IMMIGRATION thread

[Greyblades]

And how does the employer get wind?

Does it matter? Whether through the machinations of a vindictive accusor, the digging of a sensationalist press or the failure in legal confidentiality the very knowledge that one is accused of rape is enough to lose a person thier job in western society.

That those accused will be ostracised or punished by most who hears of it, regardless of evidence presented, puts a great hole in the idea that our society is one "trivializes, rationalizes, or even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence" which is the core of the idea that is rape culture.

My point is that police crime labs test rape kits, although if they're out of money they try to find ways to bill insurance providers, not test the kit, or just not collect materials for a kit at all. A rape kit itself is just some bags, sleeves, folders, cotton swabs, documents, and glass slides. There is no meaningful "free-market" component.

Don said:

Until a federal spending bill 2 years criminalized the practice, hospitals used to bill the victim for their rape kits in most jurisdictions.

No mention of crime labs or the composition of the kit, only that the hospitals charge victims for thier use.

I asked if this was really proof of a rape culture or an example of privatised medicine, aka that the hospitals charged out of a desire to make money, not to hurt rape victims.

Is there a problem with his very premise of hospitals charging for rape kits? Did it never happen at all? Take it up with him. I'm pointing out that even taking it as fact it does not clearlt indicate rape culture as he presents it. Your responses have been so irrelevant to that as to nearly constitute non sequitur.

Rape is a subset of sexual assault. Figures given regarding rape are distinct from figures given regarding sexual assault[...]

[...]In essence, rape appears with striking rarity in the justice system, largely due to the complete inability to agree on epistemological or legal or procedural standards, due to the deeper philosophical questions around consent and the nature of law.

Way to waste 5 paragraphs worth of space by addressing none of my issues with Don's figures.

Or have I misread and you agree with me and just suck at expressing approval?

Ask the legal philosophers. Any answer is bound to have profound consequences for the wider role of consent in law, so be careful.

To make this simpler for you, here is the general direction of feminist agendas:

1. Libertarian emphasis on "consent" and "autonomy".
2. More stringent definition rape.
3. Conformity toward reevaluated conceptions of consent and rape as well as institutional support such that reporting is encouraged.
3. Cultural change away from beliefs and attitudes that lead individuals to fall afoul of the above.

Please try to understand on what grounds you contest feminist narratives. The idea that the narratives should be contested because accusations of rape are especially likely to be damaging, or spurious, or open to public discovery, is what we call an utter moron horseshit lie.

I take back "nearly" in nearly a complete non sequitur. I have no goddamn idea how any of that relates to my post.

Do you even read what I say any more?