The Paul File

[Tiassa]

I don't think you're wrong

Tiassa, do you see what I mean? See how impossible it is for the misogynist to hide their hate for women?

Well, see, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Everyone I know who's heard that bit from Paul seems to think something, well ... along the lines of what you're explaining. My blog version of the question has already harvested a similar answer to yours; even my mother has heard this quote, and thinks of it like you do.

In truth, I agree.

But, you know, I'm a radical liberal, who can't possibly ever be right in my perceptions, so I'm giving Paul (or, rather, Paul's supporters, since the distinguished gentleman is unlikely to ever chime in here on his own behalf) a chance to explain what I'm missing.

I don't think you're wrong.

Indeed, I think you're pointing out the absolutely most obvious thing about it. (In fact, everyone I know seems to make the same point.)

But, well, you know, the Paulines tell us we're all sheeple who are missing the point because we can't see past liberal media conspiracies to destroy genuine liberty. So, hey, why not? Why not give the Pauline Evangelism a chance to explain what the hell the phrase "honest rape" means.

And, as we've seen, it seems to be all about the fake-rape myth that so many men cling to.

But they can't all be rape advocates—you know, by which any given rape must be proven an "honest rape"—so there must be some other, more dignified meaning to the phrase that I'm simply missing.

I can only wonder what it is, since you and I must necessarily be wrong.

 

[Chipz]

Tiassa, do you see what I mean? See how impossible it is for the misogynist to hide their hate for women?

These are the kinds of people who use terms like "honest rape" when the question already implied an actual rape situation.

Huh? I've known women who lied about getting raped for various reasons, growing up a girl I knew disliked her step-dad and in order to live with her mother accused him of rape. Does identifying this as 'dishonest rape' indicate I hate women?

 

[Balerion]

Well, see, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Everyone I know who's heard that bit from Paul seems to think something, well ... along the lines of what you're explaining. My blog version of the question has already harvested a similar answer to yours; even my mother has heard this quote, and thinks of it like you do.

In truth, I agree.

But, you know, I'm a radical liberal, who can't possibly ever be right in my perceptions, so I'm giving Paul (or, rather, Paul's supporters, since the distinguished gentleman is unlikely to ever chime in here on his own behalf) a chance to explain what I'm missing.

I don't think you're wrong.

Indeed, I think you're pointing out the absolutely most obvious thing about it. (In fact, everyone I know seems to make the same point.)

But, well, you know, the Paulines tell us we're all sheeple who are missing the point because we can't see past liberal media conspiracies to destroy genuine liberty. So, hey, why not? Why not give the Pauline Evangelism a chance to explain what the hell the phrase "honest rape" means.

And, as we've seen, it seems to be all about the fake-rape myth that so many men cling to.

But they can't all be rape advocates—you know, by which any given rape must be proven an "honest rape"—so there must be some other, more dignified meaning to the phrase that I'm simply missing.

I can only wonder what it is, since you and I must necessarily be wrong.

Ah, I see.

 

[Balerion]

Huh? I've known women who lied about getting raped for various reasons, growing up a girl I knew disliked her step-dad and in order to live with her mother accused him of rape. Does identifying this as 'dishonest rape' indicate I hate women?

Did you know women who lied for various reasons, or did you just know that one girl who lied about her step-dad? I have a sneaking suspicion it's the latter.

But no, pointing out that women have and do lie about being raped doesn't mean you hate women. It's the thinly-veiled (if veiled at all) contempt for their plight and the belief that rape probably never really happens that makes one a misogynist.

 

[786]

Tiassa, do you see what I mean? See how impossible it is for the misogynist to hide their hate for women?

These are the kinds of people who use terms like "honest rape" when the question already implied an actual rape situation.

Lmao... seriously? Its just a simple truth that there are 'examples' of such things happening where woman have lied. Are you saying lying isn't common? Not that woman are liars, men are equally liars, but clearly leave it to people like you to turn everything into 'oh he's a racist', or 'he's a misogynist'... and I think I already address the problem with the word 'honest', but I don't think anything really matters because its much easier playing the 'racist' type cards, they work very well.

In my life I've met more racist blacks than whites. I don't buy the protectionist bullshit. Treat everyone the same for god sake. Its because of historical ties that people have become overly sympathetic to a group, the blind support of Israel is a great example. They got screwed in history- so lets support every damn thing they do.

Criticize a jew's action- YOU'RE an anti-semite
Say something about a black person - you're a racist
Say something about a woman- oh you're a misogynist

Very nice, open ended discussion.

 

[Tiassa]

Misogyny and libertarianism

But no, pointing out that women have and do lie about being raped doesn't mean you hate women. It's the thinly-veiled (if veiled at all) contempt for their plight and the belief that rape probably never really happens that makes one a misogynist.

Exactly. One of the things that should be pointed out, though, is that despite the occasional "dishonest rape", Rep. Paul's whole argument is crap.

Remember, even though he claims libertarianism, he runs as a Republican; this is the party that moved 49% of Colorado voters who participated in the 2010 election to support a former prosecutor who refused to press rape charges against a confessed rapist because he just didn't think it an "honest" rape.

And this is also the party that tried to redefine rape in their crusade against abortion rights in order to eliminate statutory rape.

So we start to see a bit about "honest rape".

Especially when we consider Dr. Paul's own explanation:

If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room ....

.... It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical—there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy ....​

Dr. Paul does not seem to understand the psychological effects of sexual assault. A child routinely abused by a parent is not going to go to the emergency room "immediately" after being raped. A woman raped by her husband is not going to go to an emergency room "immediately" after being raped. Any reasonable survey of predatory sexuality suggests that the thousands of rapes reported on American college campuses each year are a mere fraction of the rapes actually taking place. The number of reported rapes each year in general, in American society, are a mere fraction of what actually occurs.

In other words, a woman who is raped should act as a seventy-seven year-old man who has not been raped and, likely, will not be raped, and, furthermore, will never have to worry about carrying his rapist's baby even if he is raped, demands. The kindest verdict we can suggest is that Dr. Paul is incredibly insensitive to the plight of rape survivors.

The clock, according to Dr. Paul's argument, is ticking. If a woman cries rape early enough, that one does not know whether or not fertilization has occurred, then he, as a doctor, would administer some sort of contraceptive. Maybe it's just me, but this seems a bit "Sergeant Schultz", seeking bliss in willful ignorance.

Indeed, when confronted with a more realistic proposition—(Morgan: People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant.)—Paul responds with an appeal to emotion, a dodge intended to indict women:

This is like the proposal that the people who like abortion, endorse abortion because it's the woman's right to her body. You say, well, does that mean one minute before birth, you can kill the baby? I did this on one of the TV programs where some women were opposed to what I was saying.

I said, this nine-pound baby is in the woman. She has the right. She argues her case. I said you would abort this baby because the woman has had unfortunate some circumstances, so the doctor gets paid a handsome fee to kill this nine-pound baby?

Oh, that's not what we're talking about. But that is what they are talking about. They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.

But to tell you the truth, what I saw happening in the 1960s and the change in the law and—no, the change in attitude, people were doing illegal abortions. To me it is a moral problem. It was to change the morality of the '60s, the lack of respect for life, leads to the lack of respect for liberty and all the things that I believe in.

So it was a change in morality that had the Supreme Court change the law. So I don't believe the change in the law is the magic cure. I do believe, though, very sincerely, if we don't have an understanding of life and have a lot of respect for life, I can't defend people on their personal liberties. I can't be as tolerant as I am on how they use liberties.

So that's why I think it's really a moral issue, rather than a legal solution to all these problems. As a physician, as a gynecologist, I have had to face some of these very, very difficult problems. I understand them. Even before Roe versus Wade, many of those problems that existed, where there is no perfect answer, they were taken care of, but it was always done—they respected the fact that they were dealing with a life.​

Rep. Paul had the opportunity to acknowledge that, well, rape survivors do not always respond to the incident and circumstances with the alacrity he demands, but instead chose to appeal to emotions. The question that Dr. Paul ultimately flees is simply enough expressed: What is a pregnant woman's status as a human being?

Perhaps it is best if we do not wonder at his reluctance to address this issue. After all, he claims to be a libertarian, and there is no reason that we should be surprised that it is women—that is, people who are not him and who he will never be—who must sacrifice their liberty in order to fulfill his vision of ultimate freedom.

That is, perhaps it is best if we do not wonder at his reluctance to address this issue, because the answer is bloody obvious.

 

[786]

So Tiassa is it okay to abort 1 min before birth? that should be helpful in answering your question

 

[Tiassa]

Dryfoot ... and, say what?

So Tiassa is it okay to abort 1 min before birth? that should be helpful in answering your question

Helpful, how? What is an "honest rape"?

To the other, I have long expressed a "dryfoot" policy: If you make it to the world, welcome to the world.

 

[786]

Helpful, how? What is an "honest rape"?

To the other, I have long expressed a "dryfoot" policy: If you make it to the world, welcome to the world.

I was referring to your pregnant woman question, I already gave my honest rape answer.

What first entering the world mean and when does someone enter the world exactly?

 

[Tiassa]

Oh, well, yeah, since I wasn't clear

What first entering the world mean and when does someone enter the world exactly?

Ah, my apologies. I hadn't recognized the subtlety of being born.

 

[Chipz]

Did you know women who lied for various reasons, or did you just know that one girl who lied about her step-dad? I have a sneaking suspicion it's the latter.

But no, pointing out that women have and do lie about being raped doesn't mean you hate women. It's the thinly-veiled (if veiled at all) contempt for their plight and the belief that rape probably never really happens that makes one a misogynist.

I don't think Dr. Paul's or most who would share his view are intending to imply that today where abortion is legal there are many cases of falsely claimed rape. Republican's policy roughly states -- 'No abortions with the single exception of rape cases'. It doesn't take a genius to figure rape claims would explode exponentially. Under such cases there would be a requisite distinction between "real rape" and "false rape".

 

[Tiassa]

Requisite Distinctions?

Republican's policy roughly states -- 'No abortions with the single exception of rape cases'. It doesn't take a genius to figure rape claims would explode exponentially. Under such cases there would be a requisite distinction between "real rape" and "false rape".

There appear to be problems with that in general, and specifically in Dr. Paul's argument.

To start with the specific:

... an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

—Rep. Ron Paul​

Can you make the requisite distinction in an hour, or a day?

Rep. Paul is making the argument that if a woman seeks medical treatment before conception, there is nothing wrong with forestalling conception. But, as he insists repeatedly that, "Life does begin at conception," it would seem that once conception occurs, there is nothing a woman should be allowed to do to terminate the pregnancy.

Generally speaking, we encounter an aspect discussed a year ago, that, "It's a child, not a choice—but not if you were raped". It is a long and contentious thread, to be certain, but it certainly includes ideas that complicate the practical application of the rape exception.

Furthermore, there is a question of access. Republicans at the state level very nearly closed all of Kansas to abortion services last year, attempting to shut down the only three providing clinics in the state by rewriting building codes. In 2005, over 85% of counties in the United States had no abortion provider. In 2010, Utah enacted an anti-abortion law that resulted from a harrowing case in which a seventeen year-old girl paid a friend to beat her into a miscarriage; the nearest abortion clinic she could find was over 170 miles away. We can leave the coat-hanger bit for other people to argue about, because in the case of Rep. Paul, accounting for the requisite distinction between "honest rape" and a false claim in the first place, and then finding access to a provider—well, how convenient for Paul's anti-abortion stance: It's too late for an abortion under life-at-conception.

 

[Balerion]

Lmao... seriously? Its just a simple truth that there are 'examples' of such things happening where woman have lied. Are you saying lying isn't common? Not that woman are liars, men are equally liars, but clearly leave it to people like you to turn everything into 'oh he's a racist', or 'he's a misogynist'... and I think I already address the problem with the word 'honest', but I don't think anything really matters because its much easier playing the 'racist' type cards, they work very well.

In my life I've met more racist blacks than whites. I don't buy the protectionist bullshit. Treat everyone the same for god sake. Its because of historical ties that people have become overly sympathetic to a group, the blind support of Israel is a great example. They got screwed in history- so lets support every damn thing they do.

Criticize a jew's action- YOU'RE an anti-semite
Say something about a black person - you're a racist
Say something about a woman- oh you're a misogynist

Very nice, open ended discussion.

Enough with the false dichotomies. I never said that pointing out the fact that women have and do lie about being raped makes you a misogynist. It is, as I said, a hatred for women which makes you a misogynist, and that hatred is very apparent in your post. Just as it was in Paul's comments.

Consider the question posed to him was this: "Are you for abortion if a woman is raped?" The question was not "Are you for abortion if a woman says she was raped?" The question implies that the rape happened, and yet Paul felt the need to qualify it with "if it's an honest rape." Why do you think that is? I suppose you would applaud this unnecessary qualifier because it speaks directly to your shared mistrust and dislike for women and their plight. But for civilized human beings, that kind of comment speaks to an appalling kind of mentality; despite the phrasing of the question, Paul's first assumption is that the rape was fabricated.

I suppose I shouldn't attempt to appeal to your intellect on this, because as most bigots, you do not have the faculties to remain subtle about your hate. You even imply that there are more racist blacks than whites, while of course demonstrating no understanding of what actually makes racism a problem rather than simply an ugly social construct.

I do wonder why the Right of our political spectrum is so polluted by bigots and hate-mongers such as yourself, however. There's nothing inherently racist about state's rights or economic conservatism, so why are so many of you racists?

 

[Billy T]

... I do wonder why the Right of our political spectrum is so polluted by bigots and hate-mongers such as yourself, however. There's nothing inherently racist about state's rights or economic conservatism, so why are so many of you racists?

I don´t think you have very solid grounds for calling 786 a bigot, hate monger but would like to take a stab at answering your question.

In general, almost by definition, conservatives resist change. Most of bigots tend to either (1) be old and grew up in what for them was the norm - a very racist society, with racism supported by local laws or (2) in the lower economic classes, which for years (but not openly now) anti-union forces told "If you vote for the union next week you will be working with niggers and next month one will have your job." (or both)

I think you will be hard pressed to find an "under 30" wealthy racist - if true that confirms my answer.

I want to exclude from your reply a special very understandable case: young black women who see a intellignet, reasonably hansom, black of their age dating a white girl - nearly 100% of them are extremely racist and brimming with anger, if not hatred for that black on this "black dating white woman" issue. They even have a special term for that black man, but I forget it.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Tiassa, do you see what I mean? See how impossible it is for the misogynist to hide their hate for women?

These are the kinds of people who use terms like "honest rape" when the question already implied an actual rape situation.

I´m pretty sure its against forum rules to promote misogyny, that would be a serious offend and would lead to a ban I reckon.
So I challenge you to provide the proof of that happening because that is very serious accusation.
If you cant I reckon you are breaking forum rules for spreading unfounded accusations, trolling, and whatnot.

To Tiassa; If you dont understand the term "honest rape" in context where the user of the phrase have taken hippocratic oath, cherishes Christian values and so on by no means doesnt want to terminate a life in lightly manner, then I´m forced to begin to wonder your ability to moderate any forum.
To me it is looking like you dont even care about the answer, it was the guestion you cherish, operation bait&switch, and...

According to you Dr Paul is misanthropist excluding white males, yeah, riiiiiiiight.... pathetic I say.

 

[Bells]

S
Yes, you are right, it is simple, its all about context, out of context its sounds creepy, right...?

It is creepy even in context.

I'm sure it just means 'rape'.

One would imagine so. Until you look at the whole sentence. What he says is that in an "honest rape", the victim goes to the hospital straight away. As though to indicate those who do not weren't really raped and are faking it. The reality is that many rape victims take days if not longer before they actually tell anyone the trauma they suffered and what had happened to them. It is common. Many find going to the hospital to have a rape kit done on them to be invasive and just as traumatic. What Ron Paul is saying is that if someone does not put themselves through the trauma of going through the internal exam and the scraping and questioning immediately, then that individual wasn't really raped as such, or it was not an "honest rape".

The man is running for President. If he cannot string two sentences together and not come out sounding like a misogynistic prick, maybe he should not be running for President.

But on a side note, there are 'false rapes' where the woman just lies- I know a few cases personally where its a 'payback' tool used by some woman. And it works because 'awwww the poor defenseless woman'..

Wow.. that's what you're going with here?

 

[Balerion]

I don´t think you have very solid grounds for calling 786 a bigot, hate monger but would like to take a stab at answering your question.

I'm not particularly concerned how you feel about my contention that 786 is a bigot. If you can't tell by his rant about women and blacks and Jews, then you're not the kind of person I want on my side anyway. I would prefer to be as far from you as possible.

In general, almost by definition, conservatives resist change. Most of bigots tend to either (1) be old and grew up in what for them was the norm - a very racist society, with racism supported by local laws or (2) in the lower economic classes, which for years (but not openly now) anti-union forces told "If you vote for the union next week you will be working with niggers and next month one will have your job." (or both)

I think you will be hard pressed to find an "under 30" wealthy racist - if true that confirms my answer.

Nothing you've said here links conservatism to racism. Yes, conservatives are resistant to change--at least social change--but what does that have to do with racism? Describing where bigots come from (which you didn't; I live in the northeast and have met plenty of middle- to upper-middle-class people who were bigoted in some way. And your assertion that it would be hard to find an "under 30 wealthy racist" is absolutely baseless) does not explain why so many conservatives seem to be bigots.

I want to exclude from your reply a special very understandable case: young black women who see a intellignet, reasonably hansom, black of their age dating a white girl - nearly 100% of them are extremely racist and brimming with anger, if not hatred for that black on this "black dating white woman" issue. They even have a special term for that black man, but I forget it.

To claim "nearly 100% of them are racist" only demonstrates that your IQ is likely far below that number.

I´m pretty sure its against forum rules to promote misogyny, that would be a serious offend and would lead to a ban I reckon.
So I challenge you to provide the proof of that happening because that is very serious accusation.
If you cant I reckon you are breaking forum rules for spreading unfounded accusations, trolling, and whatnot.

I have twice now explained why he is a misogynist, and his own posts stand as evidence. If that isn't enough for you, then you're not really asking.

 

[Billy T]

... Rep. Paul is making the argument that if a woman seeks medical treatment before conception, there is nothing wrong with forestalling conception. But, as he insists repeatedly that, "Life does begin at conception," it would seem that once conception occurs, there is nothing a woman should be allowed to do to terminate the pregnancy. ...

While I don´t agree with RP on this - i.e. would permit early term pregnancies to be terminated even on economic ground when woman has several children she can not afford to properly feed, (that end up with at least minor brain damage) etc. do you think, as I do (see http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2899824&postcount=1258 ) that "conception" is not complete until the fertilized egg or early stage embryo (for cases of in vitro fertilization) implants the woman´s uterus?

I.e. there is nothing wrong with the in vitro fertilization clinic throwing 30 or more fertilized eggs and five or so viable embryos, into the trash can for every birth they achieve. Also nothing wrong with "plan B" and other drugs that only prevent fertilized egg from properly attaching to uterine wall. I.e. give them the same "flushed down the toilet" fate that a least 2/3 of all fertilized eggs have.

 

[Billy T]

... To claim "nearly 100% of them are racist" only demonstrates that your IQ is likely far below that number. ...

There were six or seven black college girls active in the CIVIC interest group and two intelligent, socially concerned, black guys, both of whom were dating very liberal white girls in the group. My 100% is based on that limited sample but if you had experienced the intensity of their anger, you would not question how general their POV on this was.

I could not assign them to the same car when dispatching cars to hit the day´s designated restaurants. On a good Sunday, with 20 or so cars available (mainly from rich girls of Gaucher College) I could do $25,000 dollars damage to restaurants.

That is why I succeeded in getting the Baltimore´s restaurants opened when morally lead efforts of the two prior summers had failed. I.e. the restaurant association switched 180 degree, and joined the Civic Interest Group in requesting the MD legislature make racial discrimination illegal, rather than have Baltimore´s police expel us from restaurants.

 

[eyeswideshut]

I have twice now explained why he is a misogynist, and his own posts stand as evidence. If that isn't enough for you, then you're not really asking.

Interesting, then its okay to spread misogynist message around here, or the moderators are not up to their task, or you are wrong...