[DEBATE] : Re: (Mis)debating Issues

[Claire Ceruti]

I have no problem, personal or political, with relationships between people
of different ages. I think the relevant point when considering a *rape
charge* in particular should be, not the age difference per se, but the
difference in relative power. Zuma's age is just one dimension of this,
combined with his fame, the political intrigues around him, and his position
as the dubious head of a growing resistance. These factors should have been
considered in assessing why the complainant might have been slow to lay a
charge or why she kept quiet if she was indeed being raped. Ask alsmost any
woman who was a worker under apartheid....  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org 
> [mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org] On Behalf Of 
> Tsholofelo Modise
> Sent: 11 May 2006 01:05 PM
> To: debate at lists.kabissa.org
> Subject: [DEBATE] : (Mis)debating Issues
> 
> To be frank, I find some of the arguments in this debate very 
> disappointing. Every thought has an authority, or can be 
> traced to a particular logic, even if we disagree with it. 
> Exactly where does the notion of a man not sleeping with 
> someone far younger than him come from? From what school of 
> thought, theoretical perspective, ideological orientation, 
> does this come from? Or maybe let's add religion. Which 
> religion prohibits a man, or a woman, from sleeping with 
> someone young? If it is a matter of personal taste let's say 
> so, like if someone does not want to have a relationship with 
> a short man, or woman, or a fat man or women. 
>    
>   Frankly, I find no rationality in the argument advanced by 
> Virginia about age. Nothing at all! Like I say if it is 
> personal distate say so. Do not confuse issues, for you will 
> find no authority to support your argument, not from Marxism, 
> functionalism, post-modernism, broad critical theory, 
> nothing. Not even religion. No religion prohibits that. Try 
> to find any authority on that and come back to us. I bet my 
> last cent you will find nothing. If you do I will concede and 
> adopt your position. Will be waiting! Rosa Luxemburg was once 
> involved with someone 14 years younger than her. And there 
> was nothing wrong there. Instead, such arguments come from 
> very conservative schools of thought that cannot even defend 
> their conclusions. There is no rationality provided to saying 
> that the age gap between lovers should be so much. Nothing at 
> all! Try searching and you will find that is what you might 
> come across.
>    
>   On the whole debate, those who are voicing criticism should 
> once and for all come out. And let me be legalistic here: do 
> you agree with the judgement - Yes or No? 
>    
>   If you do then I will assume that you have been convinced 
> by legal rationalism, balance of probabilities and all that 
> legalistic nonsense. It is the No answer that needs 
> attention. Frankly, the syllogism of the No answer (and I am 
> making assumptions here) is based on flawed approaches. It 
> would seem that the argument here is that if a woman lays a 
> charge of rape then such a claim is assumed to be true. That 
> it can never be wrong. If this is the approach I am afraid it 
> fails the simplest requirements of basic logic. It seems it 
> adopts the following formula:
>    
>   1. A high number of women are raped
>    
>   2. A high proportion of that number does not report the incidents
>    
>   3. Those who report should be considered brave as they will 
> meet with a harsh court system
>    
>   4. Therefore those report are telling the truth as they 
> would not allow themselves to be subjected to such grilling in court.
>    
>   Is this the logic?
>    
>   I am no logician or philosopher, but if this is the line of 
> argument than it represents a combination of two fallacies, 
> Ad Hoc and Affirmation of the consequent. Mind you, I belief 
> that if JZ was guilty (or I was convinced in this debate that 
> the judgement wa wrong) I would argue that he should have 
> gone to rot in prison. But if he is not (and there is no 
> argument forthcoming to convince me that he is indeed 
> guilty), as the court argues, then let's let him off and 
> maybe concentrate on other debates, like the falsely created 
> perception that he is the friend of the working class and 
> other such nonsense.
>    
>   Which brings me to another level. The trial was about 
> whether there was rape or not. Let me put it simply; whether 
> there was forced sexual intercourse or not. Any other thing 
> that arose is purely incidental - the stupid 'shower' 
> comment, the short skirt comment etc. Even the judge seems to 
> have gone overboard when he lashed at the media, even though 
> some might feel the comments were correct. He should leave 
> the shenanigans of the media to us to take on. (Indeed the 
> media is becoming increasingly pathetic. Not only is it 
> generally on the lap of capital, it is now eating out of the 
> hand of one group of looters and discrediting the other 
> group. How pathetic!). 
>    
>   The question that the court had to answer was and I repeat: 
> whether there was forced intercourse (rape) or not. If the 
> arguments presented before the court failed to convince then 
> there was none. Thus far no one has advanced a cogent 
> argument that the court's ruling was not correct, and that it 
> did not take this and that argument into account. Even the 
> NPA/State realised that they lost the argument, hence their 
> silence, after the fact. If you understand a bit of law you 
> will know that the case by the State crumbled long time ago. 
> in fact, any further attempt by the State to strengthen its 
> case by calling certain high-profile witnesses had the 
> potential to expose to wreck the State's arguments even 
> further and expose the rot that is the royal palace of South 
> Africa Incorporated. 
>    
>   Perhaps the manner in which this debate must be framed is 
> on the lessons learnt, and not learnt, from the trial. But to 
> confuse issues in the manner that we seem to be doing here is 
> an indication of serious lack of rigour in our attempt to 
> advance arguments. 
>    
>   And I repeat, for me the gravitation towards choosing 
> between looters is simply misguided. 
>    
>   Out!
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
> around http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate