Arab man found guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jewish woman

[Gustaf]

I understand that last point, but it seems like a circular argument to me - since Israel is racist they would never prosecute a Jewish man like this and because they wouldn't prosecute a Jewish man they're racist.

That's not really a circular argument, that's just stating the same thing two slightly different ways. No matter which direction you go in, racism would be displayed clearly enough that most objective individuals could see it.

People seem to be accusing the law of being racist based on their ASSUMPTION that a Jewish man would not have been charged the same way. This assumption seems to be based on the assumption that Israel is a racist state. I didn't see anyone actually providing any evidence that a Jewish man wouldn't be prosecuted the same way, so it seems like a weak case to me.

[opebo]

Rape may not be the appropriate term, but I don't think it should be legal to obtain sex with someone based on false pretenses.

Deception is not ok in my book.

Oh good lord.  Are you a man?  Have you had no experience in the real world?

[Gustaf]

Rape may not be the appropriate term, but I don't think it should be legal to obtain sex with someone based on false pretenses.

Deception is not ok in my book.

Oh good lord.  Are you a man?  Have you had no experience in the real world?

I don't have to buy my women if that's what you mean. But I know you're a bitter old misogynist who don't understand people you can't buy, so there, there.

[opebo]

I don't have to buy my women if that's what you mean. But I know you're a bitter old misogynist who don't understand people you can't buy, so there, there.

Well actually, paying people is normally very honest.  You state the price, services, etc., and its all quite transparent.  But normal dating, Gustaf my innocent lad, does often involve various little misrepresentations.  'I'm a marine biologist', etc.

[John Dibble]

I understand that last point, but it seems like a circular argument to me - since Israel is racist they would never prosecute a Jewish man like this and because they wouldn't prosecute a Jewish man they're racist.

That's not really a circular argument, that's just stating the same thing two slightly different ways. No matter which direction you go in, racism would be displayed clearly enough that most objective individuals could see it.

People seem to be accusing the law of being racist based on their ASSUMPTION that a Jewish man would not have been charged the same way. This assumption seems to be based on the assumption that Israel is a racist state. I didn't see anyone actually providing any evidence that a Jewish man wouldn't be prosecuted the same way, so it seems like a weak case to me.

Well, the evidence they use is the general attitude in Israel towards Palestinians. They could be wrong about it - it is an assumption, but it's not necessarily a baseless one. It's not circular because it uses something outside of the argument to provide evidence for the argument.

[Gustaf]

I understand that last point, but it seems like a circular argument to me - since Israel is racist they would never prosecute a Jewish man like this and because they wouldn't prosecute a Jewish man they're racist.

That's not really a circular argument, that's just stating the same thing two slightly different ways. No matter which direction you go in, racism would be displayed clearly enough that most objective individuals could see it.

People seem to be accusing the law of being racist based on their ASSUMPTION that a Jewish man would not have been charged the same way. This assumption seems to be based on the assumption that Israel is a racist state. I didn't see anyone actually providing any evidence that a Jewish man wouldn't be prosecuted the same way, so it seems like a weak case to me.

Well, the evidence they use is the general attitude in Israel towards Palestinians. They could be wrong about it - it is an assumption, but it's not necessarily a baseless one. It's not circular because it uses something outside of the argument to provide evidence for the argument.

No, it doesn't use anything. Not even the general attitude in Israel, though I realize that was implied.

The general attitude in Israel towards Arabs is not evidence that a Jewish man would not be tried for this.

[Gustaf]

I don't have to buy my women if that's what you mean. But I know you're a bitter old misogynist who don't understand people you can't buy, so there, there.

Well actually, paying people is normally very honest.  You state the price, services, etc., and its all quite transparent.  But normal dating, Gustaf my innocent lad, does often involve various little misrepresentations.  'I'm a marine biologist', etc.

You think George Costanza is representative of dating in the real world?

He is a compulsively lying, failed person who doesn't understand women, human beings or general society at all. This was a rather interesting clue to your personality. I always wondered   what this real world you claim to live in was, but I would never have guessed at a sitcom about failed weirdos.

[Lunar]

I don't have to buy my women if that's what you mean. But I know you're a bitter old misogynist who don't understand people you can't buy, so there, there.

Well actually, paying people is normally very honest.  You state the price, services, etc., and its all quite transparent.  But normal dating, Gustaf my innocent lad, does often involve various little misrepresentations.  'I'm a marine biologist', etc.

You think George Costanza is representative of dating in the real world?

He is a compulsively lying, failed person who doesn't understand women, human beings or general society at all. This was a rather interesting clue to your personality. I always wondered   what this real world you claim to live in was, but I would never have guessed at a sitcom about failed weirdos.

http://thedailywh.at/post/837242340/this-is-kind-of-amazing-you-should-watch-it-of

[opebo]

You think George Costanza is representative of dating in the real world?

He is a compulsively lying, failed person who doesn't understand women, human beings or general society at all. This was a rather interesting clue to your personality. I always wondered   what this real world you claim to live in was, but I would never have guessed at a sitcom about failed weirdos.

George understands the world almost perfectly, Gustaf.  Your obsession with the idea of 'failure' or 'success' is telling as well.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Wow, and opebo thought the U.S. was the "Bad Place".......we don't come close.

[John Dibble]

I understand that last point, but it seems like a circular argument to me - since Israel is racist they would never prosecute a Jewish man like this and because they wouldn't prosecute a Jewish man they're racist.

That's not really a circular argument, that's just stating the same thing two slightly different ways. No matter which direction you go in, racism would be displayed clearly enough that most objective individuals could see it.

People seem to be accusing the law of being racist based on their ASSUMPTION that a Jewish man would not have been charged the same way. This assumption seems to be based on the assumption that Israel is a racist state. I didn't see anyone actually providing any evidence that a Jewish man wouldn't be prosecuted the same way, so it seems like a weak case to me.

Well, the evidence they use is the general attitude in Israel towards Palestinians. They could be wrong about it - it is an assumption, but it's not necessarily a baseless one. It's not circular because it uses something outside of the argument to provide evidence for the argument.

No, it doesn't use anything. Not even the general attitude in Israel, though I realize that was implied.

The general attitude in Israel towards Arabs is not evidence that a Jewish man would not be tried for this.

So you are saying that the racially biased behaviors they perceive on a regular basis has nothing to do with them reaching the conclusion that this particular case, which seems very ridiculous in the eyes of many people, is also a racially biased thing? You could say that it's too far of a leap, but it is what they are basing the claim off of, so it isn't circular.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I bet Gustaf believes that a white man raping a black woman in the 1950s South would receive an equivalent sentence to a black man raping a white woman too.

[Beet]

Either way, if she consented to sex, it's not rape. It doesn't matter of the guy/girl is Jewish/Arab, or Arab/Jewish, European/Black, or Purple/Orange.

[Gustaf]

I bet Gustaf believes that a white man raping a black woman in the 1950s South would receive an equivalent sentence to a black man raping a white woman too.

Dingding! I'm sorry, you just lost your bet, in record time too. It took a mere two seconds or so after I saw your post to win the bet.

In the case of the South, there are plenty of court cases telling a very, very clear story of racial discrimination. It is well known that the courts there were corrupt.

I'm still not seeing any real proof for it in this case.

The argument, as I understood it, was that the law was racist because it wouldn't be applied equally to Jews, because Israel is racist, as evidenced by their racist laws. It isn't strictly circular, I suppose, but it still strikes me as extremely weak, since the whole argument revolves around an assumption which in this thread has only been backed up by itself.

[John Dibble]

The argument, as I understood it, was that the law was racist because it wouldn't be applied equally to Jews, because Israel is racist, as evidenced by their racist laws. It isn't strictly circular, I suppose, but it still strikes me as extremely weak, since the whole argument revolves around an assumption which in this thread has only been backed up by itself.

No, again, not circular. This is how the argument goes:

1. Israel does not give Palestinians the same rights and freedoms accorded to Israelis and the general attitude in Israel towards Palestinians is negative -> Israel is racist
2. In this particular case the law seems to have been perverted to be applied in a way that is quite ridiculous.
3. Because Israel is racist against Palestinians based off of 1 and because 2 happened against a Muslim -> It seems likely that an Israeli wouldn't have been prosecuted for the same behavior.

You could disagree with the conclusions at any point (for instance I think conclusion 1 is overly simplified), but the logic is not of a circular nature. The reason for that is the "Israel is racist" claim is derived not from this particular case alone, but from other actions that Israel has taken independent from this case. Those things exist outside of the circle, which makes the argument not circular.

[Gustaf]

Below are the posts I can see before my first post which mention racism. None of them, as far as I can see, mention Israel in general being racist. They call this particular decision racist, and the only basis I see given for it is the assumption that this would not apply to a Jewish man. This assumption is the only thing that could make the decision racist (it can still be dumb, but it cannot be racist) and that assumption is not backed up by anyone that I can see.

In fact, it still strikes me as an odd argument even if other racist stuff had been mentioned. The reason is that the argument still runs something like "this is another case of Israel being racist, because they would not have charged a Jewish man because they are racist."

It is like finding a person guilty of one theft and then assuming he is guilty of five more thefts because he is SUCH a thief and then going on to saying "Look, what a thief, 6 thefts already." That is obviously exaggerating quite a bit, since presumably the racist instances in Israel before this are more numerous but it seems to me that this is a highly dubious way of arguing. 

I was going to post this the other day. Such an unbelievably racist decision and to paraphrase another blog- if it was illegal to lie to get in a woman's pants then the human race would cease.

This is racism.  Does anyone doubt that if a Jewish man had tricked an Arab girl into having sex, that he would not be jailed?

I'm surprised having relations between Arab men and Jewish women isn't flat-out illegal in 'Israel'.

Why do you always put normal words in quotation marks?

It's a good thing we have a civilized democracy like Israel in the Middle East to show all those other countries how a country based on the ideals of equality and justice works!
[/quote

This is racism.  Does anyone doubt that if a Jewish man had tricked an Arab girl into having sex, that he would not be jailed?

The girl would probably be.

[Beet]

Even if a Jewish man would have been charged, it is still arguably racist, in the same way that anti miscegenation laws are. It says we are going to break ordinary definitions of rape in the case of miscegenation.

It only takes one theft to make a thief.

[John Dibble]

Gustaf, please understand the only point here I'm trying to make is that it's not a circular argument. I have a thing for logic and want to see it applied properly, especially by people like yourself who are intelligent enough to do so.

However, that does not mean that it couldn't be fallacious in other ways. As I said, you can find reasons to disagree with the conclusions stated.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, please understand the only point here I'm trying to make is that it's not a circular argument. I have a thing for logic and want to see it applied properly, especially by people like yourself who are intelligent enough to do so.

However, that does not mean that it couldn't be fallacious in other ways. As I said, you can find reasons to disagree with the conclusions stated.

Oh, I agree the argument you presented isn't circular. I'm making two points:

1. The argument you presented had not been presented when I made my post. The argument I had seen seemed to be in danger of circularity, imo.

2. Even the argument you present, while not circular in a strict logical sense, is still, I don't know, semi-circular, if you catch my drift. The reason is that once you start accusing someone of being something and then use that assumption to strengthen the accusation you are on a bit of a slippery slope as I see it. While not logically invalid I still think it is a somewhat unsound way of reasoning.

As I said earlier, I don't think we're in that much disagreement. The key difference is that I don't really see this non-circular argument you advance being present in any of the posts I was responding to.

Also, there is a difference between how a term is used in logic (usually a very strict manner) and how it is used in the more relaxed everyday context. I will admit that I was a little vague there and that was my fault entirely.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some... interesting... developments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/08/rape-by-deception-plea-israel

[patrick1]

Some... interesting... developments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/08/rape-by-deception-plea-israel

Below is a salient point for me.  Based only on the information given it seems this woman has some issues.

Ha'ir also reports that the woman had filed 14 previous complaints, mostly for sexual offences, some of which did not result in convictions owing to lack of evidence or because of questions around the veracity of the complaint. The prosecution was concerned that Kashur's legal team would question the women over all these cases in court.

[Gustaf]

Has some issues? Yeah, as is said elsewhere in the article she was abused by her dad who made her a sex-slave. That might explain it.

The interesting point made by the article is that it apparently was not consensual, but was straight, violent rape. The official charge was just the result of a plea-bargain.

I imagine someone who has been an abused sex-worker would have grounds to file complaints of sexual abuse even if not all of them have been validated.