Friday, December 08, 2006

Bread & circuses

“In any case, I grant that abortion is murder, but maintain on the more conventional meaning of the term -- killing without just cause, Japan has some of the lowest murder rates in the world.”

You are accusing me of inconsistency. When you accuse your opponent of inconsistency, then his usage is determinative.

You are free to define the terms however you please. All other things being equal, you’re not bound by my usage.

But the charge of inconsistency entails an internal critique. If you’re going to take that angle, then you are bound by my usage for the sake of argument.

As I explained in my inaugural post on this thread, unbelievers, if left to their own devices, commit rape, robbery, and murder, but redefine these vices as something other than rape, robbery, and murder.

The fact that Japan doesn’t define abortion as murder is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with my original claim. Try to follow the bouncing ball.

“Even if you include abortions into the numbers for all the societies, I believe you will find Japan among the most ‘life-preserving’ overall.”

Even if true, that is irrelevant to my original claim. My original claim was not a quantitative claim. Comparative crime stats do not invalidate the terms of my original claim.

“Child sex industry. This is something you didn't mention in your claim, Steve.”

i) That I didn’t mention this in which claim? The original post? In the original post I specifically mentioned child rape.

ii) As I also said in my original post, I was giving examples. I never said my original post was exhaustively illustrative. Obviously not.

iii) You brought up Japan as a counterexample. I therefore *responded* to your counterexample.

Now, a *response* is not necessarily original. Otherwise, it would not be responsive to what was said *before* the response.

My response will be as specific as your objection. If you raise a specific objection, I’ll present a specific response. You bring up Japan. I respond accordingly.

If you introduce a new objection, then my response will be equally novel. Amazing how that works!

iv) But all my responses are consistent with my inaugural post.

“If you want to say that rape occurs, that's fine. But I think if you check out the laws that govern this, *any* kind of sexual contact as the result of coercion is illegal. I'm convinced that pornography *is* a large morally problem in Japanese society. If your claim was that non-Christian societies inevitably descend into pornography, I would not have offered Japan as a counter-example, because it's not. But that wasn't your claim. Pornogrpahy was not your claim, and *is* a distraction here. If you want to equate pornography with rape, I will suggest you are demeaning the experience of anyone who has truly been raped. Pornography is abusive in its own way, but it is not rape.”

i) What I said in response to the Japanese counterexample was: “What about kiddy porn in modern Japan? What about prostitution in Japan? What about sodomy in Japanese culture—both ancient and modern?”

Then, in reply to a follow-up objection by Touchstone, I also mentioned “the child sex industry.”

ii) Apparently, it doesn’t occur to Touchstone that kiddy porn involves child rape. Legal definitions vary from country to country, but here’s a representative definition:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Maybe we also need to define “rape” for Touchstone. But definitions customarily revolve around the absence of consensual sexual activity. This is where the age of consent becomes an issue.

Of course, NAMBLA has its own definitions, and I realize, from Touchstone’s perspective, that it’s outrageously arrogant of me to prefer my own moral framework over NAMBLA’s, but I guess we have to agree to disagree on that.

Bottom line: if you combine a standard definition of rape with a standard definition of kiddy porn (i.e. what’s involve in the production of kiddy porn), guess what you get? Hmm.

iii) Then there’s the issue of prostitution. Although a prostitute may be of majority age, if she entered into the sex trade as a child (which is commonplace in Asia), then that would also qualify as rape—as I define it—since she didn’t volunteer for this occupation, but was forced into it (indeed, b0ught and sold) at an early age.

Again, though, I realize that, according to Touchstone’s lexicon, this is just a distraction from the *real* issues.

“Japanese mafia. Pure distraction, Steve. What are the numbers here, if not. How many thousands or millions are murdered in Japan that escape the notice of law enforcement and government reporting agencies? Do your Japanese friends suggest that Japan actually *does* have high murder rates. Mine don't. Their anecdotal testimony agrees with the official numbers.”

I didn’t cite the Japanese mafia under the category of murder.

More commonly, organized crime involves property crimes of one form or another.

However, in a nation like Japan where organized crime is deeply embedded in the socioeconomic and political fabric of the culture, it isn’t necessarily a crime, in the legal sense.

That’s the nice thing about organized crime. Once everyone is on the take, it ceases to be a crime and becomes a socially sanctioned form of extortion.

“Shogunate. Another distraction. The Shoguns aren't around anymore. The last Shogun ruled in the 19th century if I recall (Tokugawa?).”

i) Notice that Touchstone is now attempting to redefine the terms of my original post. My claim was never predicated on a contrast between antiquity and modernity. To the contrary, I made a general claim. So anciently civilizations are by no means “another distraction.” Rather, these examples (Imperial Japan, the Shogunate) and others (e.g. Aztecs, Romans, Assyrians, and other warrior cultures) are directly implicated in my original claim.

ii) As I also pointed out, modern Japan is less representative because it is so heavily influenced by American culture.

“Even as a distraction I don't know that it helps your case. Were murder, rape, and robbery countenanced as public policy before the meiji era?”

Which misses the point. Such activities wouldn’t be classified as rape, robbery, and murder.

For example, the Japanese custom of pederasty, at court, among the monks, and among the Shogun, wasn’t a crime.

They wouldn’t call it child rape. I would.

That’s my point. Non-Christian cultures do commit certain forms of rape, robbery, and murder as a matter of public policy. Those in power have no incentive to pass self-incriminating legislation. Therefore, they don’t break the law when they do these things. Such conduct is lawful, albeit immoral.

Yes, I know, it’s terribly intolerant of me to say that rape, robbery, and murder are immortal. How dare I elevate my moral framework above Genghis Kahn or Attila the Hun?

“Whatever the disposition on that, it doesn't matter -- I've been pointing at modern Japan, and believe I used that term: ‘modern Japan’.”

Which is irrelevant to an internal critique of my original claim. If you’re going to accuse me of inconsistency, then my usage controls the analysis, comprende?

But, hey, when has Touchstone ever been able to answer an opponent on his own grounds? That would be unheard of.

5 comments:

  1. TURN OR BURN HERETIC SCUM!!!!

    - Calvin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    Thanks for the additional treatment. I think anything I would have to say here would be largely repetitive. So, I'll leave my previous comments to stand as they are. Readers, as always, will determine the merits of each.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  3. “In any case, I grant that abortion is murder, but maintain on the more conventional meaning of the term -- killing without just cause, Japan has some of the lowest murder rates in the world.”

    You are accusing me of inconsistency. When you accuse your opponent of inconsistency, then his usage is determinative.

    You are free to define the terms however you please. All other things being equal, you’re not bound by my usage.

    But the charge of inconsistency entails an internal critique. If you’re going to take that angle, then you are bound by my usage for the sake of argument.

    As I explained in my inaugural post on this thread, unbelievers, if left to their own devices, commit rape, robbery, and murder, but redefine these vices as something other than rape, robbery, and murder.

    The fact that Japan doesn’t define abortion as murder is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with my original claim. Try to follow the bouncing ball.

    ***
    The good ole’ USA *also* doesn’t define abortion as murder. The point, though, is that when the murder rate (as conventionally defined) plus the abortion rate is combined, Japan still fares better. I think T.S. gets it (he sees your “bouncing ball”.)
    ***

    “Even if you include abortions into the numbers for all the societies, I believe you will find Japan among the most ‘life-preserving’ overall.”

    Even if true, that is irrelevant to my original claim. My original claim was not a quantitative claim. Comparative crime stats do not invalidate the terms of my original claim.

    ***
    So Japan would be a safer place then the USA for our children to grow up in, but that is somehow irrelevant?
    ***

    “Child sex industry. This is something you didn't mention in your claim, Steve.”

    i) That I didn’t mention this in which claim? The original post? In the original post I specifically mentioned child rape.

    ii) As I also said in my original post, I was giving examples. I never said my original post was exhaustively illustrative. Obviously not.

    iii) You brought up Japan as a counterexample. I therefore *responded* to your counterexample.

    Now, a *response* is not necessarily original. Otherwise, it would not be responsive to what was said *before* the response.

    My response will be as specific as your objection. If you raise a specific objection, I’ll present a specific response. You bring up Japan. I respond accordingly.

    If you introduce a new objection, then my response will be equally novel. Amazing how that works!

    iv) But all my responses are consistent with my inaugural post.

    “If you want to say that rape occurs, that's fine. But I think if you check out the laws that govern this, *any* kind of sexual contact as the result of coercion is illegal. I'm convinced that pornography *is* a large morally problem in Japanese society. If your claim was that non-Christian societies inevitably descend into pornography, I would not have offered Japan as a counter-example, because it's not. But that wasn't your claim. Pornogrpahy was not your claim, and *is* a distraction here. If you want to equate pornography with rape, I will suggest you are demeaning the experience of anyone who has truly been raped. Pornography is abusive in its own way, but it is not rape.”

    i) What I said in response to the Japanese counterexample was: “What about kiddy porn in modern Japan? What about prostitution in Japan? What about sodomy in Japanese culture—both ancient and modern?”

    Then, in reply to a follow-up objection by Touchstone, I also mentioned “the child sex industry.”

    ii) Apparently, it doesn’t occur to Touchstone that kiddy porn involves child rape. Legal definitions vary from country to country, but here’s a representative definition:

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

    ***
    Steve, are you saying that the Japanese government sanctions child porn and molestation or that it citizens do? I find that impossible to believe.
    ***

    Maybe we also need to define “rape” for Touchstone. But definitions customarily revolve around the absence of consensual sexual activity. This is where the age of consent becomes an issue.

    Of course, NAMBLA has its own definitions, and I realize, from Touchstone’s perspective, that it’s outrageously arrogant of me to prefer my own moral framework over NAMBLA’s, but I guess we have to agree to disagree on that.

    Bottom line: if you combine a standard definition of rape with a standard definition of kiddy porn (i.e. what’s involve in the production of kiddy porn), guess what you get? Hmm.

    ***
    But the Bible doesn’t conveniently define an age of consent for us. Its concern is that sex be confined to the marriage bed, not a window of acceptable ages for sexual activity.
    ***


    iii) Then there’s the issue of prostitution. Although a prostitute may be of majority age, if she entered into the sex trade as a child (which is commonplace in Asia), then that would also qualify as rape—as I define it—since she didn’t volunteer for this occupation, but was forced into it (indeed, b0ught and sold) at an early age.

    Again, though, I realize that, according to Touchstone’s lexicon, this is just a distraction from the *real* issues.

    ***
    The child sex trade *is* more rampant in Asian culture, I think. But how do we balance that against the greater abundance of unwed mothers and abortions (not to mention murders robberies and rapes) in ours. Clearly, there is a subjective enterprise in play here that pits the moral faults of one culture against another. The question is how do we determine what constitutes a worse violation? The Bible does not, to my mind, provide a solution.
    ***

    “Japanese mafia. Pure distraction, Steve. What are the numbers here, if not. How many thousands or millions are murdered in Japan that escape the notice of law enforcement and government reporting agencies? Do your Japanese friends suggest that Japan actually *does* have high murder rates. Mine don't. Their anecdotal testimony agrees with the official numbers.”

    I didn’t cite the Japanese mafia under the category of murder.

    More commonly, organized crime involves property crimes of one form or another.

    However, in a nation like Japan where organized crime is deeply embedded in the socioeconomic and political fabric of the culture, it isn’t necessarily a crime, in the legal sense.

    That’s the nice thing about organized crime. Once everyone is on the take, it ceases to be a crime and becomes a socially sanctioned form of extortion.

    ***
    What?? The Japanese government sanctions organized crime? How do you figure? Even so, go back a century here in the US and you’ll find that org. crime made major inroads into local government. We got a handle on it, but I don’t think that reform came about via increased awareness of biblical principles. On the contrary, a very strong case can be made that we as a nation have become *less* bound by biblical precepts since then.
    ***

    “Shogunate. Another distraction. The Shoguns aren't around anymore. The last Shogun ruled in the 19th century if I recall (Tokugawa?).”

    i) Notice that Touchstone is now attempting to redefine the terms of my original post. My claim was never predicated on a contrast between antiquity and modernity. To the contrary, I made a general claim. So anciently civilizations are by no means “another distraction.” Rather, these examples (Imperial Japan, the Shogunate) and others (e.g. Aztecs, Romans, Assyrians, and other warrior cultures) are directly implicated in my original claim.

    ***
    T.S. brought up *modern* Japan, so it was *your* appeal to antiquity that was the red herring. It was you who failed to answer the charge without obfuscation.
    ***

    ii) As I also pointed out, modern Japan is less representative because it is so heavily influenced by American culture.

    ***
    American culture salvaged Japan from what would otherwise be a non theistic slide into moral chaos? So, does that mean that once the Japanese recognize that they are actually atheists that they’ll abandoned notions of individual freedom and dignity?
    ***

    “Even as a distraction I don't know that it helps your case. Were murder, rape, and robbery countenanced as public policy before the meiji era?”

    Which misses the point. Such activities wouldn’t be classified as rape, robbery, and murder.

    For example, the Japanese custom of pederasty, at court, among the monks, and among the Shogun, wasn’t a crime.

    They wouldn’t call it child rape. I would.

    ***
    Again, T.S.’s comments relate to modern Japan. It may be inconvenient for you to limit your comments to the constraints of his original claim, but I guess you’ll just have to make due.
    ***


    That’s my point. Non-Christian cultures do commit certain forms of rape, robbery, and murder as a matter of public policy. Those in power have no incentive to pass self-incriminating legislation. Therefore, they don’t break the law when they do these things. Such conduct is lawful, albeit immoral.

    ***
    What, specifically, does the Japanese government or the consensus of its citizens sanction that you would classify as rape, robbery and murder that can’t also be said for the US?
    ***

    Yes, I know, it’s terribly intolerant of me to say that rape, robbery, and murder are immortal. How dare I elevate my moral framework above Genghis Kahn or Attila the Hun?

    ***
    Steve, come on, you know T.S. isn’t saying this. This kind of statement just makes you look like a bully.
    ***

    “Whatever the disposition on that, it doesn't matter -- I've been pointing at modern Japan, and believe I used that term: ‘modern Japan’.”

    Which is irrelevant to an internal critique of my original claim. If you’re going to accuse me of inconsistency, then my usage controls the analysis, comprende?

    ***
    So T.S. levels an argument, you counter by appealing to factors that he filtered out; and yet he’s supposed to answer on *your* terms. Give me a break. That is just plain self-serving. That is not how it goes in a debate, Steve. You know that as well as anyone.
    ***

    But, hey, when has Touchstone ever been able to answer an opponent on his own grounds? That would be unheard of.


    ***
    T.S. made an argument on *his* grounds. For me, that sets the stage for the debate. I don’t care what grounds you invoke, only whether you can refute him on his.
    ***

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just a quick line. On the question of murder rates, may I say that such a thing seems merely tangential. Are the crimes in the USA committed by Christians?

    Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that this is not the case, but that those who slay as a matter of course are hardly pillars of the church any more than they are pillars of the community.

    On Mafiosi, may I observe that the one good thing about arganised crime is that it is organised. If I pay my protection money on time, I am generally safe, and the punk who decideds to rob my store will be permanently put out of circulation by the mob. In the absence of such rackets, any punk with a gun can (and frequently does) set themself up as a big crook.

    Lastly, may I break the silence and note something. Japan has a relatively homogenous population, as well as strong famillies. America and Britain have high rates of divorce and significant immigrant communities. These communities, in places like Nottingham and South London, are impoverished and home to numerous social pathologies. Often the big men in such communities are thugs, not solid citizens. Running with a gang offers a life of glamour, against the system which is alien in any case.

    I emphasise that this is not intended as a racist point. These communities are here to stay, and the deprivation must be tackled, but an observation that the link between religiosity and high crime rates posited by anonymous is barmy. I mean, think about it for just one moment!

    How many criminals did you see at church last Sunday?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Crime and Delinquency



    Dozens of academic studies show that even after adjustments are made for family influence, neighborhood, race, income, and other factors, religious commitment (particularly church attendance) clearly discourages delinquency among youth.
    The National Survey of Families and Households tallied adolescent behavior problems like getting into trouble with the police, being suspended from school, running away from home, or developing emotional problems that require seeing a doctor. And researchers found that in every single family type--two-parent, one-parent, married, unmarried, step families, extended families, adopted families, etc.--parental church involvement is associated with significantly fewer behavior problems.
    A sampling of 46,000 sixth- through twelfth-graders showed that those who attend religious services at least once a month are only half as likely to engage in vandalism, substance abuse, drunk driving, and other problem behaviors.
    Extensive research by Harvard economist Richard Freeman and associates found that, all other factors being equal, inner-city residents who go to church are 59 percent less likely to commit crimes. (Teens are also far less likely to drop out of school, and adults more likely to hold a job, if they are worshippers.)
    Church attendance is a more accurate predictor of criminal behavior than whether an individual lived in public housing, grew up in a single-parent household, or had parents who received welfare.
    Churchgoing is the factor that most affects who escapes urban poverty, and is associated with “substantial differences in the behavior of youth…. [It] affects allocation of time, school attendance, work activity, and the frequency of socially deviant activity,” according to a book-length study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
    Investigations show that the religious are less likely to cheat on their taxes.
    A survey of 24,000 magazine readers found that many admitted to serious lapses in ethical behavior--more than four out of ten had driven while intoxicated; 38 percent had cheated on their taxes; a third had deceived their best friend about something important within the previous year. Investigators found two clear patterns in these results: Younger respondents were most likely to engage in illegal or unethical behavior. And the more religious people were, the less likely they were to commit these morally questionable acts.
    Inmates in prisons who make a religious commitment are less likely to return to jail after their release.
    Historical studies by Christie Davies, James Q. Wilson, and others note that society-wide crime decreases often correlate with religious renewals, and that crime increases often take place when religion is falling from favor.
    http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17700/article_detail.asp

    ReplyDelete