Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kala]

Ok, well, I would like to state that the example of God is x (or P) popped into my head - not necessarily because I believed it (I haven't done any research on it at all) but because I certainly see the concept as patriarchal, traditionally (as power disseminated from God to Pope to King to Father - i.e the loving Father oversees his household/family in the same way God does but on a microcosm, shepherd tends his sheep etc) and patriarchy tends to be used as a term with misogyny, but misogyny being women hating would be far the more contentious and therefore (presumably) more likely to be considered defamation as an example of God is P.

Didn't necessarily want to start a shit storm from that  (Particularly given that could end up in the "feminazis always talk about patriarchy to blame men!" place, where these conversations tend to go eventually)

That said >.>

I kind of want to interact with these bits  (thread split?)

Re: tradition not arising out of misogyny, but a historical understanding of the roles of man and women and a division of tasks between the two:

There's a documentary been on a couple of times called She-Wolves by Helen Castor that is made-of-the-awesome, about medieval Queens and their characterisation as She-Wolves.  One of the historical understandings is that a woman can be a Queen as in, wife of a King, but not Queen as in, female King. Because part of being a King is conquering, and women can't lead armies.  So that's a division of tasks between the two there - man martial, women not.

Doesn't necessarily mean she's hated, just that it's acknowledged those are separate spheres.

She can get away with it if she borrows power (acting on behalf of her husband when he's away or sick with his authorization, acting on behalf of a son before he's of an age to rule) but not in her own right.  Inevitably, there were some women who wanted to go beyond that allotted power and, ultimately, be Kings - rulers in their own right. The telling thing is the reactions to that idea, which have varied both in time period and context, but largely, it was pretty hostile. It was seen as unnatural and wrong for a woman to have power - as power meant masculinity.

I'd wonder if it was only an understanding of the division, why the reactions were so hostile when that division was blurred - why people felt so threatened and the woman in question was condemned. Seems to me like as long as she was performing the correct role in that division, she wasn't hated.  But the minute she didn't, she was.

Not just Queens, either - if you wanted to look at the idea of women writers in later history, the concept of a woman actually having something to say and expressing her own voice was seen as the height of arrogance - unattractive and unfeminine.  (Despite a pen being somewhat easier to lift than a sword).  In order to do so, and earn an income from it, it needed to be liberally splattered with self-deprecating caveats. ("I know I'm only a woman, but..." etc).

The point being, "I only like you when you're powerless or doing what I want" seems fairly misogynistic to me 

I suppose what I'm trying to argue here, is perhaps the historical/traditional roles are at root misogynous as they deny power and agency.

(Hard to say if they were intended to do that, or it's just how things played out, mind).

Very few people argued that hate and/or dislike of women is justified

Depends how you frame hate/dislike, though.  If you like women to be in their place, you don't necessarily hate them (as long as they are in their place).  You just want to control them.  Which seems to me like a kind of hate/fear combo.

Plus there's internalized/normalized hatred - you don't see yourself as hating women, wouldn't argue that that's what you were doing, just normal and natural that they should be subordinated. (i.e, you still kinda are).

So you could argue the arguments based around denying wimminz the vote were not based on hate/dislike, but because they genuinely weren't believed to be rational enough to make those kinds of important decisions (because hormones and fainting). Or because they should just vote as their husbands anyway (much in the same way as labourers would be coerced into voting the way their landowner did, so their vote could be considered pointless).

The belief that someone is incapable and shouldn't or couldn't have separate agency does betray a level of contempt.  Though whether it comes from well-meaning paternalism or fear of primacy being threatened... debatable. (maybe both).

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I'd suggest debating that in a seperate thread. I think it'd be really off topic and we already dedicated considerable space to it here.

[Kala]

Alright, liable for the damage then, yes.

I'm not trying to say that the 'circumstance/context/spirit of the law aspect' isn't an important part which is necessary to constitute if a crime was committed.  Just, here:

this first thing, the actus can only be considered as a criminal act if there is also the 'subjective' part of the mens rea fulfilled. The 'defense' about the shock is an integral part of whether one committed a crime or not, not how badly one did commit a crime or no.

I didn't mean it to say how badly one did commit a crime or no, what I meant was, you can say 'this has happened' - fine, you can say it's only a crime if someone committed it, and that gets established if they were culpable part of which is intention and circumstance (or insanity!) etc.

But something first has to have happened to decide whether it was a crime or not (and someone committed it, or was culpable to do so).  Not how bad of a crime it was.

When you're stating 'this has happened'  I find 'a car has been dented' more straightforward/less complex of an issue than 'a religion has been defamed'.  Ok, you see things in simpler terms and that they run along the same lines.  I don't see how they even can be along the same lines myself.

That's nothing that arises merely by the nature of defamation being in speech. Actually in the case of defamation you don't have to do more interpretation, all you have to ask, in regard to the actus is: Was it said publicly? Is it a false statement? Does it damage the reputation (which is, really, is there at least one probable interpretation that is damaging)?

Again, unless it was very obviously false (as in the elephant example) surely you'd have to interpret it to establish if it's a false statement or not.  As in the opinion-stated-as-fact.  I don't think we really got anywhere with the "the Christian God is patriarchal and misogynous" example (or nowhere good, anyways) other than I don't see how it's unequivocally true or false if it can be argued either way.

A statement, printed or in language, is as much a physical thing/event as a dent being made into a car.

Respectfully, I disagree.  A statement, printed or in language can exist as a physical object and a thing - such as a tape or a piece of paper like a dent in a car.  But it exists beyond that as well.  A dent is just a dent.  It can't be loaded with meaning or implication beyond that, there aren't going to be the same levels of interpretation or contention of meaning.  It's inert by comparison.

Also, you don't have to state definitely what the statement is, you just have to determine whether it is a) public, b) false and c) harmful to the reputation. Everything else falls into the question of whether there's a mens rea.

How can you determine if it's false without knowing what it is? 

So, it doesn't matter that language is more loaded with meaning and thus open to interpretation. All you need to show for the actus is that the three citeria are fulfilled.

OK, that it's false and public and someone is being defamed (by injury to their reputation).  Again, though, I think there are statements that are arguable (even if not presented as opinions) and so are not necessarily false - or would need to be established as false by interpreting the statement/interrogating the argument.

And you mentioned that it would as easy as simply grabbing the relevant book and looking it up to establish falsehood or not - but that again is going to depend on the example isn't it? Yes for elephant (you could look it up and categorically state Christians don't worship elephants), but something like Christianity (for example) has it's own inherent contradictions within it's own doctrine and various theological points where there is disagreement, which is why there's so many dominations anyways, isn't it?

But if you show the court that you took care to state something as an opinion, then really you're on the safe side, unless you failed miserably.

Well I'd be safe then, but most of the internet would be screwed 

If he states his opinion as fact and that opinion s factually true, he is responsible for the damage he caused. Regardless of whether they would have done the same if he merely stated an opinion. That's the delineation.

That one might need unpicking a bit for me.
If he states his opinion as fact and that opinion is factually true, then there's no wrong, is there?

Yah, they could say that. As I pointed out, they discriminate against women, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily hate or dislike them. Doesn't mean it's correct to discriminate against women like they do.

The signs point fairly heavily to yes in that hypothetical in my view though ¬.¬ (that particular fabricated proponent).

Why would the statement "If Christ returned he had no problem with gays." harm the reputation of Christians who agree with that statement? <,<

It wouldn't, but it would presumably harm the reputation of someone who said "God hates fags" (to them) because Jesus having no problem with gays is kind of...ruining the whole God hates fags bit for them (you are misrepresenting me as a homo supporter!!1)

The "God hates fags" bit would again, presumably, harm the reputation of someone who did agree with the "If Christ returned he'd have no problem with the gays" statement. (misrepresenting as a homophobe).

But yah, both "The Christian (my) God hates fags" is quite obviously false by about all reasonable standards (just as the misogyny statement) and is in my opinion defamation. Actually, last time I saw someone stateing that - a Christian, indeed - I told him straight on that this is blasphemy. No, I didn't sue: it wasn't a public statement.

Well it's definitely hate speech.  And yeah, I saw on the wiki article on Westboro that the anti-defamation league are keeping an eye on them, so there's that.

Of course every person has his own concept of God(s). (Yes, 'God does not exist' is a concept of God and his nonexistence.) That concept can deviate from institutional concepts of God, like the catholic concept of God or the Christian Concept of God. Still, those institutional concepts are protected (and imho rightfully so), even against defamation from subgroups. Weird situation, maybe, but I see no problem in that.

Sure I was just ruminating on how much the concept may deviate within the bracket of Christianity, and branches of denominations and within those, on the individual level between person-to-person. (I.e two people following the same doctrine - the same outline - but if their personal God differs within that framework and to what extent).  From the 'your God' 'my God' thing.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Now, last time I checked mysogyny was the hate of or dislike for women. Yes, the catholic church discriminates against women in regard to being part of the priesthood, but I don't think that is because of a dislike or hatred of women. It is simply because of tradition. And that tradition didn't arise out of misogyny either, but out of a historical understanding of the roles of man and women and a division of tasks between the two.

Yes, that has lead to misogynist attitudes amongst catholic Christians at times, but in fact Christianity has had a rather pro-women attitude in the time of it's formation and I'd argue up to today. You see that by the broad adoption of feminist theology among all major Christian edenominations. In many respects Christianity allowed women in late antiquity to escape a lifetime in service within the household, offering them the choice of living in a monastery or as Virgo consecrata.

Similarly as women are barred from ordained priesthood, men are barred in Christianity from becoming Virgines consacratae. That's not because Christians hate men. Even in protestant denominations men can't become holy maidens.

So, no, Christianity doesn't view God as misogynist at all, not even the catholic Church with their strict prohibition to women becoming priests. Rather, through Maria, they have a high opinion of women, even though they adhere to a somewhat strict model of the roles of men and women have to fulfill. This goes both ways. One can criticise that, for sure, it is, though, something that's different from being misogynist.

So, what is really happening here is that you're of the opinion that the catholics are misogynist, because they don't let women become Priests. That is to say, you are assuming they must hate or dislike women in some way to barr them from becoming priests. But that's not the case. Treating people differently doesn't imply hatred of the groups you treat differently. It is a fallacy to assume that because you treat a group different, if you hate or dislike it (and even that premise isn't necessarily true), that the inverse must be true.

So, just so you know, what you do there seems to be very, very scummy argument tactics to me - as it doesn't follow at all that you have to hate or dislike someone because you barr them from a certain profession. There can be other reasons.

Also, by the way, misogyny has been seen as largely a negative thing since it was mentioned and debated in antiquity by philosphers. Very few people argued that hate and/or dislike of women is justified, and that's true inside as well as outside of Christianity.

And yah, I already noted that expression of opinions isn't libel or slander or any sort of defamation at all, Tiberious.

So why aren't they allowed to be priests?  You say it isn't a dislike, but you haven't put forward a reasonable argument as to what else it could be.  I certainly can't think of any rational, logical reason for it.  Why is it, for instance, that a bunch of men get to make the decision about what women are allowed to do with their bodies in cases of abortion?

Stepping out of Catholicism and back into Protestant theology, why is [a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supreme-court-birth-control-mandate-20140630,0,7311433.story"]this allowed to happen?[/a]  This doesn't seem like a pretty perfect God to me, but these guys seem to think it is.  Should I not be allowed to call these guys scumsuckers for what I consider to be a morally bankrupt philosophy?

[Kala]

Should I not be allowed to call these guys scumsuckers for what I consider to be a morally bankrupt philosophy?

I get the impression you are allowed to say that if it's phrased in that way.
(because you've made it clear it's your interpretation of a philosophy, rather than you representing someone's philosophy - "I believe this" rather than "you believe this")

I guess it's a bit trickier when it becomes "I believe this about you believing this" but eh...

Maybe I've just confused myself 

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Tiberious, it's mostly as Kala said, you're perfectly entitled to voice your opinion that those people are scumsuckers. "You're scumsuckers." seems to be a value judgement (or is that to be understood by a competent speaker of english more literally?)  and thus is always to be understood as opinion. So no problem there. 

Also "I believe this about you believing this" is quite clear cut: It's you stating your opinion. No problem there.

The problem only arises, really, if you say "You believe this" publically (third party present) and it is false as well as reputation damaging and you've a mens rea.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Well, I think we can agree to disagree on how simple it is to determine the actus of defamation in relation to crimes that involve things like dents in cars. Anyhow, my main point is that the more troubling problem is in any case the determination of whether there is a mens rea.

Again, unless it was very obviously false (as in the elephant example) surely you'd have to interpret it to establish if it's a false statement or not.  As in the opinion-stated-as-fact.  I don't think we really got anywhere with the "the Christian God is patriarchal and misogynous" example (or nowhere good, anyways) other than I don't see how it's unequivocally true or false if it can be argued either way.

If there is substantial debate about what to believe about God within Christianity, then it is obviously false to state one of the options as fact, no?

E.g. If there were substantial discussion whether God is misogynistic or not in Christianity, then the statement "By the Christian concept of God, he is a misogynist." would be false in so far as it is through generalization leaving away that the Christian concept as it is leaves open other interpretations.

Also, you don't have to state definitely what the statement is, you just have to determine whether it is a) public, b) false and c) harmful to the reputation. Everything else falls into the question of whether there's a mens rea.

How can you determine if it's false without knowing what it is? 

It suffices that the statement as it would probably be understood by a competent speaker would be false.

And you mentioned that it would as easy as simply grabbing the relevant book and looking it up to establish falsehood or not - but that again is going to depend on the example isn't it? Yes for elephant (you could look it up and categorically state Christians don't worship elephants), but something like Christianity (for example) has it's own inherent contradictions within it's own doctrine and various theological points where there is disagreement, which is why there's so many dominations anyways, isn't it?

Again, if you state one of the options as a fact about Christianity in general (while only a subsection holds it) and you are tacit on the disagreement in your statement, then your statement is false.

If he states his opinion as fact and that opinion s factually true, he is responsible for the damage he caused. Regardless of whether they would have done the same if he merely stated an opinion. That's the delineation.

That one might need unpicking a bit for me.
If he states his opinion as fact and that opinion is factually true, then there's no wrong, is there?

Oops. I meant: "If he states his opinion as fact and that opinion is factually false,..."

Why would the statement "If Christ returned he had no problem with gays." harm the reputation of Christians who agree with that statement? <,<

It wouldn't, but it would presumably harm the reputation of someone who said "God hates fags" (to them) because Jesus having no problem with gays is kind of...ruining the whole God hates fags bit for them (you are misrepresenting me as a homo supporter!!1)

The "God hates fags" bit would again, presumably, harm the reputation of someone who did agree with the "If Christ returned he'd have no problem with the gays" statement. (misrepresenting as a homophobe).

I don't think how "If Christ returned he had no problem with gays." would harm the reputation of Christ, because over all Christ's reputation would not be harmed, but rather increased by that statement, by more then leveling out his loss of reputation with 'fag haters'.

Also, the statement seems to be more in accord with the reputation that Christ built for himself, which includes a reputation of all-loving kindness, that doesn't stop at distinctions of nationality, religion and gender.

Just to cut right to (what seem to be) the essential points (to me), as I have to leave for now.