"you're saying that some people who have actually been raped are lying about it"
I already explained the problem with this argument: it'd always apply (either you're calling victims liars, or you're calling innocent people rapists) unless your estimate of the percentage was exactly correct.
I'd consider any global false-report numbers a lot less certain than evidence for holocaust. Also, "holocaust denial" is normally used to mean more than just a significantly different estimate of how efficiently the Nazis managed to carry out their extermination campaign; it means questioning the existence of such an intentional campaign. A comparison to "holocaust deniers" is silly (I guess Godwin's law applies by this point).
"If both people are drunk enough that they are simultaneously able to give consent and unable to determine that the other person is unable to give consent, Ted's example says that it's not rape."
No, he did NOT make any such claims about all possible cases which match "both are drunk". He was talking about an example case where the situation is symmetric. I have already addressed that point before. You seem to arguing something along the lines of "but I can add things to his example that he didn't explicitly rule out, and then it no longer works". He didn't add disclaimers like "... and there is nothing else making the situation asymmetric", but his example was clear enough without those.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: My overall take on the discussion
Date: 2012-11-08 09:28 pm (UTC)I already explained the problem with this argument: it'd always apply (either you're calling victims liars, or you're calling innocent people rapists) unless your estimate of the percentage was exactly correct.
I'd consider any global false-report numbers a lot less certain than evidence for holocaust. Also, "holocaust denial" is normally used to mean more than just a significantly different estimate of how efficiently the Nazis managed to carry out their extermination campaign; it means questioning the existence of such an intentional campaign. A comparison to "holocaust deniers" is silly (I guess Godwin's law applies by this point).
"If both people are drunk enough that they are simultaneously able to give consent and unable to determine that the other person is unable to give consent, Ted's example says that it's not rape."
No, he did NOT make any such claims about all possible cases which match "both are drunk". He was talking about an example case where the situation is symmetric. I have already addressed that point before. You seem to arguing something along the lines of "but I can add things to his example that he didn't explicitly rule out, and then it no longer works". He didn't add disclaimers like "... and there is nothing else making the situation asymmetric", but his example was clear enough without those.