Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!blia!blic!inspect From: inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Rape: a genetic catastrophe Message-ID: <162@blic.BLI.COM> Date: 5 Feb 88 20:34:33 GMT References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <4371@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> Organization: Britton Lee, Los Gatos, CA Lines: 74 Summary: farting in a hurricane > > My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape > > position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence > > against women in western culture... > > If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe > > it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended > > to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather > > less sympathy for the rapist... > And buried in here is the reason why so many people are disturbed by > your arguments. Your main reason for arguing against the hypothesis > (hereinafter called GBR for brevity) is that you believe that people > will act a certain way if they believe it, and you don't want them to > act that way. So your arguments are, in effect, motivated by a desire > to control other people's actions by influencing their beliefs. And, > if you are right about the way people will behave if they believe GBR, > then they will behave the same whether their belief is mistaken or > not. So whether or not GBR is true is beside the point: the important > thing is to make sure that people don't believe it. In the absence of RESEARCH, it is possible for persons to rely on belief systems. Muller stated his belief systems AS belief systems and as HIS belief systems. WITHOUT RESEARCH, Muller's beliefs are as valid as those who choose to believe GBR. Those who ask us to believe GBR are asking us to accept that hypothesis with no more RESEARCH than Muller presents. This discussion has gone on too long and no *facts* have been offered by either faction. Influencing beliefs is no crime; it is the very essence of politics, religion, community, culture, literature, arts, affiliations, wars, business. . . > And it only seems natural that somebody who disagrees with a hypothesis > because a political purpose of his would be frustrated if many people > believed it would see those who advance or entertain that hypothesis as > motivated by an opposite purpose. > People who suggest that intelligence is > heritable *must* be motivated by a desire to oppress blacks, people who > suggest GBR *must* be motivated by a desire to excuse rape. There are historic precedents for hypotheses motivated by desires to oppress others: Hitler, pre-Civil War U.S. Southern states, Japanese-American con- centration camps, American Nazi Party, Ku Klux Klan, Moral Majority & Liberty Federation, government, Indian caste system, . . . All invalid, BTW. > As I said, I do not believe you are lying. You are all the more > disturbing because you are honest. You seem to form your beliefs about > the world by a process that is largely independent of the > characteristics of that world, and seem to be incapable of telling the > difference between truth and falsehood. In absence of RESEARCH (again), the pro-GBR faction is doing the same thing. There are no truths or falsehoods until the Fat Research Sings. Hypotheses are GUESSES, QUESTIONS, not facts until RESEARCH is done. In Muller's other 7 reasons against GBR, he states facts such as (AGAIN): the rapists choice of unimpregnable victims and the killing of victims. (The original topic here was rape as a reproductive advantage, not just a genetic link). > When *I'm* fabricating beliefs that I want others to believe, as an > instrument for influencing their behaviour towards the realization of > my purposes, I at least *know* I'm doing it. > David Canzi How nice for you. Do you let others know you're doing it? Rape may or may not have a genetic basis. It is something that might be very valuable to RESEARCH. What we, as a society, do with the results, if indeed, rape is genetic, is the real question. Muller's concerns that a genetic link could be used to mitigate society's wrath over the mutilation and humiliation of its "weaker" members are not his alone and are not with- out precendent in history. As it is there is far too little wrath or con- demnation of rape, everywhere. Be that as it may, there have been no post- ings with evidence on EITHER side of the *argument* and until there is we should attend to the beams in our own eyes before we comment on the motes in the eyes of others. - Jennifer (my beam is oak, what's yers?)