Double standards

Remove all ads!

Are you aware that you just confirmed that you do carefully filter news outlets for ideological reliability i.e. what you think might be bias? You're worse than an old commie (Bah! Imperialist propaganda! Again! No wonder - it's the New York Times!)

And unless you know whether you can trust a news source, you fall into intellectual paralysis and say: 'Things are hazy! I'd rather not pass rash judgement over this!' And since you don't bother to find out yourself it stays that way?

So you don't know anything about those news outlets? There is at least one easy way to learn more about the ideological reliability of Haaretz or The Daily Beast ...

 

So does "correctly" mean agrees with Ragusa? If not, how do we determine what is 'correct' without discussion? And is "everyone else" then defined as those who agree with Ragusa? i.e., everyone agrees with Ragusa? Seems doubtful. Or are you really just saying those who agree with Ragusa are correct, like anybody else who makes a point that they happen to believe has merit? Whichever way, I don't see how any combination automatically means that any dissent by NOG or anybody else is immediately illegitimate.

Seriously, I don't see how this topic - or really any topic that gets discussed here in the Alleys - is so straightforward that there is no room for disagreement. And I don't think you get to speak for everybody and be 'the decider' like GWB, Rags.

 

Gaear,
there are some things that are so clear that to misunderstand them - or to refuse to believe them if there is not certainty about the ideological purity of the source - is the result of wilful effort. When I say that 'everybody understands it' I of course mean 'the average reader of at least average intelligence'. You're of course entitled to exclude yourself

In that sense, I don't 'decide', as you put it, I am just expressing heartfelt disbelief and great exasperation.

 

Bait that hook good, bro.

Now troll that line....

Dangle that bait good, now that you've determined how the bait should be taken.

Comparing your prey to GWB? And I thought you were just "trolling."

A chorus line: It's amazing how they all move together.

 

LKD, it is criminal. It is illegal to do what this guy did in Israel (and elsewhere). Civil court would be inappropriate in this case, like taking someone to civil court over a physical assault. You may not agree with the law, but it is the law.

Taken to PMs, where it belongs!

Just to remind you of our record, we've had whole topics debating the political and ideological bias of FOX, CNN, and MSNBC, with heated debate between those quite familiar with them, and you want to use a Google search to determine if someone's reliable?

In some vague attempt to take this back to the topic (Here Topic, Topic, Topic! Where are you, boy?), my analysis on this stays unchanged. The man broke Israeli law, a law that is applied to both Palestinians and Jews. He was initially charged with something far worse than what he actually did, but that was justly changed to charges based on what actually happened. I (again) hope that the woman in question can be charged with filing a false police report or something, but that's not the issue. The issue is the so-called 'double standard' and the accusation of racism. Is Israeli society racist against Palestinians? Probably (though I think some of that is justified, all things considered), but this isn't a shining example of it.

 

NOG,
this world is a marvel, and you are helpless in front of its torrential flood of information? Don't despair - there is a way out!

You can read! You can choose, discard and pick from what Google serves you. Besides, you might just be smart enough to try shmoogle, or some other search engine. Perhaps you even find a certified conservative one, you know, with all the right links (pun!). Thinking of that, if you don't like Google, you can always try to look it up in Conservapedia.

 

That's where we disagree then -- as the observer in my article made clear, realistically speaking the chances of this law being applied were the situations reversed are slim to none. Not to mention that fact that stupid laws are stupid regardless of where they are -- if it's illegal to wear green in the country of Toopibu, I myself probably wouldn't wear green because I like to avoid hassles, but that doesn't change the fact that the law is utterly stupid.

 

Your article? Written by a liberal, no doubt.

The fun part about this is that in this case the judge applied the law liberally (pun!).

With that I mean an application beyond a reasonable and probably intended scope. The Israeli parliament didn't phrase the law to include such cases. I doubt that the people who formulated and voted on Israel's rape law had 'Yikes, I slept with an Arab!' as a contingency in mind. This application of the norm is based on precedent, and this precedent had to be extensively interpreted to fit the case of Sabbar Kashur - which means it is possible that on appeal the verdict is not upheld (for Israel's sake I hope so).

As for 'it's the law': Stoning women for adultery is law in Iran. Iran as a nation through its elected and unelected representatives has enacted these laws. So when the Iranians stone a woman, does that mean they are beyond critique, after all - it's the local law? Why is it that people take issue with that? And think of miscegenation laws and punishment for miscegenation - what about that was it that people took issue with?

To piously take the view that 'this is the law' in Israel, so there is nothing wrong about this verdict, is nothing but an excuse to hide behind. If it only was a little more than a fig leaf.

 

Our rep system won't let me rep you or I would.

I agree completely. IMO, rape by deception should only be applied to things like telling someone you don't have an STD when you do - i.e., when the is a risk of serious imjury to the other person.

 

Israel’s Criminal Code Paragraph 345(a)(2) states:

The judge said quite frankly that she interpreted the act in question as analogous to rape by deception. The law's phrase 'essence of the perpetrator or essence of the act' gives the judge a great amount of interpretative room.

I previously interpreted that falsely as analogy. It is not. It is about the interpretation of an 'open term'.

In that sense, stretching the law like Silly Putty isn't quite it. Stretching the law by our understanding of rape, definitely, but not stretching the law as it is.

I agree that the law is overprotective, and worse, it is badly written. As of 2009, women could not commit rape in Israel. I would have liked to provide the entire section, but the law was only available in Hebrew and automatic translations suck. The law needs revision, badly, but I cannot see the current Knesset in light of this case taking any action. Odds are they rather use the opportunity and increase the penalty.

Probably the most realistic hope is indeed that the verdict will be nullified in the appeals court.

PS: I completely revised this post.

 

Thank you for those details, Ragusa. I'm not 100% sure I agree with your conclusion (that the law needs revision), but I'm also not sure I disagree. The term is vague (in it's translation at least, translations can be iffy things in these matters, though), but it is describing rather nebulous concept. What are the 'relevant details' of a sexual encounter, and do they, to some degree, depend on the society in which it occurs (meaning they could change with time)?

 

Lying to get sex is so frigging common these days that you'd have the prisons filled with rapists if you went to the extreme. While lying to get sex is low and sleazy it ain't criminal and it certainly is not anywhere near comparable to rape. I hope the sentence gets overturned by higher courts and I hope the law is rewritten more clearly to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.

 

"These days"?!?

 

If the law is vague, it needs revision. How is it just to punish a citizen for breaking a law which even legal professionals have trouble interpreting?

 

I found them through Google

Hehe ... yes, how old are you really, Morgoroth?

And thinking of it, by the standard of the Israeli law I have probably been 'raped' myself It's not that only men lie, misrepresent or omit to get sex. As the saying goes: Caveat emptor.

 

Odd, I looked for about an hour just to find a review that actually talked about the law, and even that didn't cite it.

The idea that a man can get raped by a woman is one very foreign even in most western societies. It's starting to make an appearance, though.

 

And there you see what a difference skill makes

Admittedly, I needed to narrow the search considerably. Since there is no official English language title for the law I needed to find out what exactly I was looking for first. It took me a couple attempts and refinements until I eventually found the law on Wikisource, in Hebrew. I needed to auto-translate it then. The quote is from a second page. I spent about half an hour on the entire search, which is rather long. So I assume it was difficult to find