Thursday, February 12, 2015

Follow-Up to the Previous Post on the Misleading CDC Report

I now fisk the Facebook friend comments.

I'll start with this one:
Mr. French Thank you, [JS]. Now we're getting somewhere. And you're absolutely right, my language in my comment last night was nowhere near as precise as it should have been. I was not implying that dr. Borland did not think those situations where rape. I was saying that he presented I miss construction of holders definition that clearly included the things he said it did not include. I attribute the lack of clarity interface booking on an outdated phone right before bed.

Now let's read what Mr. French actually said:

Mr. French I have to let you know that I really did try to read your latest post, but I couldn't make it past the part where you say that forced anal, oral, or vaginal sex isn't rape because somehow, in your insane world, when men are raped it isn't forced anal, vaginal, or oral sex. 
When I get to the point where I say "I thought through something more thoroughly when I was 12 than this." I just have to move on.

Judge for yourself but, to me, it does not look like Mr. French made a typo or accidentally misspoke and meant to say that I was implying that Holder's definition rules out the things I mention when in fact it doesn't.  No.  Mr. French seems to be saying, fairly clearly, that in my "insane world" forced anal rape (etc.) isn't rape.  Mr. French thought through rape when he was 12 and, look, it's obvious that forced anal penetration (etc.) is rape.  Duh.  I'm insane (which I would be, if true) for not thinking that too or saying otherwise.  That's at least how it appears; but Mr. French says the problem was with his phone so I'll be charitable and move on.
Mr. F: It reminded me of the time you griped about "liberal" words because they were either 1.) New or 2.) Modified Symantec ranges of existing words, and therefore weren't real words. Of course, since EVERY WORD EVER fits these criteria, we should probably just never speak.
I challenge anyone reading this post to find a single instance on my blog where I have said that liberal words aren't real words (or for that matter where I've said that any word is not a word).  At any rate I cannot discern what the argument is here so I press on...

Mr. JF: I managed to muscle through that particular intellectual cluster****, but now that you've managed to not only match that exercise in not-thought, but also give rape victims a giant, proverbial middle finger in the process, I doubt I'll waste anymore time on your blog.
Here, gentle reader, is a common liberal tactic which I've remarked about before.  Below are two similar instances:

Mr. JFBut if I was going to call thousands upon thousands of alleged rape victims liars, I'd darn sure have more to stand on than "the black guy who only got to say it because he's black said it" before making such a claim without the slightest hint of self doubt.
JI: All that said, I still fail to see how trying to make rape happen less often is a negative.

I don't think I could've scripted it any better.  A teaching moment: when a non-leftist, such as your humble blogger, criticizes false statements having to do with rape (race, etc.), the leftist who does not love truth can ignore your evidence and simply charge you with hating (giving the "middle finger" to) the victims (and perhaps will call you a racist or bigot or [insert your favorite "phobia"]).  Ad hominems and non sequiturs are rhetorically more effective than arguments in public debate and ends justify means.  Rather than, e.g., criticizing your evidence that there are not n% of victims but some lesser number (that Obama would have known this, etc.), the leftist can simply beg the question.  There are in fact n%, you hate them (you've said "f-you" to them by questioning whether n% is true), implied is that you're a bad person (ad hominem), you think that trying to make rape happen less is bad, game over.  Of course, a careful reader will notice that I've neither said nor done anything that JF or JI suggest, nor is it implied.  For instance, if I am correct in my assessment of the CDC and Obama, it does not follow that any rape victim is a liar nor that I am calling the rape victim a liar.  What follows is that there are some people who have not been raped (in the ordinary sense of the term not the CDC's gerrymandered sense) that are counted as having been by the CDC.
Mr. French But because you're not actually reading anything the other "side" says with the intent to consider it, but only to find fault, you both ignore this painfully obvious, simple thing.
Interesting.  Apparently Mr. French is well-nigh omniscient, knowing not only my intentions (down the one and only intention I have when reading the other "side") but a total stranger's as well.  
Mr. French [Tully is] saying that Holder said those things aren't rape, which is either blatant dishonesty, or a serious lack of reading comprehension.
Let's have before us, shall we, precisely what I did say:

That's not a great definition of rape (though it's a slight improvement on the old definition). The definition at least appears to rule out the following as an instance of rape: a man being forced to have vaginal sex with a woman without his consent (or a man being forced to have sex with another man who is on the "receiving end.")  But perhaps I'm wrong and we should interpret the definition to include those cases as rape.
For starters, I never said that Holder said "those things aren't rape" nor is that implied by anything that I said.  I said the definition appears to rule those things out, which is perfectly consistent with also thinking that Holder neither believes nor says that those things don't count as rape (and I assume he believes they do count as rape).  Second, I intentionally couched my remarks with the mitigating qualification "at least appears"; in other words, it appears (to me) to rule such things out at first glance, but perhaps in reality it doesn't.  In fact, I then go on to say "perhaps I'm wrong and we should interpret the definition to include those cases of rape."  When writing all of those sentences I was well aware of the ambiguity of the terms (the ambiguity of who counts as the victim, etc.) which makes the definition open to a fairly wide interpretation.  That is why I then go on to try to disambiguate matters by providing what I think most people understand rape to be in my own definition (which has not, as yet, been criticized).  I apologize to readers for being pedantic but sometimes that is the proper response to pedantry. In point of fact, Holder's definition and what I say about it are irrelevant to my larger argument that the CDC's definitions are misleading, that Obama surely knew this (unless he really is stupid), and thus he lied to the public knowing that the public would understand "rape" to be RAPE in the sentence "1 in 5 women are raped or are victims of attempted rape."  But I do realize that in assuming that Obama is not stupid my argument hinges on what might seem to be a questionable premise.  

Mr. FrenchMaybe I should use language more consistent with Dr. Borland's rhetoric.  Dr Borland is a Grammy award-winning liar.
To be clear, I'm not employing rhetoric when I say that "Obama is a liar."  I mean that literally (i.e. the sentence means what it says).


  1. I read a quote on twitter and can't recall who to attribute it... but it went, "when the other party resorts to mocking or personal attack, you can be sure you've won the argument".

  2. I guess my comment would be more aptly but as asking, is a lie that helps people morally wrong?