girl_in_tokyo comments

Yes, I argued women should have children for the good of society.

It's a bad argument.

Can’t answer objections. Understood

More like can't be bothered to waste my time with your Gish Gallops.

These comments make you appear to be a heterophobic agest misandrist.

LOL ... and you said I was using ad hominen?

. I supported this with sources showing

This is not a scientific argument where citations are factual and provide solid evidence. This is your argument from personal belief, citing other sources of personal beliefs that agree with your personal belief. Ahem. Just as I said you would do.

You always argue that immigration, independent women who eschew marriage and children, and LGBTQIA are the devil and will wreck society. I am all three of those, we are always going to disagree at a fundamental level, so I don't care to argue with you. To me, everything you write is just nonsense.

But by all means, quote everything I've said here and answer it point by point, and go back and look for more quotes to argue over, point by point, and continue to waste your time.

jeffyToday 04:33 pm JST

But I didn’t actually argue that individuals “must do whatever is deemed good for society” did I? What I actually argued was,

You argued women should have children for the good of society. So yeah, you did argue that.

I'm not even getting into the rest of what you posted, because it was nonsense.

Well this is just ad hominem right here. But I always come with sources, as I have done once again in my comments here, and you always resort to this. But hey, to each their own right?

First, it was not an ad hominem. Secondly, I was RIGHT - that's exactly what you argued.

rainydayToday 04:17 pm JST

When you have your own kids though your feelings are completely different, so for those hesitating to have kids solely based on that I would just say that how you feel about other people's kids is a very poor predictor of how you will feel about your own.

Honestly, I've heard that a million times, and it's simply not true for me. It's not even about hesitation - it's been a dead set certainty for my entire life.

I also just find it really patronizing, since how could anyone possibly know my mind better than I do? I know my own mind, and so do most people who actively chose not to have kids.

I just have my doubts when people present the decision to not have children as some huge positive expression of free will executed in a vacuum.

Just a thought - you've completely discounted that a lot of people who actively chose not to have children are child-free because they don't LIKE children. Anecdotally, this is the case for everyone I know who is childless, myself and my partner included. Personally, I find kids tedious and boring. I can handle being around them for a bit, but after a while they just irritate me. I don't have the motherly instinct, the patience, or the desire. Hahaha ... it's like that line in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when his father says, "You left just when you were getting interesting."

jeffyToday 12:19 pm JST

girl_in_tokyo Today 09:13 am JST

If people would just mind their own business on personal matters this world would be a far more peaceful place.

Imagine using this as an arguement in relation to domestic violence. You hear it next door, "Best to stay out of it. Not my business." But people are encouraged to make it their business because there is a negative impact on society by permitting such violence. Well, Western societies have been adversely affected by low birthrates. Oh well, these societies look like they are on their way to being replaced with those who have not tossed their traditional values. The wheel of history turns. .

You are comparing apples and oranges. Domestic violence is a crime. Having children is a personal choice.

You could argue yourself blue in the face that people should have children because societies have been adversely affected, but it's going to be a bad argument regardless of how well you can prove society is adversely affected.

Simply put, it's both unrealistic and nonsensical to argue that people must do whatever is deemed good for society, no matter whether or not it is good for them personally. No government or individual could, or should, be give that kind of power over others.

Besides that, I highly doubt you could even make a very good argument that societies are adversely affected by the current birthrate since the world population is INcreasing, not DEcreasting.

If people would just mind their own business on personal matters this world would be a far more peaceful place.

englisc aspyrgendToday 04:26 am JST

Rather jumping to conclusions here, it is perfectly reasonable to seek to understand the underlying psychological processes leading to a 14 year old agreeing to meet the old pervert. At no point did the comment accuse or blame the girl, but understanding the rational not only gives a better understanding of the article but also of what needs to change in society to ensure this sort of thing does not happen in future. Blindly shutting down enquiry helps nobody.

Maybe you can explain why disagreeing with someone and explaining why is "blindly shutting down enquiry".

Oh, wait ... you just disagreed with ME.

Are you trying to shut down enquiry?

LindsayToday 07:26 am JST

I’m not victim blaming but why would a 14 year old girl meet a 32 year old man in a hotel. It should be noted that it was her parents that made the complaint not the girl.

You are victim-blaming. A 14-year-old deciding to go to a hotel with a 32-year-old grown man demonstrates exactly why, as it is not by any means a reasonable thing for a child to do. A child, since 14-year-olds cannot reasonably make these kinds of decisions - thus why it is so shocking to us as adults, and the reason the parents rightly called the police. I think we are in agreement on that?

I was pretty sexually precious when I was 14 and was always trying to flirt with my older sister's 20-year-old boyfriend. At least he had the sense to leave me alone and let me grow up.

This man obviously didn't have that sense, which is why he very much deserves to be in jail for statutory rape.

Leo TToday 09:57 am JST

@ shunryū Suzuki

Not a violent crime like other parts of the world

Japan is very safe

Oh, I see. Sexual assault and rape are not violent.

Apparently crimes that physically harm women, and terrify and traumatize women, are not violent.

And Japan is safe, except for the sex crimes against women, which don't count.

Gotcha.

TokyoLivingToday 08:04 am JST

A groping in national headlines..

Prooving again that Japan is one of the safest countries to live in the world...

I love you Japan..

Please never change...

As I have pointed out on multiple occasions, only a few of the many crimes reported every day in Japan actually get put on news sites. This is a minuscule representation of the number of actual crimes.

It has been postulated by the police and sex crimes prosecutors that only 4% of rapes, and 2% of gropings are reported.

This is nothing to brag about to stay the least.

Did you know that you can save money in Japan by doing the same exact things you did to save money before you came to Japan?

WHO KNEW.

Why does it matter how she got pregnant? She and her baby still need care.

Did the doctor forget his duty to the Hippocratic Oath?

Keepyer InternetpointsToday 10:34 am JST

I don't know what happened, so how can I judge?

By examining the facts and using your common sense.

Just because a person is 76 and female does not make her innocent.

You seem to think that a young man punching an elderly woman in the face might be justified if she did something to him, i.e., if she somehow "deserved it".

Just because a person is a young foreign male solider and drunk does make him guilty.

There was a witness, and the police caught him. That seems to indicate he is guilty.

Either one of them could be the instigator and original assailant. This could have been a fight or it could have been a one-sided attack. It could have been loads of things.

So you honestly think that an elderly woman would instigate a fight with a 20 year old drunk man, and that he needed to fight back by punching her in the face. Several times. Which put her in the hospital.

Well okay then.

BlacklabelToday 06:58 pm JST

Or did we find out that when 1 person wins a decades old case without having any proof, 49 others with no proof also think they can get paid millions.

It's interesting that you claim to support the legal process and the verdict of the court, and demand that the accused be given the benefit of the doubt until that process is over.

But when the court finds a man guilty of rape, suddenly it's "won without having any proof."

You can't have it both ways.

JayToday 04:20 pm JS

It used to be that when The Establishment wanted you to disappear, you'd be declared a racist. Now that we generally don't fall for that sort of garbage anymore, they've been forced to up things to rape/sexual assault.

Right, because we wimmins just LOVE accusing men of sexual assault for no reason at all, other than because we are EVIL.....

The Establishment, by the way, is, quite firmly, rich white older straight cisgender MEN. If anything it is the The Establishment that has a vested interest in silencing women.

nonu6976Today 04:02 pm JST

Jimmy Savile assaulted children, who were no position to stop it, complain about it, and probably not even understand fully what was happening. This is a grown women - it's a fair question to ask why she did not make this accusation at the time to authorities. Any person who waits 13 years to claim assault should fully expect to be asked that question and they should understand, that if 13 years later, they then raise it, it will be met with skepticism by some. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but they should not be so naive as to expect people to just believe them.

No, it's not a fair question to ask. Compare how people reacted when Cosby was first accused of sexual assault 30 years ago, to now, in this period after Weinstein has been convicted and Cosby was re-accused by more than 50 women. Suddenly everyone who called Andrea Constand a liar perked up their ears and started to pay attention. Other women felt empowered to come forward, and we find out that Cosby raped more than 50 women,and Weinstien raped countless more. Now everyone knows what powerful men in Hollywood like Weinstein and Cosby have been up to, and claims of sexual assault are taken far more seriously than they previously were.

But 10 ears ago? Before Me Too? Nope. No one would have believed her, no one would have supported her, and even the people who did would have cautioned her to stay silent to preserve her career. And even now, in the era of MeToo, it's STILL a very real possibility that the accuser will never work in Hollywood again.

If you even have to ask this question, you haven't been paying attention. By now everyone should understand why women don't come forward right away, and why the motto is "believe women - but verify." has become the mantra of MeToo.

I feel like this is the same conversation over and over and over. It seems that some men will never understand that women very often do not feel they CAN come forward - and that is a tragedy, because women need men to stand up and fight for us.

All those who are saying "THiS is not a KidNapInG" do not have a daughter and/or may find themselves one day on To Catch a Predator.

Keepyer InternetpointsToday 10:26 am JST

Do you know nothing of compulsive behavior? Insanity? Degenerative brain diseases? Psychotropic drugs? Brain damage? Do you think every human walking is in full control at all times?

This is not the "gotcha" you seem to think it is. You chose to ignore, or else did not read, the rest of my post wherein I suggested he may have a mental disorder that prevented him from having self-control.

I may not be as dedicated as those researchers, but if they have not cited Japan's officially reported rates of low sexual frequency then they are derelict.

Sexual assault is not about sex; in most cases, it is about power. And yes, this is research. And no, I'm not going to look it up for you - you are capable of doing that yourself if you really and truly are interested in getting to the truth.

He "couldn't help himself"? Yes, he could; he just chose not to, because it benefited him and he didn't care to stop and think about how his victim might feel.

On the other hand, if he has done this before and really can't help himself, then does he has some sexual psychopathy that needs addressed? Because this is not normal behavior.

Keepyer InternetpointsToday 12:40 pm JST

Imagine an enemy soldier jeering at her from a trench across no man's land! Hopefully there will be a medic there to help her affirm her bravery and resilience!

You are calling her a coward because she was afraid when three men, using their superior muscle and body weight to hold her down, all of them at once, and simulated raping her.

Is that really what you were trying to express?

Keepyer InternetpointsToday 12:52 pm JST

I think you are having difficulty separating actions from intents. They may have admitted to some of the actions, but I don't they admitted to some of the intents they are accused of.

Intent is not magic. You can say you didn't intend to cause harm, yet still cause harm.

Also, come on ... are we to believe they didn't give a thought to whether holding down a much-smaller woman would not scare her? If that is actually true, and not just a rationalization on their part, then what is wrong with those men that they would not imagine how this would make her feel?! If they are that stupid, careless, and have no empathy or understanding, they are horrible, awful, terrible people.

Also, I experienced similar events in junior high wrestling and feel quite assured the intent was to cause me grief.

Are you a woman? Do you have a fear of rape? Did someone make you fear they would rape you?

Are you in the military? Did someone above you in rank who has control over your career do something to you that you felt you could not complain about out of fear of reprisal to your career?

Did you feel you couldn't report the incident because no one would believe you?

If you answer no to any of these, then what was done to you is not similar to what happened here.

And if it ever comes to war, they won't be playing pat-a-cake with the enemy or having a dance-off. What is going to happen is this event will seem like it was as benign as passing marshmallows around a campfire.

Oh, I see. So if she can't handle three of her colleagues holding her down and making her fear they would rape her, then she wouldn't be able to handle her job in wartime, because those things are so exactly the same.

And it's not as if in war you need to be able to 100% trust that your unit has your back.

Right?

Keepyer InternetpointsToday 09:52 am JST

None of us here who demand proof of claimed events is ever going to back down or apologize for it.

I have never said there doesn't need to be evidence. In fact, I have said the opposite, so I'm not really sure why you felt the need to say this?

It is also ironic since commenters here don't hesitate to accuse women of lying without evidence that she is lying.

In case you were not aware, the slogan is "believe but verify": https://womensmediacenter.com/fbomb/what-believewomen-really-means

*“Believe women” is predicated on the understanding that the cost of women speaking out about sexual assault and misconduct is high, and, as a result, *accusations should be taken seriously and examined from a place of open-mindedness instead of automatic skepticism.

Those who are so weak that brow beating them to change have already flipped. You are wasting your time and energy.

I see. So anyone who agrees with me were browbeaten into that belief, instead of already thinking that way, or getting there all on their own. Alan Ochoa, what say you about that?

I will also point out that this is an individual case. Whatever anyone believes about the general situation does not, to a sane mind, make much difference to this ONE.

I will also point out that in this individual case, the men who confessed and apologized. Yet upon their names being released, they took back their confessions and are still calling the woman a liar, despite their supervisor admitting in court that he lied to protect them: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14971206

Hm. It's almost it's as if the accused have reason to lie, while the victim really does not ...

MeiyouwentiToday 07:43 am JST

“the horrific rate of sexual assault in Japan.”

Horrific rate when compared to that in the squeaky clean country of yours?

Hahaha, oh I get it! Since Japan's sex crime rate is so low due to non-reporting and non-prosecution, when we compare Japan to another country like the US or UK, it makes Japan looks good. And that of course makes it OK to downplay the seriousness of the problem of sex crimes in Japan, and dismiss the number of sex crimes as unworthy of discussion.

yipyipToday 01:53 pm JST

They already receive the same rights protection.

Um, it's pretty clear that LGBTQIA, especially when it comes to transgender people and same-sex couples, clearly don't have the same rights as heterosexual, cisgender couples. That's what this article is about. I mean, if it were the case that everyone had the same rights, and equality was achieved, um ... no one would be needing to write articles about it. That seems pretty obvious.

This is what the science shows.

I read the article. That's not what the article concludes. It's merely evidencing that male and female brains have differences, although it additionally notes, as most good science articles do, that more research on the implications are needed. I'm actually not sure what it is that you are trying to prove?

But the West has gone far beyond this reasonable position to actively promoting transgenderism and “celebrating” it to such an extent that the rights of everyone else in society must be infringed.

How exactly can "transgenderism" be "promoted"? Are there TV commercials? Discounts? Sales?

I tend to think that what you're getting at is that you're offended that transgender individuals aren't hiding in the closet any longer. There are a lot of people who think that merely by existing transpeople are trying to recruit, or something. Which is a weird thing to say, considering that you seem to understand this is a psychological issue, i.e., one does not suddenly turn transgender when they meet a transperson, just like no one just suddenly turns gay when they meet a gay person.

As for that last line, you also seem to think that transpeople, by existing as trans, are somehow infringing on the rights of everyone else in society. As if allowing them to live as their gender, they are hurting other people. This is a ridiculous assertion since a transperson being allowed to do all the things that other human beings are also doing does not harm anyone. If you somehow think that it does, then you're going to need to provide evidence of that harm. Where is it?

Perhaps some, but I challenge you to stop using anything created by a cisgender heterosexual male in protest of “the patriarchy”. I think you would find yourself in even greater danger very quickly. Like it or not, men and women have to work together.

Why would I not like that all peoples, all genders, have to work together? This describes my exact view.

You keep writing things you think I won't agree with, but which I do agree with - honestly that is very weird.

AttilathehungryOct. 29 03:35 pm JST

A person can think of themselves as they like. But until they go under the knife, all they are is transvestites.

No, a transvestite is Tim Curry in Rocky Horror Picture Show.

And, most often narcissists.

I can tell that you've never actually met a transgender person, have you.

The language we use is beginning to be tortured to accommodate all things trans. "Pregnant person" replacing "pregnant woman", and so on. Please make it stop. The phrase "her penis" should never be uttered, ever.

Aw. Poor you. Show us on the doll where the English language hurt you.

jeffyOct. 29 11:57 am JST

Ah, but what these LDP lawmakers obviously don’t understand is that if 20 women at a public bath should find an anatomically-male individual a cause of concern in their supposed all female space, then it is obviously the prejudice of those 20 women that is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Society needs to be educated that anatomically-male individuals and anatomically-female individuals are fully entitled to use the sex-segregated space in which they feel most comfortable.

Yes, that's very well put.

But why stop there? The existence of “sex-segregated spaces” itself is predicated on a false and bigoted notion of sexual binary and should therefore be abolished. Therefore bathrooms and public baths should not be sex-segregated at all.

I wish that were possible, but cisgender heterosexual males are a danger to women.

Asiaman7Today 05:22 pm JST

Absent any evidence,

There is evidence. First-hand witness account IS evidence. However, for conviction there needs to be a trial so that the evidence can be corroborated and the case proven.

I would find her story more trustworthy — as long as she was not having some other bitter disagreement with this fellow.

Right, because we wimmens just love falsely accusing men of rape after getting into a disagreement.

Really love how you guys always want more and more evidence before you'll believe a rape happened, but you need none at all to accuse women of lying about rape.

NewgirlintownToday 05:11 pm JST

You just have to hope there’s camera footage so that this can be proven or otherwise. That’s the ‘black box’ that Shiori Ito talks about.

No, that's not what "black box" refers to. In her own words,

Shiori said, "There are many elements that can be described as a 'black box' in investigations and judicial proceedings related to sex crimes because nothing is disclosed to the victim. I hope through the civil lawsuit that details of those elements are brought to light and that it serves as a catalyst to think about the current judicial system." Cit. https://en.opentheblackbox.jp/english

jeffy Today 02:18 pm JST

Me:

What the article actually says is that the children of same-sex parents are less likely to respect segregated gender roles

You:

Understanding that “segregated gender roles” are part of traditional values,

Just admit that the article does not say what you claim it says - be honest.

your statement here confirms my point.

No.

The article you cited does not demonstrate that there is some huge chasm between the values of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, as Kishida and others are continually saying.

It only shows that there is a tendency for some opposite-sex couples to value gender roles more than some opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

My question is why these people seem to think that same-sex couples don't have any of the same values, or that their values are so vastly different that allowing them to marry would have a negative effect on society.

But again, it really does not surprise me that old straight men value strict gender roles considering that it is in their best interests to keep them. After all, they would be horrified to have to wash their own underwear.