Argument from truth

[zippy2006]

I can't spot any harm caused by a person privately watching videos of women being raped assuming that the viewer will never rape anyone nor turn a blind eye to rape. At least represent my position accurately. All these straw men are getting sloppy. Is this really how you want to end what has been a mostly pleasant conversation?

The assumption was implicit as part of the context of our conversation.

I wasn't attempting to end the conversation. I plan to reply tomorrow. I just meant that your response was rather... jaw-dropping.

The only thing I'll add is that I assumed you meant fictitious rape, but if that wasn't implied, that was a dirty trick.

You thought I meant they were watching a video of a fake rape? I didn't. Does that change your answer?

 

[Moral Orel]

The assumption was implicit as part of the context of our conversation.

The key aspects of the hypothetical being dropped from your paraphrase does not make them implied.

You thought I meant they were watching a video of a fake rape? I didn't. Does that change your answer?

Of course. They're turning a blind eye to actual rape if they're enjoying it and not doing anything about it, aren't they? I suppose we could be talking about a person who will already turn a blind eye to rape, which is bad, so the videos can't increase the likelihood. But allowing people to be raped is harmful, which I've already explicitly agreed to before, so of course I would have a problem with someone watching real rape for fun.

 

[zippy2006]

The key aspects of the hypothetical being dropped from your paraphrase does not make them implied.

You basically said that the act itself is not problematic but only some possible effects. Then I said it is strange to hear someone way that such an act is not problematic ("privately enjoying watching..." being the verb phrase).

Of course. They're turning a blind eye to actual rape if they're enjoying it and not doing anything about it, aren't they? I suppose we could be talking about a person who will already turn a blind eye to rape, which is bad, so the videos can't increase the likelihood. But allowing people to be raped is harmful, which I've already explicitly agreed to before, so of course I would have a problem with someone watching real rape for fun.

No, they're watching a video of a real rape (that occurred in the past).

 

[Moral Orel]

You basically said that the act itself is not problematic but only some possible effects. Then I said it is strange to hear someone way that such an act is not problematic ("privately enjoying watching..." being the verb phrase).

Orel: If there's no chance that watching rape porn will cause any kind of harm, then no, there's nothing wrong with it.
Zippy: So you don't have a problem with people watching rape?

No, they're watching a video of a real rape (that occurred in the past).

Why does that distinction matter? Folks should turn rapists in to the police so they don't rape more in the future. I can spot harm in being okay with witnessing an actual rape, obviously. Rape jokes aren't actual rape, so there's a false equivalency going on here.

 

[zippy2006]

Orel: If there's no chance that watching rape porn will cause any kind of harm, then no, there's nothing wrong with it.
Zippy: So you don't have a problem with people watching rape?

Here's the actual quote. I don't think we've spoken of 'rape porn' at all in the conversation.

And if we don't consider an increased likelihood to rape or turn a blind eye to rape, what makes rape jokes bad?

I'll just ask a question. Let's say someone enjoys watching videos of women being raped. But watching these videos in no way increase the likelihood that he will rape or turn a blind eye to rape. Is his watching of the videos still bad?

Why does that distinction matter?

What distinction? I'm just making my original question more obvious so you don't misunderstand it.

Folks should turn rapists in to the police so they don't rape more in the future.

Maybe they did. That's not what my question is about. You're avoiding the question.

I can spot harm in being okay with witnessing an actual rape, obviously.

I can't help but wonder if you're equivocating again. Watching a video of a rape is not "witnessing" a rape in any colloquial sense of the word.

In this post you summarized possible harm with two possibilities: 1) increased likelihood to rape, 2) increased likelihood to turn a blind eye to rape. I then intuitively asked whether someone who enjoys watching videos of rape is doing anything wrong, assuming those two possibilities are avoided.

 

[Moral Orel]

Here's the actual quote. I don't think we've spoken of 'rape porn' at all in the conversation.

You're right, I didn't say that originally. What I did say originally was a paragraph about harm, and your paraphrase didn't even mention the word "harm". The context of the conversation doesn't carry over to be implied in your paraphrase if it just looks like you aren't paying attention.

And rape porn would be the only apt comparison to rape jokes because understanding the fictitious nature is missing in witnessing an actual rape.

What distinction? I'm just making my original question more obvious so you don't misunderstand it.

The distinction of witnessing an event in the past or the present.

I can't help but wonder if you're equivocating again. Watching a video of a rape is not "witnessing" a rape in any colloquial sense of the word.

If I'm out being a tourist somewhere, and I've got my camcorder out filming some crowded plaza, and my filming catches a purse snatcher in the act, but I don't notice at the time, and later when reviewing the tape I see the crime and turn it over to police, am I not a witness?

In this post you summarized possible harm with two possibilities: 1) increased likelihood to rape, 2) increased likelihood to turn a blind eye to rape. I then intuitively asked whether someone who enjoys watching videos of rape is doing anything wrong, assuming those two possibilities are avoided.

Right, that's the only harm I could guess is possible from engaging in fictitious things. That doesn't apply to real acts, and there's no reason to intuit that after I've made this distinction over and over again.

There is actual harm attached to a video of an actual rape. Actual harm had to occur to produce such a video. If magically no one had ever decided to rape anyone else, rape jokes could still exist. You can't say the same for a video of an actual rape, so it isn't an apt comparison. I could find all sorts of harm attached to the production, sale, and consumption of such a thing, but it wouldn't have anything to do with rape jokes. So I'll engage your hypothetical by saying that yes, there is a problem with watching real rape and enjoying it. But that has nothing to do with our conversation about fictitious things.

See, when you say that this viewer isn't going to rape or be more likely to rape, you're implying he's at least somewhat close to a regular Joe that might be affected in some other way by watching that material. But he'd have to be an actual psychopath to feel enjoyment from watching real misery. There's a difference between watching a film like Saw and watching an actual snuff film. So implying that he's a regular joe and a psychopath makes the whole hypothetical ridiculous.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is your meaning that Jesus must indeed be the Saviour, because Christians would be foolish if He is not, and they are not foolish?

What did the messenger(s) of Yahuweh, the Apostle(s), mean when they wrote it ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Rape jokes aren't actual rape, so there's a false equivalency going on here.

Matthew 12:35
The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure.

Mark 9:50
Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, with what will you season it? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

Ephesians 4:29
Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building up the one in need and bringing grace to those who listen....

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What did the messenger(s) of Yahuweh, the Apostle(s), mean when they wrote it ?

I don't know. You tell me.

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry for the lag. I'm going to start winding down the conversation. I think it has been fruitful but it seems to be getting a bit stale, and I can't argue this subject for much longer.

Jokes aren't funny because they surprise characters in those jokes, they're funny because they surprise the audience. You only mentioned that Clara trusted him, you didn't make any effort to make the audience trust her friend. That would be a conceal.

We translate our own beliefs into stories. I could have elaborated on the trust and made the consequence more concealed, but it was not necessary for my simple point.

I didn't want to make an "angry" face, I was going for "evil" face to represent House Slitherin, but they don't have a Devil smilie here on Christian Forums, go figure!

Haha, fair enough.

The thing I'm saying that doesn't matter is a thing that makes you say the joke is permissible, so the point is moot. I don't agree on your analysis, but we both come to the same conclusion about the aspect I mentioned, so who cares if you found an additional angle that also makes the joke okay?

I only agreed with your general principle, not its application to your joke. It presents a good quality of the joke, but that does not mean that the joke is necessarily permissible. It's just a single good quality.

Were they laughing at a well crafted joke that has rape in it, or were they laughing at the actual brutality they were inflicting? If they're laughing about the latter, then we aren't talking about the same thing. I know we've been at this for a long time, but honestly, it seems like you've forgotten the whole thing...

You're leaning towards casuistry. "Do you really think it's impossible for anyone to laugh at rape?"

Using a heavy thing in a light thing is what I'm doing though. Like if I my fat ass was to climb into a hot air balloon.

(Note that I am going to skim over points such as these, which we've already covered in some detail. If you are uncertain of my view you can always ask. Indeed I think we understand each other fairly well at this point.)

How many soldiers are trained strictly mentally and then act on instinct? The mental training prepares folks for what to do during the physical training, and the physical training conditions folks for what to do in real life situations.

But I never said they were trained strictly mentally.

First, a child who plays video games 10 hours a day versus a child that plays outdoor sports 10 hours a day are going to have differences in behavior, sure. I would bet that there aren't any significant differences in behavior between a kid who played GTA 10 hours a day vs a kid that played The Sims 10 hours a day though. The question is whether violent video games make kids more likely to be violent. It may feel like that should be true, but it doesn't bear out in evidence:
Violent Video Games

Without opening this topic, I will just say that the behavior is changed. In what ways, you are free to guess.

Grand Theft Auto is one of my all time favorite franchises, and I've never physically assaulted anyone. In fact, when I used to work at Taco Bell as a closer, the whole crew would come back to my place after work and play whichever the most recent release of Grand Theft Auto was. It wasn't multiplayer, so we would each take turns causing as much calamity and violence as we possibly could until we were overwhelmed by police. None of us ever physically assaulted anyone.

Haha. I swear, Orel, I could give a statistical dissertation on the relation between excessive drinking and violence, and all you would say is, "Hey man, I get drunk all the time and I've never hit anybody!" We're not just talking about you. You're not on trial.

Like I said when we started down this road, "Not for any reason that I can see". Anything that causes no harm is not bad in my book. That said, I am not always aware of harm that exists, and I acknowledge that, but if it does you'll have to show it to me. And frankly, it'll require some evidence based sources, not mere argumentation. If you think that some things that cause no harm are bad, that'll be a whole other can of worms. I can definitely see some Christian based reasons to think so, but that ain't gonna cut it for the rest of us.

Statements like these are rather uninformative without some meaningful definition of "harm."

And rape porn would be the only apt comparison to rape jokes because understanding the fictitious nature is missing in witnessing an actual rape.

Just because you cannot see the applicability of my question doesn't give you license to avoid it.

Right, that's the only harm I could guess is possible from engaging in fictitious things. That doesn't apply to real acts, and there's no reason to intuit that after I've made this distinction over and over again.

Then provide your criteria for non-fictitious things. It's not at all clear why the criteria would be different from what you already gave.

So I'll engage your hypothetical by saying that yes, there is a problem with watching real rape and enjoying it. But that has nothing to do with our conversation about fictitious things.

What is the harm? And we're talking about necessary harm, not the tangential accidents you keep bringing up. "Harm was involved in the video production." Not if it was caught by, say, a street camera.

See, when you say that this viewer isn't going to rape or be more likely to rape, you're implying he's at least somewhat close to a regular Joe that might be affected in some other way by watching that material. But he'd have to be an actual psychopath to feel enjoyment from watching real misery. There's a difference between watching a film like Saw and watching an actual snuff film. So implying that he's a regular joe and a psychopath makes the whole hypothetical ridiculous.

So you think watching real rape might affect the person in a negative way? It might do him harm, even apart from your two earlier criteria?

But he'd have to be an actual psychopath to feel enjoyment from watching real misery. There's a difference between watching a film like Saw and watching an actual snuff film.

It's a curious scenario. Suppose you and Bob are watching Saw. You both enjoy the torture immensely:

Orel: Wow, that was a great film. I liked the way the movie presented him torturing those people.
Bob: Yeah, me too! I wonder where it took place?
Orel: Wait... you know it wasn't a true story, right?
Bob: What, really?
Orel: You're a psychopath!
Bob: ...​

 

[Moral Orel]

Sorry for the lag. I'm going to start winding down the conversation. I think it has been fruitful but it seems to be getting a bit stale, and I can't argue this subject for much longer.

Well, let's spice it up and see if we can't get it shut down at the same time then. I still want to see if there's a rape joke that you would call problematic, so I'm going to start posting some for you to analyze. Maybe you'll find one that you can explain how it makes the rape the subject of humor, maybe we'll get reported. Let's roll the dice! I know a lot of rape jokes, and my wife gets mad at me. She asks me, "Why do you tell so many rape jokes after I told you that I was raped in high school". And I say, "Baby, because... I don't believe you".

You're leaning towards casuistry. "Do you really think it's impossible for anyone to laugh at rape?"

Nope. But there's a difference between laughing at actual misery you're seeing, and laughing at someone talking about a subject that involves misery. It's like laughing at a cartoon character getting into an accident and his head falling off, versus laughing at an ISIS decapitation video.

But I never said they were trained strictly mentally.

I know. But you would have to show me someone being trained strictly mentally and that training affecting their "instinct" based behavior for your point to work. Jokes are strictly mental. You're trying to use actual physical training as an analogy with something that is strictly mental, it doesn't work.

Without opening this topic, I will just say that the behavior is changed. In what ways, you are free to guess.

Haha. I swear, Orel, I could give a statistical dissertation on the relation between excessive drinking and violence, and all you would say is, "Hey man, I get drunk all the time and I've never hit anybody!" We're not just talking about you. You're not on trial.

I put these two quotes of you together because I thought it was interesting. I use anecdotes, and you dismiss them. I use actual studies, and you won't address them. Do you really think this is the sort of thing that can be settled through argumentation alone? Philosophy has it's limits.

The point in my anecdotes is that there must be some other factor that let's me enjoy fiction without acting out in negative ways. The fiction isn't the problem, something else is.

Statements like these are rather uninformative without some meaningful definition of "harm."

I'm trying to leave it open for all sorts of different types of harm. Use whatever you want that you think I might agree with. I mean, obviously, it would be silly for you to try and convince me of spiritual harm, but I'm sure you can come up with something.

Just because you cannot see the applicability of my question doesn't give you license to avoid it.

I didn't avoid it.

Then provide your criteria for non-fictitious things. It's not at all clear why the criteria would be different from what you already gave.

I don't understand the question.

What is the harm? And we're talking about necessary harm, not the tangential accidents you keep bringing up. "Harm was involved in the video production." Not if it was caught by, say, a street camera.

You want me to analyze the harm in a vaguely defined hypothetical? No. I'm not going to do that. That's ridiculous. I'll say this, if magically no one could be harmed in the world, then absolutely everything is permissible. If you really want to go down this road in examining the viewing of real rape, you're going to have to make a case for why it's pertinent to our conversation about people engaging in something that is known to be fictitious. Even a joke about real people is fictitious. You say you're trying to wind down, but I see this as a whole new topic.

So you think watching real rape might affect the person in a negative way? It might do him harm, even apart from your two earlier criteria?

That's not really what I was getting at, but sure. People with normal human emotions are going to feel bad when they see other people feel bad.

It's a curious scenario. Suppose you and Bob are watching Saw. You both enjoy the torture immensely:

Orel: Wow, that was a great film. I liked the way the movie presented him torturing those people.
Bob: Yeah, me too! I wonder where it took place?
Orel: Wait... you know it wasn't a true story, right?
Bob: What, really?
Orel: You're a psychopath!
Bob: ...

It's okay to enjoy sad true stories too. Did you not enjoy watching Schindler's List? I mean, "enjoy" doesn't mean "have fun". It just means you're glad to be doing it.

If I was going to call him a psychopath, the conversation would look more like this:

Orel: That was a great film. Those torture scenes were crazy weren't they?!
Bob: Yeah! Watching that torture was fun! How do you think they got a hold of that footage?
Orel: You know those were actors right?
Bob: What, really?
Orel: You're a psychopath!
Bob: If you tell anybody about this...

 

[zippy2006]

Well, let's spice it up and see if we can't get it shut down at the same time then.

Lol, no thanks, I think we've analyzed enough jokes.

Nope. But there's a difference between laughing at actual misery you're seeing, and laughing at someone talking about a subject that involves misery. It's like laughing at a cartoon character getting into an accident and his head falling off, versus laughing at an ISIS decapitation video.

It could be, but if people are capable of laughing at rape then they are capable of laughing at inappropriate rape jokes. Your idea that no one would laugh at an inappropriate joke is implausible.

I know. But you would have to show me someone being trained strictly mentally and that training affecting their "instinct" based behavior for your point to work. Jokes are strictly mental. You're trying to use actual physical training as an analogy with something that is strictly mental, it doesn't work.

I said, "If, say, someone pulls a gun on a war vet they may well act instinctively. Their action in that moment is a conglomeration of rational acts, training, and habits from their past. The way that you respond to a situation is influenced by the way your past has instructed you to view that situation."

Our thought patterns are formed by our experiences, including our mental experiences, and these form associations that affect our behavior. Movies are a good example. Someone who watches horror films to no end will react differently in a scary situation than someone who does not (or, perhaps more accurately, different situations will be viewed to be scary by the one person but not the other). This is all true despite the fact that watching a movie is largely a mental/imaginative activity.

I put these two quotes of you together because I thought it was interesting. I use anecdotes, and you dismiss them. I use actual studies, and you won't address them. Do you really think this is the sort of thing that can be settled through argumentation alone? Philosophy has it's limits.

You've already admitted my point: playing video games for 10 hours a day will affect behavior. You're just too stubborn to admit that it will affect behavior in a directional way.

The point in my anecdotes is that there must be some other factor that let's me enjoy fiction without acting out in negative ways. The fiction isn't the problem, something else is.

Perhaps we can start a new thread on the idea of fiction in a few weeks. I think it is a common misconception that consuming fictional material has no effect on one's life or behavior.

Christians on CF commonly make the same mistake when discussing magic in the context of fiction (e.g. Harry Potter). They will say, "The Bible prohibits magic, but Harry Potter is fiction." I like HP, but that's a vaguely invalid argument.

I'm trying to leave it open for all sorts of different types of harm. Use whatever you want that you think I might agree with. I mean, obviously, it would be silly for you to try and convince me of spiritual harm, but I'm sure you can come up with something.

The harm that I have pointed to in this conversation is basically the harm of detrimental imaginative habits. If someone is only capable of misogynistic humor then they will eventually begin to manifest misogynistic tendencies. Humor isn't this magically neutral sphere of life that affects nothing else. Indeed, humor has always been seen as one of the most effective forms of rhetoric.

...anyway, I'm just repeating myself here.

You want me to analyze the harm in a vaguely defined hypothetical? No. I'm not going to do that. That's ridiculous. I'll say this, if magically no one could be harmed in the world, then absolutely everything is permissible. If you really want to go down this road in examining the viewing of real rape, you're going to have to make a case for why it's pertinent to our conversation about people engaging in something that is known to be fictitious. Even a joke about real people is fictitious. You say you're trying to wind down, but I see this as a whole new topic.

Here is the relevant exchange:

And if we don't consider an increased likelihood to rape or turn a blind eye to rape, what makes rape jokes bad?

I'll just ask a question. Let's say someone enjoys watching videos of women being raped. But watching these videos in no way increases the likelihood that he will rape or turn a blind eye to rape. Is his watching of the videos still bad?

I was just trying to get you to examine your premises. If you think it's a new topic let's not open it.

It's okay to enjoy sad true stories too. Did you not enjoy watching Schindler's List? I mean, "enjoy" doesn't mean "have fun". It just means you're glad to be doing it.

Or people can enjoy evil acts, which is clearly what I was referring to.

If I was going to call him a psychopath, the conversation would look more like this:

Orel: That was a great film. Those torture scenes were crazy weren't they?!
Bob: Yeah! Watching that torture was fun! How do you think they got a hold of that footage?
Orel: You know those were actors right?
Bob: What, really?
Orel: You're a psychopath!
Bob: If you tell anybody about this...

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol, no thanks, I think we've analyzed enough jokes.

Never! Let's be honest, the jokes are the only thing that has kept this conversation interesting enough to have dragged on as long as it has. And I still want to see if there is such a thing as a joke you would deem inappropriate. If I do finally find something I say inappropriate, you can analyze that and show me why it's wrong. And we'll just assume everything else I write is appropriate if you've got no comment. And if there's nothing you would call inappropriate, despite me being a collector of the world's darkest jokes, then I'd say that "inappropriate jokes" simply don't exist. So how about making light of spousal abuse?

My wife was in an abusive relationship before we got together, but she hates to talk about it. In fact, for the first year that we were together, I just thought she really hated high-fives.

I know that domestic violence isn't something anyone is supposed to make light of, but can we all agree on how awesome domestic violence could be, if everyone knew kung-fu?

It could be, but if people are capable of laughing at rape then they are capable of laughing at inappropriate rape jokes. Your idea that no one would laugh at an inappropriate joke is implausible.

That's inaccurate. I don't think that inappropriate rape jokes exist. I think if you craft a joke well enough to be funny, then you won't find it inappropriate. Something doesn't qualify as "a joke" just because someone finds a statement funny.

I said, "If, say, someone pulls a gun on a war vet they may well act instinctively. Their action in that moment is a conglomeration of rational acts, training, and habits from their past. The way that you respond to a situation is influenced by the way your past has instructed you to view that situation."

I know. But you're assuming that instructions lead to instincts because people with instructions and real life experience and real physical training act instinctively in accordance with those instructions. How do you know that if they only had instructions they would still act "instinctively"? We know that people without instructions but with real life experiences act instinctively, so I'm leaning towards thinking that instructions are irrelevant to instincts.

Our thought patterns are formed by our experiences, including our mental experiences, and these form associations that affect our behavior. Movies are a good example. Someone who watches horror films to no end will react differently in a scary situation than someone who does not (or, perhaps more accurately, different situations will be viewed to be scary by the one person but not the other). This is all true despite the fact that watching a movie is largely a mental/imaginative activity.

With a movie you actually experience visual and audible stimuli. Those stimuli become associated with emotions, sure. Just like the orphan and the fluffy bunny. If someone were to film a rape scene, and add comical cartoonish sound effects and ridiculous goofy music, you might well associate a feeling of levity with the sight of someone being raped. Those stimuli don't exist in the telling of a joke though. The stimuli you experience are words on a page/screen, or someone standing in front of you talking.

You've already admitted my point: playing video games for 10 hours a day will affect behavior. You're just too stubborn to admit that it will affect behavior in a directional way.

I actually didn't, if you read what I wrote carefully. All I said was that there is a difference in behavior between someone who plays video games 10 hours a day and someone who plays outdoor sports 10 hours a day. I said nothing of effects. And I don't think it requires stubbornness to not "admit" something you've provided zero evidence for and that I've provided at least a little evidence against.

Perhaps we can start a new thread on the idea of fiction in a few weeks. I think it is a common misconception that consuming fictional material has no effect on one's life or behavior.

I think it's a common misconception that consuming fictional material affects behavior. A lot of people think like you do that violent video games increase violent behavior, despite all evidence to the contrary, for example. And if you think that, it would make sense that you think engaging in humor that involves dark topics would have a similar effect. Trouble is, there's no evidence to think either of those things is true, and there is evidence to think those things are false. Earlier in the thread you used superhero movies as an analogy as well. I think most people in America saw Infinity War and Endgame. With that many people engaging in fictional costumed vigilantism, then surely there must have been a rise in real costumed vigilantism in America, right?

The harm that I have pointed to in this conversation is basically the harm of detrimental imaginative habits. If someone is only capable of misogynistic humor then they will eventually begin to manifest misogynistic tendencies.

What a weird if/then. If someone is only capable of misogynistic humor, then I'd bet they're already manifesting misogynistic tendencies. Someone who can only engage in humor on a single topic is weird. I doubt such a person exists.

Humor isn't this magically neutral sphere of life that affects nothing else.

It can be. That's been my point all along. If I can do it, so can you, and so can pretty much everyone else. If there actually is a person out there who raped and wouldn't have if they hadn't heard a rape joke, then there's something that person is missing that folks like me have, or something that person has that folks like me lack. If there isn't a person out there that raped and wouldn't have if they hadn't ever heard a rape joke, then hearing rape jokes doesn't increase the likelihood that the hearer will rape. Why do you think such a person exists?

I was just trying to get you to examine your premises. If you think it's a new topic let's not open it.

That's not a premise of mine. I said it's all I can think of, and that I'm open to you showing me something else if there is anything. I never said that's all that there could possibly be.

Or people can enjoy evil acts, which is clearly what I was referring to.

No, it wasn't. You were referring to actors portraying an evil act, that's why I added my revised script. In your version, Bob knew they were actors, but thought that they were reenacting a real event; in my version Bob thought it was footage of a real event. Actors portraying an evil act that actually occurred in the past isn't the same thing as an evil act, but I feel like you've been trying to equivocate those things for some time now.

 

[FireDragon76]

Unconvincing and ridiculous. Truth is not predicated on God's existence anymore than the concept of a computer is predicated on the existence of Commander Data from Star Trek. Both are, after all, primarily characters in stories.