attempt to either bypass the legal procedures for punishing/disincentivizing actual legal wrong-doing at best, and is straight up malicious in a non-trivial fraction of cases. If this was really about protecting future victims and something illegal happened, the police report should be there.

Automatically believing the accuser, or acting in a way that gives damaging consequences to the accused without evidence/due process is unethical.

 

[Lexicus]

nor does acknowledging it have a known causal link to more actual rape incidents.

Basic criminology suggests that an environment of unaccountability is criminogenic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Basic criminology suggests that an environment of unaccountability is criminogenic.

For your position to be consistent, you're stuck also agreeing that it's bad to sweep victims of false accusation under the rug and ignore the crime of making false allegations, using the same logic that doing this creates an environment of unaccountability that leads to more of it happening.

On that note, what is the real accountability for making false accusations, especially public ones without a police report? What long-term consequences does someone have if they do this right now? People say some mean things about them online?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Should children be judged based on what their parents have done?

I don't judge for example music based on who have produced it.

Yet on the other hand we should not celebrate criminals.

Basically if we see the work as a child to the author, what the author do don't effect the work but here it is the work not the author that is celebrated.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm aware of that. I wasn't saying it was your position.

It also means you have to dump your partner once a year, unless you count the woman's age in Martian years maybe.

Yep, but in order to maintain the "half your age + 7" difference they have to age at half the rate of the man. After only 2 years they'd already be a year older than they should be, meaning you'd have to trade them in for a younger model every year or so.

So is that the ideal age difference for the start of a relationship? Or should you actually aim for someone younger than that so that they can age into that ideal difference as the relationship progresses?

Ah...no. Do the math. A spreadsheet makes it easy. If you are 16, your younger partners should be at least 15. If you are 17, then it rises to 15.5. If you are 30, then keep your partners to 22 and older. At 31 that goes up to 22.5. If what you say were true, which it is not, your claim would only apply at the lowest edge of the range anyway. At 60, one should stick with partners who are at least 37. The calculation is not to find the ideal/best age to date, but set a lower bound.

Keep in mind that this is a "rule of thumb" whose purpose is to guide one in appropriate relationships. Your tastes and motivations may vary. While manipulation does work both ways, typically, older folks use a much greater age difference to take advantage of a much younger partner. Old men use their money and position to "buy" youthful sexuality. If the price is right, young women may not mind. Other times you get Harvey Weinstein. Are all 50+ men who date/marry 22 year old women evil? Of course not; as I said your motivations may be different. But if a relationship is going to be built on some sense of equality (meaning: experience, maturity, stage in life etc) than this rule of thumb is useful. When you get outside it, the power gradient gets out of balance. A rich 80 year old who invites a 30 year old into his house is asking for estate problems. Maybe, though, at his age he doesn't care and just wants to pretend he is 25 again.

 

[Ryika]

...I think the misunderstanding is that Manfred thinks you meant "half your age + 7" is the "ideal" ratio, not the "lower limit" you consider reasonable.

It's of course still wrong, and based on the assumption that a relationship should aim for partners on equal footing. :> That's certainly one way to have a relationship, one that most people seem to prefer, but there's nothing that makes such a relationship inherently more desirable than other types of relationships. Having a relationship with a much older person is another type of relationship that can work, as long as the younger partner is in the age where they can understand what it means and make a meaningful decision to enter such a relationship, which again I think is around 16, just as with all other love-relationships.

The risk of being exploited may be higher in such relationships due to the difference in life experience, but then again we have to acknowledge that the older partner may actually be able to be a better partner for the exact same reason.

Very kinky.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...I think the misunderstanding is that Manfred thinks you meant "half your age + 7" is the "ideal" ratio, not the "lower limit" you consider reasonable.

It's of course still wrong, and based on the assumption that a relationship should aim for partners on equal footing. :> That's certainly one way to have a relationship, one that most people seem to prefer, but there's nothing that makes such a relationship inherently more desirable than other types of relationships. Having a relationship with a much older person is another type of relationship that can work, as long as the younger partner is in the age where they can understand what it means and make a meaningful decision to enter such a relationship, which again I think is around 16, just as with all other love-relationships.

The risk of being exploited may be higher in such relationships due to the difference in life experience, but then again we have to acknowledge that the older partner may actually be able to be a better partner for the exact same reason.

Very kinky.

Assumption: most ^)%@&!(& relationships are fueled by men with power, sexual, or control issues. Given that, younger women are in more jeopardy when when they have relationships with men out of this rule of thumb range and the younger they are, the less likely they are to see what they are involved in. Their immature bodies and brains coupled with lack of experience and lots of hormones makes them ill equipped for such encounters.

 

[Lexicus]

For your position to be consistent, you're stuck also agreeing that it's bad to sweep victims of false accusation under the rug and ignore the crime of making false allegations, using the same logic that doing this creates an environment of unaccountability that leads to more of it happening.

That is of course quite true. The issue is evidently that I believe there is a massive cultural bias against accusers that needs to be overcome through procedure, policy, and so forth, and that you do not believe that.

 

[Ryika]

Assumption: most ^)%@&!(& relationships are fueled by men with power, sexual, or control issues. Given that, younger women are in more jeopardy when when they have relationships with men out of this rule of thumb range and the younger they are, the less likely they are to see what they are involved in. Their immature bodies and brains coupled with lack of experience and lots of hormones makes them ill equipped for such encounters.

I have disagree with that assumption, and think that's a perception issue on your part. The fact that you default to men being the older partners already shows a clear misunderstanding, as there are lots of similar relationships where women are the older partner - not as many, and not as successful, as youth is values more in women than in men, but they do exist - already shows that you're missing out on half of the story, and what you say about those relationships sounds a lot like the cliché-relationship you'd see on TV or in bourgeois-Hollywood than anything going on in real life between everyday people. 16 + <very old> is stretching it a lot of course, but 20 + 40 for example, or 16 + 24 aren't at all unreasonable.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I have disagree with that assumption, and think that's a perception issue on your part. The fact that you default to men being the older partners already shows a clear misunderstanding, as there are lots of similar relationships where women are the older partner - not as many, and not as successful, as youth is values more in women than in men, but they do exist - already shows that you're missing out on half of the story, and what you say about those relationships sounds a lot like the cliché-relationship you'd see on TV or in bourgeois-Hollywood than anything going on in real life between everyday people. 16 + <very old> is stretching it a lot of course, but 20 + 40 for example, or 16 + 24 aren't at all unreasonable.

I yield my arrogant, biased, bourgeois, cliche ridden 6 decades of experience with people and relationships to your three years of being a teenager. My daughter knew everything at 15 too. BTW, I did say "most".

 

[Ryika]

I'm glad you acknowledge your bias, it's the first step to correcting it.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Closed for review.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889