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

[John Dibble]

Seriously? Rape? This woman met him for a few minutes and had sex with him without actually bothering to get to know him. Sure, it's cruddy of him to lie, but she has no fault here for not actually bothering to get to know the man before doing the deed? And somehow that makes rape... *bangs head on desk*

[John Dibble]

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. If the guy did pretend to be Jewish it indicates that he was aware that the girl would not have sex with him otherwise. Deception is not ok in my book.

I think the lie was pretty cruddy of him, but I don't think it was a criminal lie. People lie to one another in relationships all the time. It sucks, but it's a basic fact of life. We'd have a hell of a lot more men in jail if every woman who had sex based on a lie like this could charge them with a crime. This is the kind of lie any woman should expect to have to deal with if she's pursuing a relationship (heck, men should expect it too) which is why anyone who's going to try to have a relationship should get to know the other person well enough that they can trust them before being intimate.

That's not to say no lies that result in the other person having sex can't be considered a crime, but I don't think this type is reasonable to consider a crime. Basically I see three levels:

1. Non-criminal lies. This might make you a s**ty person, but it isn't a crime.
2. Fraudulent lies. This is pretending that you are in some position or can provide something where the victim can expect to experience some sort of financial or material gain as a result of having sex with the person. It's basically saying you'll pay for sex but never intending to pay. It's fraud with the possibility of a minor sexual charge being added.
3. Coercive lies/threats. This is where a person tells the victim that they will do something bad to the victim unless the victim consents to sex. An example would be a social worker telling a mother that her kids will be taken away unless she has sex with him. It doesn't matter if the person actually has the authority to do what they are saying or not. This is rape-rape, nothing less. Extortion could also be piled on top of it.

(I don't really see why the law itself is racist though)

I don't think they are saying that the law itself is racist, just this particular application - that if the situation was reversed and a Jewish man claimed to be a Muslim to have sex with a Muslim woman that he wouldn't be convicted in Israel.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.