I generally see political conversations as amongst the most tribal and intractable, so I haven't often had the experience of common ground in those discussions. — Tom Storm

Maybe I've just been lucky thus far then. For the most part when I have a discussion of politics it starts out on tired old battle lines, moves to common ground, and then diverges again into different ways of application. Granted a lot of time those divergences are back to the battle lines, but I feel, as you pointed out before, there are subtle shifts in both parties perspectives that will allow for different actions in the future.

haven't noticed this. I've mostly noticed discussions about epistemology and metaphysics mostly. We seem to keep coming back to what it is we can say about knowledge/truth/reality and how we can know it. In the end most discussions or arguments hinge upon these matters as the fundamental building blocks for anything else we may go on to say about morality, science, the transcendent. — Tom Storm

I guess a good example of the first discussion would be when people discuss things like political and are open to actually listening to different view points. Generally, it seems that the discussion quickly finds common ground, ie. 'everyone should be able to act according to their belief' and then diverges into how that common ground is applied 'limited interference by government in the acting of those beliefs' vs 'censoring those actions based on laws and regulations'.

I see this as being different than say a discussion of whether or not this 'reality is a simulation on a computer' in which finding that common ground is very difficult.

I don't think any discussion goes anywhere if people are too firmly attached to their presuppositions - doesn't matter if we are talking politics, cookery or bushcraft. — Tom Storm

I agree. Until all parties involved are willing to actually sit down and talk with the intent on learning something, no discussion is going to be productive. It is also true that even discussion that might seem like they are going no where are in reality causing subtle shifts in people's thinking that will alter their beliefs, and in so doing their actions.

If you've looked at many threads here on the forum, you will find good evidence for your position. Those discussions don't often come to any conclusion and we often go over the same issues over and over again. Still, I find them useful for articulating and clarifying my thoughts on those subjects.

For me, philosophy is as much about process as it is about subject.

T Clark

Fair enough. I understand that often in the act of trying to debate something we better understand our own opinion on the topic.

It is not the case that rape is condoned, any more than it is the case that robbery is condoned by purveyors of security alarm systems. Nevertheless rape functions, just as robbery functions to instill fear and thereby sell alarms. No conspiracy or even approval is required. — unenlightened

I am not sure I understand the comparison. Could you explain it a different way?

But fear of rape has increased. — unenlightened

I agree. Lack of freedom of opportunity such as the ones you listed were evidence of the oppression of women up until the suffrage movement and the strides in equality since then. In fact I would argue that thing like pay rates aside, women enjoy the same opportunities that men do and in few cases now enjoy more opportunities then men.

However, I still don't see the correlation with rape.

Those who do commit the crime of rape have in the past used the reasoning that "they were asking for it" as defense for their crimes. As if by the woman's action, they removed the freedom of choice from the man. This is of course laughable as the freedom of choice is immutable regardless of the actions of others.

It is also true that sexual violence is on the rise, but here I propose a question. Is it on the rise, or has the definition of rape changed? For instance, have we included the act of touching another person's intimate body parts without their consent, generally known as criminal groping, as rape?

I would also dispute the idea that rape is normalized, down played, or laughed off. Excluding cases where wealth and privilege are factors, I don't think the middle class or lower class culture can fairly be charged with down playing or laughing off rape.

An example is the scenario of two adults who have intercourse after a night of heavy drinking. The woman wakes up and knows that she has slept with someone. The man may or may not be there. She may decide that she did not give her consent and accuse the man of rape. Both will agree that the act took place but one would argue it was non consensual and the other would argue that it was. Depending on the outcome of the case, a potential crime was played down, i.e. the man gets off lightly, or an innocent person is wrongfully imprisoned, i.e. the man goes to prison for a crime he did not commit.

Rather than work on removing a culture that among the average individual does not exist, it would be better to work on creating clear laws and procedures surrounding investigation of rape that protects both parties involved until a clear motive can be established.

gotcha ya. We are straying off topic from your original post.

his is venturing into picayunish/pedantic territory — schopenhauer1

I am not sure what you mean by "picayunish/pedantic territory".

However, dogs are unpredictable when faced with various situations and assumptions shouldn't be made. — schopenhauer1

True, assumptions should not be made, but first hand information is an acceptable means of making an informed decision. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule. A normally relaxed dog who has been socialized from an early age may still attack a person or another animal.

I am merely using the example of containing versus not containing as an example of supererogatory standards. The minimum threshold is generally that an owner should provide restitution for damages done by their animal in the case of the attack. It could therefore, be reasonably argued that things like containing the animal go above and beyond that threshold depending on the owner's ability and personal decision regarding their property.

Correct. If you can't keep the dog properly protected and contained, then that is not meeting the threshold. — schopenhauer1

It is definitely a grey area because the standard would be up to the person's ability and their ability to defend their decision in a court of law.

Personally, I would argue that the need to contain the dog would be dependent on the situation. For instance, if your animal has a history of aggression and you want to keep the animal, it could be argued that keeping the animal contained is necessary to prevent the dog from harming others.

If the dog does not have that history of aggression though, containing the animal might be viewed as going above the required threshold and so not be enforceable.

As you said, the devil, and I might add the fun, is in the details.

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live) — schopenhauer1

I had not heard the term Supererogatory standards before. If I am understanding it correctly, it would be actions that go above the "minimum threshold".

To connect it back to the scenario with the dog, the minimum threshold here would likely be that the dog can not bite people or other dogs. There would, of course, need to be a clause about self defense or protection of owner/property within that threshold. But it is generally agreed upon that a person's animal should not inflict harm on other people or their property.

Going above and beyond would be the collar, the tag, the fenced yard etc. as these are likely dependent on the persons ability to procure those items. In the "ghetto" for instance, the owner of the dog might not have the ability to fence their yard because they do not have a yard to fence. The same could possibly apply to the other items.

The logic is very straightforward: IF men inherit property, name, and status from their father, THEN the father must be confident that his son is his; and therefore that his woman is exclusively his. Therefore marriage, therefore virginity, therefore monogamy, therefore patriarchy, therefore rape culture.

- unenlightened

That is an... interesting series of logical steps. I followed your train of thought up until the last sentence.

The idea that lines of inheritance plays a factor in the establishment of sexual standards is an interesting one. However, I fail to see how a system influenced at least in part by a need to prove father ship in a society without the benefit of genetics, leads to "rape culture".

Could you elaborate on what connect the two ideas together?

In other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated

-schopenhauer1

I believe that it is unreasonable to hold different parts of the same metro area to different standards. This is because standards are ideals that should be strived for, or a threshold that should ensure a specific quality of living.

In the case you describe of the wealthy man being punished for his dog being off a leash, without tags or collar and biting a person, the standard is a threshold. Those who do not meet that threshold, either by conscious or unconscious negligence, are reprimanded by the community until they either meet the threshold or leave the community.

In the second case of the poor man's dog biting a person, the standard is still a threshold, but it is one that the community should help their members meet. The line of thinking that you presented "they have no agency because they are poor, it's their culture, while not being good, they aren't bad" is a line of thinking that absolves that standard in an act of misguided mercy. The problem with this absolution is that others ask, rightfully so, "why them and not me?"

This leads to a series of cause and effects in which the area devolves into your described setting. Rather than remove the standards, the community in this situation should be helping the individual meet the standard. Granted, not every community can take on those responsibilities and may need help from outside area, but the effort should be made to ensure the standards to prevent such situations.