GROSSLY inappropriate judicial behavior...

I also have a hard time believing that rape has nothing to do with sex.

That is your prerogative. It's very well documented and you can only "wholly disagree" by disconsidering a tremendous body of evidence. Such, again, is both your prerogative and apparently your inclination.



No I am most certainly not basing it "purely on opinion". This is yet another fallacious argument of yours that you can neither prove or offer a single shred of evidence to support.

Now in the above I am simply telling you taht you are contructing a fallacious appeal to authority.

You are trying to cite an authority and I'm telling you that said authority has no ownership of the truth and that I think the study referenced was idiotic drivel.

If you'd like more understanding of this simply look up what a fallacious appeal to authority is. If you need links I can provide them or I can explain it to you myself.



Let me rephrase, you are using a fallacy called "appeal to authority" and you are basing this on several assumptions that you know simply nothing about.

Just one example of one such idiotic assumption is:

Whether I have studied rape.

You know not a whit about this but are fully prepared to make assumptions and base fallacies on them.

Dlowan's post, um, 540820, comprehensively covers what I wish I said myself. I haven't worked with rapists and the raped, but have formed my own opinion along the same lines.

Craven de Kere: What evidence did you provide? I see no literature sited. I see no web pages provided. I see nothing that indicates any evidence. I DID provide a link to Yale. I have found several web sites from legitimate sources that indicate the same things I have said -- violent rape is not motivated by sex.

That sounds just a tad personal Craven. But then I suppose that is YOUR prerogative.

I provided not one. How you reconcile that with your fallacious assertion that I base my argument "purely" on opinion is a horse of a different colour.

Hint: It's based on assumptions on your part.



And let me state again that I consider the source you provided to be idiotic drivel not worthy of intellectual discussion.

It made absolute proclamations on topics that can't be declared absolutely and claimed statistics that it in no way verified.

In other words it was an iditotic bit of drivel that stated something and in no way backed it up.

Hint: what they are stating can't be verified.



It was not "personal" at all. I consider your arguments herein to be an idiotic heap of fallacy. All you have done is heap on the fallacies and assumptions. Many of said assumptions were attempt to discredit me and make assumptions about how I arrive at my opinion.

If it's too "personal" to say that your arguments are absurd and idiotic drivel then so be it. If a prerequisite to discussion with you as agreeing with you (even when it's idiotic drivel) then there's hardly a point.

So I'll state yet again:

Your appeals to authority are fallacious and idiotic arguments.

Your assumptions about what I base my opinion on have not a shred of basis.

Your claim that rapists do not select victims based on preferences (sometimes sexual) is simply absurd and false.

This is not "personal". I don't care who's behind the words at all. I disagree with these arguments and state my disagreement. If you take having your fallacies pointed out personally I have but one suggestion: avoid fallacies in your arguments.

You know....when discussions like this get bogged down, I like to go back and see how they started.

This whole enterprise began when Caprice took exception to a couple of things Craven and I said.

Craven wrote:



To which Caprice replied:

I certainly didn't understand Caprice's point, because Craven had specifically said that it would be more honest to say it is not just about sex. (Craven had made the word "just" bold.)

So the only way I could understand Caprice's reply is to assume Caprice considered it NOT TO BE ABOUT SEX AT ALL. That is the only way it makes sense -- since Craven was saying it was not JUST about sex.

I chimed in with:

To which, in part, Caprice responded

Note that I used the indefinite article "Sex is a motivator -- and Caprice used the definite article "The motivator...is power."

And frankly, everything went downhill from there.

SEX IS A MOTIVATOR IN A RAPE. No one is suggesting it is "the" motivator -- or "the only" motivator -- BUT IT IS A MOTIVATOR.

And I defy Caprice to show a study that conclusively shows that SEX plays NO PART in the motivation.

I honestly do not know why we are arguing this thing.

Rape is a horrible crime -- and I abhor anyone who engages in it. I also abhor any man who would beat the crap out of some woman just to show power or to satisfy a need to terrorize someone.

Let's get past this.

Unless you are prepared to show a study that completely eliminates SEX from the motivational factors in ALL rapes, Caprice -- the position Craven and I have taken on this issue is a reasonable, logical and defendable position.

Let's go on to the next thing.

Good point Frank, we may well be arguing over something we all agree to (in different words) and if Caprice is taking it personally there's no point. Offending Caprice isn't on my to do list. ;-)

Besides that there was just a disagreement over whether rapists choose victims based on sexual preference. Dlowan already addressed this aptly and there's no point in my ham handed continuation of it.

So Caprice, I'm dropping this. It's a polemic subject not well suited to my dry and blunt manner of debate.

Maybe we can bump heads in the future on less controversial things (like wimmin being evil).

Craven de Kere: You make the claim I have nothing to back up my comments. I do not see anything backing up your comments. However, I would never refer to yours or anyone else's comments in any forum as "idiotic".

I'm done. There is no point in pursuing this line of commentary any further. I see nothing productive or positive about it.

Caprice, if you ever want substantiation for anything I say just request it and I'll either provide it or flat out say that I'd idiotically asserted something that I can't back up.

When I said you did not have evidence it was in reference to assumptions you made about me that I know you do not have evidence available for.

But if you'd like the same courtesy I'll ask:

Please provide evidence for the assumptions you made about me.

Flying in after rereading, I think I need to state what is obvious to me.. that the power of real subjugation of women or men (of whatever type is preferred) in what is a sex act of one sort or another turns some people on sexually.

Personally I think that sexual thrill (if I felt that way) would be virtually inseparable from the power acting out, as in... an equation.