Atheist Creates Rapture Orphan Rescue August 1, 2010

Atheist Creates Rapture Orphan Rescue

Now that the atheists at Eternal Earth-Bound Pets USA are making a profit off of Christians for their serious-but-not-really service where they promise to take care of your pets after you’ve been Raptured, another atheist (who wishes to remain anonymous) is taking the hint and coming out with his own line of post-Rapture services.

This one’s for the babies:

Scripture clearly says that the Rapture will come, but the day is unknown to any human on Earth. Maybe the Rapture event will occur in the distant future, but then again maybe not. Many scholars argue that nearly all of the prophecies surrounding the apocalypse are coming to pass, and nearly 20 percent of Americans believe that the second coming of Christ will happen in their own lifetime. Are you willing to take the chance that your child will be left behind to be raised with little or no chance of Salvation? Protect your children from this fate by SIGNING UP with Rapture Orphan Rescue.

A basic package costs $195.

I think the description for the $4995 Omega Program is my favorite, though.

So, again I ask: Is it ethical to do this?


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • lesbian gawdess

    Absolutely it’s ethical. It’s no more of a money-making racket than religion itself.

  • Seeker

    That’s the same as asking if it’s ethical to have sex with the drunken chick at the party. Someone will, might as well be you.

  • And Seeker wins the douchejockey of the day award – in with a misogynistic doozy advocating rape!

    Kudos!

  • bunnyslipperz

    Okay, the pet service was one thing, but targeting a parent’s fear for profit is quite another. Absolutely NOT ethical. In my opinion that is disgusting and is no better than a minister making promises of healing, salvation and prosperity for the sole purpose of making cold hard cash off people.

  • Seeker

    Thank you, thank you “Her Idealisticness”. I hope you get the irony by the way.

    IMO it’s rape in both cases and I’m too proud to do it anyway because I like the girl, not the booze to choose me.

    However, just like a girl gets drunk to get laid without having to admit that she wanted it, so do religious people will give their money to someone in return for hot air. No reason to be more ethic than their priests.

    By the way, I also have to thank you for making me having to explain an ironic metaphor in a forum that -supposedly- thinking people read. But hey, you’re still human, adverse to using your brain or not.

  • Seeker

    By the way, the reason I had to use an example involving a drunk girl, is that in a million cases of males, if you approach a sober one and tell him that you only want his body and you plan to use him for a fuck and leave him, only one will not tell everyone that he knows or has met in the last two years.

  • Iname

    Of course it’s ethical. Taking stupid people’s money is the very foundation of Capitalism. ^_^

  • Angel

    If the person can’t even admit to running the business, it’s pretty clear that they have issues with the ethics of it themselves.

  • I thought both cases were incredibly sleazy, and couldn’t believe people here were defending the 1st one about the pets. I guess “sleazy” is a less strictly defined negative term than “unethical”, but I sure as heck would have a problem if any of my atheist friends started up a venture like that.

    I mean seriously, there have got to be more productive ways to eke out a living.

  • Korny

    After the Rapture event, our team members will immediately alert the emergency recovery efforts and first responders to your home, avoiding the possibility of starvation and dehydration.

    That’s a lot of cash for a 911 call. A 911 call that will probably be ignored in the mass hysteria surrounding the disappearance of loads of people.
    However, were these guys to extend their package to cover zombie-, eco- and nuclear apocolypses (apocoli?), I’d totally sign up my kids for the Omega package.

  • @Her Idealisticness,
    Way to go with the personal attack against Seeker. Nice.
    Having sex with a drunk person does not in and of itself constitute rape.

  • VXbinaca

    @The Godless Monster

    LOL.

    @Hermant: If it’s not serious and he isn’t taking money I don’t see a problem with it, like if it’s a joke or something. IF it’s real, well I’m not sure I’d have to think about it.

  • RavynSkyes

    Seeker, regardless of your intended tone, it came off sounding like a bad joke. That’s the nature of written communication. It’s hard to convey sarcasm and irony.

    And for the record, your snarky response to Her Idealisticness makes you sound like the “douchejockey” that she accused of being in her original post.

  • Mike

    I have trouble with this as well. But it is America, the home of the enterprising and industrious. If there has ever been a market group gullible enough to buy invisible products and impossible promises, it is the religious. The group is offering the client a service. Just because that service hasn’t taken place yet, or likely never will, doesn’t matter. It feels a lot like the insurance racket to me. You are paying for the piece of mind that “in case” something happens, you are covered. (On a side note, I have always felt that Chris Rock’s view on insurance made the most sense. “You are paying in case sh!t happens. If sh!t doesn’t happen, you should get your money back.)

  • Erik

    No, it’s not ethical. The people doing this are no worse than the bible peddlers here – they’re taking advantage of other peoples’ beliefs to make an ill-gained profit.

    How does their being atheist change this fact?

  • Don

    it’s simple. A fool and his money.

  • @Don,
    What you said.

    Whatever money they are throwing this person’s way is money that isn’t going into the coffers of an idiot factory.

  • Jamie

    There’s a niche for bilking the willfully ignorant. Why should pastors be allowed to monopolize it?

  • If it’s real (which I feel shouldn’t have to be said, but hey, this is the internet after all), then no, it’s not ethical.

    They’re conmen, nothing more, and just because their victims are religious fools doesn’t change the fact that they’re conning people out of their money by way of their stupidity and emotions.

  • Anonymous Atheist

    This is pretty off-topic, but with Hemant’s fondness for baby-eating jokes, you have GOT to see this:
    http://www.stupid.com/fun/FETS.html
    Fetus Cookie Cutter! LOL

  • VXbinaca

    @RavynSkyes

    Theres no such thing as a bad joke, only an unfunny one and his jokes were hilarious.

  • Seeker

    RavynSkyes, I have little kindness and patience for fools. I don’t see why I should be offended as a human being or feel bad when they fall prey to the vultures that are part of the human species.

    I’ve been the shoulder people cried on one too many times and what I’ve learned is that, in most cases, people will do what they want but are ashamed to by “falling pray” and then whine to others about it so they get absolution. It’s like the story with the hen being chased by a rooster. She thinks “If I stop, I’ll be called a slut. If I keep on running, I wont get laid. So I’ll trip.”

    Women did not fight so hard for equal rights for bimbos to get drunk to get laid and then play the “being used while vulnerable” card. It’s a basic human need and they should not be ashamed to fulfill it. So yes, I despise and disrespect the female who acts in such a way.

    In the same tone, the right to explore other options when it comes to religion has been gained with much pain. I understand that people believe in something because they were indoctrinated since a very tender age, but if they choose not to question something before pouring fortunes in it, then I don’t have pity for them.

    I understand where “Her Idealisticness” comes from and I would like to apologise to her for the tone I used when I replied. It’s not personal, she was right to scold me, my reaction was because I feel that cowards should not be advocated.

    To state my opinion in a clear way, they will lose money either way, to people who will give nothing in return. I would take issue if the person in question, who might not even be an atheist, went from door to door and started talking to people to get them fear the rupture so he or she can sell them the packages.

    However, from the looks of it, for someone to find the site they must go looking for safeguards for the rupture. Money will be traded for hot air, so what makes this guy/gal for selling hot air?

  • Seeker

    The “falling pray” – “falling prey” pun was unintentional but works for what I’m trying to say.

    P.S. I’m starting to feel like a spammer and apologise for it.

  • Accediac

    Hey, there’s a whole market out there to tap into, so why not?

    If idiots are stupid enough to believe in the rapture, they may as well put their money where their mouth is.

  • When I first heard about the Pets organization a while back, I thought it was kind of amusing (and perhaps even a joke). I figured that the people who are being targeted for this “service” would know that the people running it don’t really believe in the Rapture, so I figured there wouldn’t be many customers.

    Thinking it over again, now that people are actually paying for this service, I think it’s unethical. One could argue that they are selling comfort or peace of mind, but it’s based on taking advantage of people.

  • Lindsey

    I’ll be interested to see how successful this one is, compared to the pet service. I would think true believers would be less likely to pay for this, since they’ve probably invested a lot in making sure their kids are rapture ready. As opposed to pets, which presumably have no souls and can’t be raptured? Maybe someone should start a pet-baptizing service, while we’re at it.

  • Darlene

    If one can prove that it is not as advertised, then it would be unethical. However, offering a service, even one I wouldn’t believe would be necessary, isn’t unethical. People have the option of not buying into it.

    Unlike homeowners insurance where I have to get flood and wind and hail coverage no matter what. Or all those stupid warranties pushed on anyone buying electronics? Ethical to offer a product that statistically will not be used? What’s the difference?

  • Lauren

    Whatever….fools and money. Fleece them. And Seeker, don’t apologize, I am a chick, and a feminist. I thought it was hysterical. Some chicks seriously need to lighten up

  • Mr Z

    I think it becomes unethical when you are working to convince someone they need something useless or frivolous. If they’re making door to door sales pitches – not good. If it’s a website only, and completely without coercion, simply taking advantage of other’s ignorance or perhaps folly, it’s a case of buyer beware. A very old situation indeed. How uncertain they must be of their god’s grace and power that they would buy such insurance?

    Now, if you work hard to convince them that this tragedy will happen, and WILL be exacerbated by their inaction, then it is unethical. If you wish to buy my old car despite the flat tire and the oil slick underneath it, I’ll sell it to you. To tell folks that you will look after their pets or raise their kids when they’re gone is no crime if you will actually do it. If I were a judge, I’d hold them to the service if the insurance buyer died, since no one can know the time or actual process of the rapture. They are selling a service which begins at the moment of the rapture/death. It’s tricky, but I don’t think it’s any less ethical than many other insurance schemes, mlm schemes, or even sales programs. The idea of a loss leader is misleading and of questionable ethics. Think of all the special sale promotions and ask yourself if they are misleading or not? Every car advertisement is telling you how much better your life will be with a new car. How is this different?

    Lastly, if playing on the rapture is unethical there are a great many religious leaders that need to be brought up on charges too. Those people are directly convincing these people that there will be a rapture and bilking them of their money at the same time.

    It’s unethical when you convince someone of the fake/false part then take their money. That’s a con game. If they believe it on their own, it’s entrepreneurship. DeBeers convinced everyone that diamonds mean love… is that ethical?

  • bigjohn756

    Ethical? Sure it’s ethical. Most Christians I know don’t have ethics. They will do anything to anyone for their own gain. They will screw you and everyone else they know out of all that you have to advance themselves. Of course, they will also give some to the church to assuage their conscience. Just think of these rapture fees as skimming a little of what would otherwise be going to the church to be used for proselytizing.

  • RavynSkyes

    Seeker, I get what you were saying. I was just pointing out that a joke like that can be easily misinterpreted in written form. Then your follow-up sounded kind of condescending. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent. The end.

    (And you should have taken credit for the pun. It was clever. 😉

  • Hermes

    Corrections appreciated…

    * * *

    Same as before, with a few important differences.

    With the animals, they would be transferred to another owner and the new owner would be responsible. Basically;

    animal transferred ==> service completed

    With this, there is no clean end of service. This makes the service potentially unrealistic to provide.

    Second, but not the only concern, it is not clear what the role and motivations of the people providing the service are. The money can’t be enough to satisfy the terms of the service agreement.

    Finally, with the animal service there is very little sophistication required. The person signing up for that service could do everything themselves — if they were here — and could do it in a reasonable amount of time. How many orphan rescue people will be available? What are their qualifications — and would you want someone who is capable of using force to be at the same time involved in a child’s life?

    These aren’t insurmountable problems, though the animal service is credible while this (currently) is not.

  • Will

    With any luck, any twisted bastard/s who take advantage of this “service” will then be unable to afford to send their kids to some private [brand of religious insanity] school.

    Also, fools and money.

  • Rick

    I despise the televangelists. They prey on the indoctrinated masses of the uneducated, weak, and downtrodden. I don’t think that even one of them believes that they can actually heal the souls and bodies of their followers. They are con men and are fully of aware their deceit.

    Seems to me that this is in the same category as the televangelist gig.

  • Stephan

    Many scholars argue that nearly all of the prophecies surrounding the apocalypse are coming to pass,

    See, this is a claim I don’t think they can really back up. Many scholars? Many crazy religious people maybe, but not scholars.

    I think this is unethical, although I think the last one passes my ethical bar. Admitting you think something is crap, and letting people give you money is one thing. Making claims supporting the legitimacy of Rapture is bull.

  • Taking advantage of people, whether they ‘deserve’ it or not, isn’t ethical.

    Just because someone is not smart enough to realize the brainwashing they’ve endured through life is indeed brainwashing, doesn’t mean it’s ethical to put a distance between them and their money. Especially by invoking the fear that all parents have regarding their children.

    Considering that the bible doesn’t go into much detail about this whole ‘rapture’ bullshit, how do Christians know that their children will be left behind? It doesn’t say that in the bible… where are they basing their assumption?

  • meh

    I think you guys are using the wrong word here…

    Ethics has nothing to do with it, only stupidity. Selling stuff like this is no different than a ton of the other shit thats sold on the the internet… or on TV.

    In those two cases, its (and always has been) up to the consumer not to buy stuff that is gimmicky, or won’t do what the consumer needs.

    The only difference here appears to be the religious association, which… well, shame on you all for pandering to it.

  • Richard Wade

    No, of course it’s not ethical. Neither the pets nor this baby scheme. Taking advantage of a person’s childish gullibility for personal gain is never ethical. Even if you don’t personally exploit them, encouraging people to be foolish and gullible by playing into their fantasy increases the chance that someone else will exploit them, so it is not ethical. Don’t try to use sales of products and services as an acceptable example. The fact that exploitation of credulity is done in many ways and many places by many people does not make it ethical.

    it’s simple. A fool and his money.

    The phrase “a fool and his money” is not some magic spell that evaporates the reprehensible nature of fraud, it’s just a favorite rationalization of anti-social con artists. Don’t adopt it. It is unethical to deceive people whether it is easy or hard, just like it is unethical to physically attack someone whether they are weak or strong.

    Ethical? Sure it’s ethical. Most Christians I know don’t have ethics. They will do anything to anyone for their own gain.

    Saying that it is ethical to defraud someone because you think they are unethical is transparently, childishly shallow, debased and false. If your standard of conduct is determined by the standards of others, then yours will eventually be the lowest in the bunch.

    Whatever money they are throwing this person’s way is money that isn’t going into the coffers of an idiot factory.

    Another rationalization. Using fraud to divert someone’s money away from something of which you disapprove changes nothing about the fact that it is fraud.

  • Darryl

    Richard, you’re taking this matter way too seriously. I agree with ‘meh’ that ethics really has nothing to do with this. Reading the site I can tell that they’re not serious (though I’m sure they’re more than willing to take the money of anyone stupid enough to give it to them under these circumstances).

    All things considered I’m inclined to think that anyone that would fall for this farce ought to lose some measure of their economic power, and perhaps, if we’re all fortunate, learn a valuable lesson. What would such a lesson be worth? Probably more than this ‘service’ is charging.

  • ash

    Taking money off someone because they’re stupid, foolish, ignorant or delusional does not make it right. The pet thing was funny, despite also being unethical in a lesser way because the price for their ‘services’ was not an amount of money that was likely to financially break anyone. The ‘omega’ package here is 5 fracking grand, every 5 years. And you know who pays for the welfare system, right?

    This might well be a joke; if so I will happily laugh when the site owner refunds any money paid and publishes a LOLwut? piece afterwards. If anyone’s stupid enough to fall for this + they don’t return the money, they’re just some git willing to fleece the gullible; might as well become a televangelist and have done with it.

    @Seeker; you made a bad taste joke and were honest enough to cop to it. Given the recent amount of discussion about women feeling uncomfortable/unwelcome in atheist forums and debates, a rape crack is particularly galling. I appreciate your explanation of it just being a joke, but SO could’ve done without the caveat of ‘but some women really want it’. Completely OT and fucking insulting to those of us who know stories where the women not only didn’t want it, but the guys used that as an excuse. /rant.

  • Richard Wade

    Darryl,
    The question was “Is this ethical?” The answer is no. Whether Rapture Orphan Rescue is “serious” or not, whether they “mean it” or not, whether this is real or theoretical is irrelevant to the question or the answer.

    If I’m taking this way too seriously, forgive me, it’s just the way I am. I’ve always taken questions about treating people like shit very seriously.

    What I find more disturbing than the jackasses who have created this unkind farce are the attitudes of some of the people commenting here. They seem to have the ethics of sociopathic pirates. If they really believe their own rationalizations for why exploiting people is okay, then THEY are the fools, the idiots, the suckers. They have snookered themselves.

    I hope they don’t spend any time posturing about how they’re somehow “good without God,” or even morally superior to the Christians they disdain. That would just be adding hypocrisy to their larceny.

    Darryl, I have a lot of respect for you, but even your rationalization, that it would be a “valuable lesson” for the unwise participants, is paternalistic bullshit.

    Deceiving, defrauding, exploiting, or cruelly manipulating people is unethical.

  • keddaw

    I don’t personally believe that your house is going to burn down, but if you pay me $400/month and it actually does burn down I will pay for it to be re-built.

    As long as they follow through on their promise should the rapture occur then they are perfectly ethical.

    It’s a simple insurance policy people.

  • We took bets, Seeker, that you would either claim Irony or Humor to justify your rape joke. I won so thanks for the increase in pocket monies. But then he won on the bet that you’d call me unintelligent for challenging your haw haw, so in the end it evened out. However, it’s good to see that someone else picked up on the fact that deadpan humor in text format isn’t exactly easy to interpret – not that irony or humor make it ok.

    I am glad you realize that making a statement like that and leaving it there as is does not leave a lot for someone to interpret it as irony, humor or deadpan serious.

    I have to say though despite you apologizing to me for your tone, the nature of the joke/ironic comment is still incredibly offensive/misogynistic, made more so by your explanation.

    If a woman gets drunk at a party, something is really fucking wrong with society if they think she is now public fuckable property or that she just got drunk as an excuse to get laid because she is too much of a coward to shag indiscriminately while sober. When my girlfriends and I get drunk, it is to get drunk or because we got carried away with the drink, not to loosen up so we can fuck some random. I am sure some women do it to loosen up – could you tell me how one tells the difference between us? Should I wear a “don’t fuck me” sign on my back/forehead?

    Do not sit there and tell me that because a woman is drinking or piss drunk, she is solely doing it to be shagged by some guy and that somehow gives the males in the vicinity the green light to make her their fuckpuppet for the evening. “If she didn’t want it, she wouldn’t have gotten so locked!” Buuuullshit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvPPMsvID4E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95-IL3C-Z8

    Also Lauren, being a feminist and lawling at rape jokes uuuusually doesn’t go hand in hand. But good luck with that.

  • keddaw

    @Her Idealisticness

    If she didn’t want it to happen she should not have explicitly agreed to it.

    If she didn’t explicitly agree to it then it’s rape.

    Incidentally, it isn’t just women who have this happen to them.

  • Ed Hicks

    No. If they believed in their service, it wouldn’t be unethical, only incredibly stupid.

  • Jay

    If you actually keep track and have a good plan to put in action post-rapture, I’d say it’s ethical. Especially if you can prove that you do have a plan, despite the fact that it won’t happen. If, by some chance, it turned out to be true, you can show that you’ll be able to go through with it.

    It’s really no less ethical than any other insurance. If, by whatever strange chance, rapture did occur, then the people who paid for the plan would be at ease knowing their pets are taken care of. It’s just up to the organizers to make sure it’s so. Otherwise, it’s all profit. And all insurance companies are run for profit. It’s only unethical if you charge for something you can’t deliver on when it comes down to it.

    I really wish I had thought of this.

  • Claudia

    That’s the same as asking if it’s ethical to have sex with the drunken chick at the party. Someone will, might as well be you.

    If the girl is sufficiently drunk so that her capacity to consent is in question it is rape and that makes you a filthy rapist.

    As for the (much less serious) issue here, it may be good for a chuckle, but at the end of the day its totally unethical. I don’t see this as significantly different from the various snake-oil preachers who promise you riches if you buy their “miracle water”, though its not as bad as faith-healing. The only difference is that the preacher is pretending to believe the shit that’s coming out of their mouths while the atheists are openly acknowledging they don’t believe it. Bottom line, you are exploiting people’s stupidity, ignorance and what’s worse, their love and concern for cherished pets and even children for your personal gain.

  • ash

    keddaw,

    Incidentally, it isn’t just women who have this happen to them.

    Of course not,, but Seeker made a rape joke about women so it seems appropiate to address that. His post-hoc rationalization is even worse; he’s into equal rights, like totally, recognises there is still a patriarchal society that calls women sluts for wanting a sex life, but any woman who both wants sex but not to be called a slut is ‘whining’ if they trust him as a confidante, they’re ‘bimbos’ if they feel like they need to get drunk to have any sexual confidence, who he ‘despises and disrespects’ and are basically ‘cowards’ for not single-handedly taking on said patriarchal society that they live in and he fully contributes to based on his own words.

    Fuck that noise, sorry for the derail.

  • Seeker

    @”Her Idealisticness”
    I’m replying because this has to do with ethics so I don’t feel off topic doing so.

    It’s not just what, it’s when and where. If a woman gets drunk in her apartment, someone knocks on the door, she opens and he ends up taking advantage of her, that’s a no no. Same case if she calls a ‘friend’ to help her in an emotionally fragile state and he takes advantage of her.

    However, when a woman goes to a bar/club/party and gets drunk knowing full well that women go there and many get drunk to get picked up, then a “don’t fuck me” sign would be a good idea. If she doesn’t wear one, then can you please tell me why it’s reprehensible for someone to think that that’s what she wants?

    If you and your friends want to just get piss-drunk, you set a “designated driver” friend. Someone who stays sober and makes sure that you’re not taken advantage of. Or you can get drunk at home, at a private party. If you all getting drunk at a frat party however, will you blame the ones who “use” you?

    I still do not feel that the word misogynistic applies but if you can explain to me I will reconsider. I do dislike people who get drunk as an excuse. I do dislike women who get drunk to get laid. I dislike boys who get drunk to find the balls to hit on a girl. I dislike them even more when the next day they say “It wasn’t me, it was the booze”. In short I dislike and show contempt to people who make certain choices and act in certain ways. The “drunk chick at the party” for me falls into a more specific category than “women”. How about you?

    The “drunken chick at the party” was not just an image I drew forth from pop culture by the way. It did happen to me to be hit on, third in line after two friends of mine if you please, by a girl that was piss drunk at a party who later left with another guy. At first I was angry at him for “taking advantage of her”. After discussing this with at least three women however, I realised that he did nothing wrong. Her behavior indicated that he gave her what she wanted but was to coward to ask while sober.

    She would get laid. With anyone who will “take her up on her offer”. What makes that person the bad guy? What makes me for pointing out that he’s not the bad guy the bad guy or misogynistic? Here’s a funnier way to show that some people are just begging to be taken advantage of: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html

    On a relevant note, Richard says that it’s unethical because it propagates the religious idiocy, that it’s still taking advantage of people’s gullibility. I agree with that. That is why I haven’t started a similar offer.

    Still, I don’t feel that it’s my moral obligation to care for fools. They are too many and too insistent on remaining fools to do so. Like I said before, if the people being taken advantage of were *unable* to think for themselves, as in children, senile, people with Downs syndrome then I would take issue. I can’t however think for anyone who doesn’t care to think for themselves.

    If I did that, then I would have to take issue with almost anyone who sells something. With supermarkets for putting chewing gums and sodas so close to the cashiers. With car merchants who paint the outside of worthless cars. With insurance salespeople who don’t explain all the nasty clauses on the contracts they sell. If someone comes clean they’re worthy of admiration as more ethical and usually eligible for poverty help shortly thereafter *because most people are just begging to be taken advantage of by being to lazy to think*.

    If there needs to be a conclusion, here’s mine: It’s unethical but not of the kind that one has to intervene or scold the one doing it.

  • ash

    “That’s the same as asking if it’s ethical to have sex with the drunken chick at the party. Someone will, might as well be you.”

    If the girl is sufficiently drunk so that her capacity to consent is in question it is rape and that makes you a filthy rapist.

    And if the girl gets sufficiently drunk so that her capacity to consent is in question ~on purpose~ because she has no sexual confidence, it is still rape, and that makes you a rape apologist when you accuse her of ‘whining’ because she trusted you enough to tell you about it.

  • Claudia

    OK so since I’ve noticed the conversation got deeper into the woods of drunken shags I’ll add on a bit more than my infuriated retort. I should note that I’m talking about the seriously drunk, not mildly tipsy.

    Its legitimate to point out that some women get drunk to lower their inhibitions about sex and actually are seeking drunken sex and others are not. There is no good way to tell the difference between these two. Which is why you shouldn’t fuck either of them. You simply can’t know whether you are taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable. If you are, you are comitting rape, and if that possibility doesn’t seriously mess with your arousal then its you that has problems, not the girl. Yes, false accusations of rape are totally despicable, but not as despicable as actual rape, rape that more often than not goes unpunished in the justice system.

  • Seeker

    So you’re saying that it might be rape, it might not be rape but that the blame is on the person who goes by the rules of the place because it might be rape.

    Crossing the freeway where I’m from may be suicide, may not be suicide, but if you get run over while crossing it the driver will also go unpunished by the judicial system because you shouldn’t be crossing the freeway in the first place.

    People make choices. When sober, sane people go to a place where people get drunk to find the guts to have sex with total strangers, if they get drunk total strangers may have sex with them and it will be considered consensual because that’s what people do there. The choice can be assumed to have been made while sober and in full use of ones mental capacity and part of it would be to get drunk or high, or whatever.

    So am I the one advocating rape or are you the ones advocating stupidity or lack of foresight? Please explain, I don’t even mind if you talk to me as if I’m an idiot, just try to help me see your point of view.

  • @Keddaw

    “If she didn’t want it to happen she should not have explicitly agreed to it.

    If she didn’t explicitly agree to it then it’s rape.

    Incidentally, it isn’t just women who have this happen to them.”

    I concur whole heartedly.

  • ash

    Seeker, I don’t get your analogy – does crossing the free way mean that you are giving consent to those drivers to run you over? If you walked on the side, are they justified to swerve in order to hit you, because, hey, you were asking for it (being in the right vicinity)?

    There are no ‘rules’ that say anywhere I go means it’s ok for someone to violate me, not a club, not a dark alley, not if I’m wearing a short skirt; none. If I’m too drunk to give consent I can’t give consent. I will not wear a fucking sign saying ‘hey, no matter how drunk I get, please don’t fuck me’ because I am not an object no matter what state I’m in, and it should never be presumed that I am.

    Men I know am friends with don’t have a problem with this; if they meet a girl who’s hammered they are able to keep from putting their penis in her, even if they go home together because weirdly, they prefer to know the woman enjoys the sex too. Some of them can even do the pick up thing by ~exchanging phone numbers~, which leads to absolutely no mixed consent/no-consent messages.

  • keddaw

    I forgot to mention that in place of explicit consent instigation could (and should) be considered consent.

    This solves the problem of having to have a witness/lawyer on standby before doing anything.

    Of course, either party can say no at any time, including during. (Which is phenomenally frustrating, he says, speaking from experience.)

  • Claudia

    @Seeker, I honestly would like to know about these places of which you speak where people go with the exclusive aim of getting off their heads drunk and then humping the first thing that moves. Yes, if you go to an actual sex party you do not get to then complain that sex happened. However so far as I’m aware most rapes of this nature don’t happen in sex parties, they happen at regular clubs, or at parties. Although some picking up and later sex of course happens in these places you can’t really say that anyone going through the doors of a club and drinking can be assumed to be looking to have sex. Of course, if the girl (or guy) is sober enough to tell you themselves what they want, then obviously there isn’t a problem. They either want sex or they don’t and consensual sex either happens or it doesn’t. If the person is not sober enough so that their actual wishes can reasonably be judged, then they are not in a position to give consent and therefore fucking them is rape.
    Naturally this is going to lead to some missed opportunities with people who got shit-faced precisely to get laid. Tough. It’s going to protect women (and they are mostly women) who made a bad judgement call on drinking that does not make sexually assaulting them one iota less unacceptable.
    The come all and end all of it is consent. If there is consent, its not rape, even if there is tying down and whipping. If there isn’t consent, its rape. If consent is iffy, any minimally ethical person will err on the side of caution. Should women be responsible about putting themselves in risky positions? Yes, but given the fact that the ones getting their bodies violated are them and that there is a long tradition of blaming the victim of rape, I feel that the immediate turning to the responsibilities of the woman in these situations is suspect.

  • ash

    Of course, either party can say no at any time, including during. (Which is phenomenally frustrating, he says, speaking from experience.)

    This implies you stopped when asked; it bothers me that I’m actually tempted to congratulate you for being a normal decent person with standards 🙂

  • wow this is getting a bit heated now isnt it heh im suprised only 1 person has pointed this out but i belive the origins of our dear seeker’s opinions are in fact correct based on the assumptions made, however the assumption in itself (in my opinion at least and i imagine the others here) to be incorrect, that is the assumption that people only go out drinking soley for sex, this is a generalisation that is incorrect, example, the vast majority of married couples who go out drinking im pretty sure arnt doing that to pick up strangers (or if they are im suprised their marriage lasts lol) same i imagine can be said about couples in general, single people is obviously the more likley for this however again it would be fair to say the vast majority of people dont go out drinking for the purpose of sex, this assumption would indicate almost all reserch on drinking habbits are incorrect, that said its always possible they are as such is the purpose of science to change their minds if new evidence comes along but evidence currently suggets that this is not the case and therfore im inclined to agree with it unless new evidence is brought to light anyway the point is making this assumption is in fact dangerous (in my opinon again need to stress that heh) becuase if your predispoed into thinking this i think its fair to say your automaticly more inclined to take advantage of somone even if thats not somthing you would normaly do becuase of the thinking of ‘ok so they want that so i will’ which is pretty normal and logical thinking however being based on an incorrect assumption can be where inlies the possibility of it being rape now there are both men and woman who do only drink for this purpose however it would appear based on current evidence this is not the majority and should not be treated as a general rule (id go alot more into my own opinions on the matter but ive already gone on too long heh) oh and claudia being tied down and whipping people if consensual is defently odd but thats S&M for ya lol some people enjoy that but aint my cup of tea

  • Seeker

    ash, about the analogy. If the driver swerves, then they actively choose to harm you. If you go in the freeway where cars go with up to 80mph (where I’m from at least), then the blame is not on the driver because you put yourself in extreme harms way.

    I know full well that you can hang out with a drunk woman without touching because simple I have done it more than once. If you paid attention you’ll see that I’m not the one who left with the girl.

    If I say “play with fire” will that get what I’m trying to say across? Who knowingly let your guard down and become vulnerable in places where people who take advantage of others hang out, you are the one to blame. Is that better?

  • @ Claudia with the filthy rapist comment and further added ranting – <3 for you because – exactly!

    @ Ash – thank you for your articulate deconstruction of his bullshit misogyny theory. <3 for you too

    @ Seeker. Do you really want to understand? Color me impressed if you do. I am still trying to fully articulate my response to your latest "she's in a place where you go to hook up so she should know better".

    I notice that it seems to pain you, the idea of just NOT fucking drunk chicks. I mean in my world it makes perfect sense to avoid any human being whose ability to give valid consent is in question, but apparently that kinda squashes some guys chances to "fuck the drunk chick" which is their right because her stupid self decided to be drunk in public. Do you not see how insane it is to say "yes women should wear a don't fuck me sign when their cognitive abilities are low because they're in public, drunk, where people pick other people up, and are therefore fair game?" To my way of thinking anybody who decides it's cool beans to shag someone with decreased cognitive functions has some seriously suspect morals. I mean in a bar scene, in a relationship, anywhere.

    Do you want to know what is sickening and sad? In my 28 years on this planet I have never been to a club, even though I adore music and dancing, because I am terrified of the attitude YOU are showing in these posts. That some guy with either a) take my presence there as an invitation, especially if I am drunk or even tipsy, and b) the ever present threat of the date rape drug. I cannot/will not go out with my girlfriends because I am afraid of being raped. I have 7 girlfriends who have been sexually assaulted, raped or violated and one drugged and date raped. And you sit there justifying your assbackwards stance on "she was asking for it."

    Ugh. I am not articulating myself properly.

    While I gather my thoughts please feel free to check out the links on this blog to educate yourself on rape jokes, rape culture and Schrödinger’s Rapist. Because education in this area is a GOOD thing.

    http://problemattic.net/2009/10/schrodingers-rapist

    (Also sorry for hi-jacking the post comments but I felt this needing addressing.)

  • Claudia is spot on. Kudos on being way more articulate then I currently am.

  • Seeker, Dude. She is not to blame no matter where she is. The attitude that she is because, hey it’s what happens, is BULLSHIT. You are being a rape apologist and a victim blamer. TELL me Claudia is making sense to you.

  • ash

    Seeker, the guy who has chosen to view a woman too drunk to give consent as a sex object is the driver who swerves. The freeway is not a consensual thing because consent can be revoked, which is not the case with an 80mph car 5ft from your face. Half a ton of metal driven at speed is not comparable to a penis, and if you think men have just as limited control over their genitals you’re insulting them (yourself) too.

    I have been paying attention; you didn’t leave with the girl, you have just blamed the girl as ‘asking for it’ and never once said shit all negatively about the guy who did, or the culture that presumes consent from a woman ‘stupid’ enough to go out and have a good time instead of seeing it as a necessary condition from both parties.

    Who knowingly let your guard down and become vulnerable in places where people who take advantage of others hang out, you are the one to blame.

    No that’s not better; it’s victim blaming. A woman who wants sex is seen as a slut in this patriarchal society; a woman who wants sex but not to be called a slut has no sexual confidence; a woman who drinks to gain sexual confidence might well get drunk enough to not be able to consent; any woman who is drunk and gets taken advantage of (i.e. raped) is a slut.

    Shorter version – if a woman wants sex, has sex, gets raped, whatever, she’s a slut.

    Sick.

  • Seeker

    I will capitalise, trying to get your attention to what I’m saying, not just what you can use to keep on trying to advocate for idiocy.

    ??, the idea of NOT fucking drunk chicks does NOT pain me. Like I SAID AT LEAST TWICE I don’t do that like you seem to assume. What pains me is that people act irresponsibly and act out to be the victims when the consequences of their actions catch up with them.

    What you mention IS rape. Rape pills, threats of violence etc. ARE rape. In a bar, in a club, in a relationship, it’s still rape. Swimming with sharks and getting bitten, sorry little girl, it’s consequences.

    Whatever happened to THINKING BEFORE YOU ACT I ask you? Should I also sympathise the fool who put his trailer in drive and went out the back to make a coffee and crashed because “it didn’t say anywhere in the manual that he shouldn’t?” Or should I feel that he justly won the lawsuit? Acting stupid will get you hurt AND YOU WILL HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF.

    Plus, just in case you didn’t know, predators flock where pray flocks. Idiots are what propagates the abuse, not people who say that idiots are to blame. Or do you think that the male vultures will keep on gathering in clubs and pubs and bars if girls that go there stopped letting their guard down and becoming easy prey for them?

  • Exactly.

  • Lisa

    See what you done started, Hemant? XD

  • Ok discussing this with you has proven a waste of time but hopefully SOMEONE will start considering what we have said.

    You don’t fuck the drunk chick, you just shame her and victim blame her when she crys foul for having been taken advantage of, especially when she cries to you about it. CLASSY!

    You’re defending the predators by saying that because they exist and are on the prowl it’s the prey’s own damn fault for being hurt.

    “What you mention IS rape. Rape pills, threats of violence etc. ARE rape. In a bar, in a club, in a relationship, it’s still rape. Swimming with sharks and getting bitten, sorry little girl, it’s consequences.”

    Yes, it’s ALL rape. And I cannot go out because I might get raped because the sharks are allowed (by guys like you) to shag the stupid chick who was dumb enough to get drunk, or to shag the drunk chick gagging for it, I might get raped because they can’t fucking tell the difference between the two of us. Or because in their head I must want it BECAUSE I got drunk, etc, etc.

    Stupidest. Fucking. Logic. Ever.

    To your stupid assbackwards victim blaming way of thinking, women cannot go out and enjoy a few drinks because if they do so, especially if they have one too many, they’re automatically & knowledgeably putting themselves in danger and instead of decrying the rape culture we live in that supports this mentality, you blame them for being stupid enough to go out because doing so means they know better and must be asking for it.

  • Moral of the story? Don’t make rape jokes – it’s piss poor taste. Also don’t defend rape jokes by victim blaming & slut shaming. It’s sickening.

  • Seeker

    ash about the guy. He is a random arsehole. If it wasn’t for him it’d be someone else. To me he is a non-entity. Just a tool, someone acting a part predictably. I’m not saying he is OK or ethical or whatever. He is just predictable and one you must have your guards up against.

    Also, there is one more think that I would like to make sure is clear. If a friend of mine is raped, of course I will be supportive, of course I will be out for the blood of the guy who did it. What I will not, do no tolerate is a friend who comes to me and says that she has been stupid in this or that way and she wants to complain about it so I tell her that she’s not at all to blame, it’s just the other.

    If it was an honest mistake however, due to young age etc. I still tell them they’re the ones to blame but I’m supportive to help them understand that it’s not the end of the world, people make mistakes, and learn from them and explain how pitfalls can be avoided in the future.

    On a more personal note: The first girl I fell in love with was rather promiscuous and proud of it. I was OK with that, although jealous at times. The only person I consider “slutty” is one ‘selling’ affection and sex for favors and material gain. Not professionals, they rarely choose it. People who choose to act in such a way.

    You can’t act as if you have something to apologise for about your sexuality and then say that it’s perfectly natural. It’s an oxymoron. Instead of ‘sorry’ say ‘fuck you, it’s my business what I do with my body’. Works better and gets more respect.

  • Claudia

    OK Seeker, I was all set to write a comment saying that I didn’t really think you were a blame-the-victim rape apologist but that you merely had attitudes that lead to blame-the-victim mentalities. Your last comment brought that up short.

    I have yet to see you acknowledge that if there is no consent, a rape has occurred. This is the very definition of rape, but you are seemingly bending over backwards to say that if you put yourself in a position where you are unable to give consent, you should have known better so fuck you and your violated body and destroyed psyche.

    I generally have little patience with word-policing but I find it telling that you have thus far referred to the victims of these assaults as “chicks” and “little girl”. You assert that the minute a woman steps out of the house she is accepting that there are rapists in the world (ok, you haven’t come out and called them rapists, but I will) and therefore if they end up in a vulnerable position not only should they have had better judgement (no argument there, in some cases) but that instantly means they are not victims and their rapist is blameless because they should have “known better”. This is simply an apology for rape. Rape apology is never “rape is ok because” its “This wasn’t a rape because I knew she wanted it/she was dressed like a slut/she was drunk at a club and should have known better”.

  • ErinM

    The phrase “stooping to their level” seems appropriate here. Yeah, they’re morons for buying into it, but doesn’t this kind of thing make us just as bad as the crooked preacher who talks an old lady out of her life savings?

  • ash

    @Her Idealisticness; clubbing. That’s sad – but hey, at least you aren’t asking for it!

    @Seeker, maybe it’ll help you to hear about this on a personal level. I went to a club with 4 female friends. None of us were on the pull. All of us were drinking. All of us got groped. One particular guy went round all four of us; the other three got liberally touched (tits, arse + genitals). Like the good girls they were, they mumbled their apologies and tried to back away in the limited space on the dancefloor. When he grabbed my tits from behind I yanked his hand off me so hard and fast I nearly broke his fingers. And if his mates hadn’t seen him go to punch me in the face, my nose would not now be the shape it is.

    This was 10 years ago. I have been going clubbing roughly once a month for over a decade; it is not uncommon for men to try and paw you, and/or to be angry if you don’t accept their advances however blatantly unwanted and however politely declined. A lot of men assume they have the right to a woman as a sexual object and are pissed that they need consent from her. Which, of course, she can’t give if she’s too drunk anyway.

    I too know far too many woman that have been sexually assaulted (most of them) and raped (a disturbingly high proportion). The ones who have been raped? Only one case involved alcohol, which leads me to conclude that it is not the alcohol/situation a woman is in, but the attitude that women’s bodies are there for the consumption of men. It doesn’t make the case that the one who was drinking was more stupid/deserving/whatever, but that the attitudes towards women and consent enable sexual assault and rape to go excused; i.e. victim blaming.

    Instead of ‘sorry’ say ‘fuck you, it’s my business what I do with my body’. Works better and gets more respect.

    See above; ‘fuck you’ can get you beaten up as well as groped. Of course, if I’d been punched, I might’ve been too drunk to even hold my own in a fight – I guess it would’ve my fault if I’d ended up in a pool of blood, yeah?

  • keddaw

    @ash @6:25

    At that point you are not really using your higher brain functions therefore what constitutes decent or normal standards are slightly skewed.

    But you are entirely correct that it is weird that respecting someone’s autonomy and wishes with regards to their own body seems worthy of congratulations.

  • GSW

    @Richard Wade:
    When I first read of the animal scheme, I assumed that the money would not be paid until the rapture came. So, no loss.

    If on the other hand people are paying out in advance, the ethics depends on what is being done with the money. One good cause would be supporting children who have been victims of religious mistreatment, rape included.

    This would be a “you support the association guilty of these crimes, so now you can support the victims” view and therefore ethical.

    However, since religionists are more interested in “is it moral” i.e. does my god demand/forbid it, would they understand the dilemma?

    (NO I am not saying that because religionists are not ethical we need not be!)

  • Seeker

    Claudia, If there is no consent, it’s rape. It’s common sense, it’s even the bloody definition of rape. If this paragraph: “What you mention IS rape. Rape pills, threats of violence etc. ARE rape. In a bar, in a club, in a relationship, it’s still rape. Swimming with sharks and getting bitten, sorry little girl, it’s consequences.”
    in this comment doesn’t say it http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/01/atheist-creates-rapture-orphan-rescue/#comment-525556 I don’t know what should.

    I do not advocate rape in any form. What I am saying is that besides rape and foul play there are cases where the “victim” is actually someone who played with fire, got burned and now wants absolution.

    Do you leave your door open because “private property should be respected?” I’m not saying that systematically leaving your door open justifies theft. I’m saying that if you do you’re a bloody idiot who had it coming. It’s not the same as someone breaking and entering your house.

    @ash I see your point. In that case you were a victim. The blame is entirely on the guy who did it because he crossed the line of ‘no’ you laid down. However your actions were ‘fuck you’ instead of ‘I’m sorry’, do you disagree?

    Still, I do not feel that my point is getting across. When it’s FORCED it’s RAPE and the girls are VICTIMS. The blame is entirely on the shoulders of the MAN, NO MATTER what the girl was wearing or doing.

    However going to a place YOU KNOW is dangerous and LETTING YOUR GUARD DOWN on top of it that makes you AN IDIOT and IDIOCY HAS CONSEQUENCES. E.g.if a girl does drugs in her own free will with ten boys she doesn’t know, if she is raped the boys are mostly to blame but the girl is not an INNOCENT victim.

    A friend of mine got beat up by a three guys for being smart with one of them. He was a victim and the guys were arseholes, but still we all said that he was also to blame. Should we absolve him because he ended up being treated wrongly?

    Can you honestly say that every girl who says that she has been taken advantage of did not want it to happen and then just cried foul to appear innocent?

  • @ Ash – It is sad, but your experiences tell me that in staying away from the clubs I have avoided some shitty experiences but I fucking resent that I can’t go club in peace as I love the music and idea of going out with my girlfriends. I am sorry you’ve gone through that BS.

    Also OH NOES! You’re going to burst his bubble about the realities of going out as a woman! Whatever will he do? How will he defend his rape joke now?!

    <3

  • keddaw

    What kind of clubs do you guys go to? They sound like utterly horrid places.

    Pawing someone (esp. in a sexual sense) with no consent or reason is assault!

    Incidentally, on the consent issue, there is an implied consent between sexually active couples. That’s not to say rape can’t, or doesn’t, happen in relationships, but it tends to be only after non-consent has been established as opposed to an inability to give consent. Which may well start a whole host of angry comments, but that seems to be the way the law works in practice if not in principle.

    Seeker, you had a slight amount of my sympathy up until your last comment. There you lost it.

  • Jen

    Here I wanted to say that I think a rapture-based rescue is only ethical if there is an actual plan in place- although someone upthread pointed out that it may be difficult to tell it is a rapture, in which case I am not sure how they are supposed to know it is a rapture, in which case the kid may already be dead- and I stumble into a thread in which a man is trying to say that public drunkenness means you are “swimming with sharks”.

    If I go to a club and someone rapes me, the questions will follow: were you drunk? Were you wearing something slutty? Have you had sex before? If I get held-up or if my house gets robbed, no one is going to imply I wanted to get robbed. But because rape can look like sex, and people do want sex sometimes, with certain people in certain circumstances, it is assumed the person (and while men can be and are raped, let’s be clear, this conversation is nearly always about a woman) probably wanted it and didn’t realize it wasn’t rape. Is it some sort of fear from that man that he has some sexual encounters that are a little… potentially terrible in his past? I have no idea.

    Seeker, one in four women gets sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I think, and if you really contemplate this number I think you will agree, that sometimes it is better to not make that joke. Consider that you have at least four women asking you not to make the joke. Consider what that means. Is winning this really that important?

  • ash

    Seeker

    The blame is entirely on the guy who did it because he crossed the line of ‘no’ you laid down.

    Kinda the point; I didn’t lay down a line that he then crossed, he presumed there was no line, despite already having 3 girls physically distance themselves from him, and got narky when I reacted to someone intentionally assaulting me by not-so-intentionally assaulting them. Like I said, clubbing for over a decade, if you want to hear cute stories about me smiling and saying ‘no thanks’ and still having blokes get up in my face telling me I should be grateful for the interest, trust me, I got them too.

    Also, using your logic, plenty of people go to clubs looking for violence. There is lots of violence at clubs. Therefore anyone who goes to clubs should expect to be attacked. Why/why not?

    Your idea of forced=rape seems to be your main problem. If this were true, rape could never happen if one party were unconcious. Think about it; no drugs, no violence, no coercion, would have to equal no rape, apparently, until the person woke up and said no. This cannot be true, and it does not mean that the rape didn’t start until the victim woke up. Thus, No-consent=rape.

    However going to a place YOU KNOW is dangerous and LETTING YOUR GUARD DOWN on top of it that makes you AN IDIOT and IDIOCY HAS CONSEQUENCES. E.g.if a girl does drugs in her own free will with ten boys she doesn’t know, if she is raped the boys are mostly to blame but the girl is not an INNOCENT victim.

    Still victim blaming; as a woman, knowing that some men are sexual predators, going out is dangerous. Having male relatives is dangerous. Presuming that most men aren’t rapists is not idiocy, it’s a pressumption of them being decent human beings that know the physical violation of another persons body is never justified. You think your victim blaming is ok because you consider your standards reasonable; other people consider it reasonable to blame the victim if she’s only known the guys for a month, a year, wasn’t doing drugs, was only doing marajuana, was wearing a wonderbra, had low-slung jeans etc. If you can’t see the you need to put the blame squarely on anyone that perpetrates the crime rather than rooting around for any excuse for it to be at least partly her fault, I don’t know what else to say to you.

  • ash

    @Her Idealisticness; I hate the idea that you’re depriving yourself of something you’d probably love because of the occassional shit bag – if you have any near you, I’d really recommend going to a gay/prominently gay friendly club; the ones I’ve been to are usually great for respect.

    @keddaw; the specific place I mentioned was a chav club; I’ve had less trouble at drum ‘n’ bass, metal, techno and gay places – probably in that order! Plus, it’s not all night, every night, and damned if I’m going to let a few arseholes ruin either my night or social life. The bouncers tend to be pretty good, and recognise anyone behaving like that is trouble and needs to be either watched and/or chucked out.

  • My primary concern is that it misrepresents the Bible. Scripture DOES NOT clearly say that the Rapture will come. $100 to anyone who can prove otherwise.

  • Darlene

    @seeker: I am married. Have been for years. If I go out with friends and get drunk and get my ride home and crawl into bed feeling frisky MY HUSBAND WON’T HAVE SEX WITH ME.

    Because he isn’t a rapist. 

    Yes means yes. If the person has not given consent to be touched, it is assault. If no consent for sex, it is rape. 

    If the person is drunk or stoned or whatever they may have exercised poor judgment on controlling their substances. The normal punishment would be a hangover. GETTING RAPED IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A PUNISHMENT OR A DETERRENT.

    You think it’s okay to say that I am not allowed to drink with my friends unless I am willing to have sex with them? That I am not allowed to go to a club with friends or strangers without being willing to have sex with one or more of the people who are there? That if I’m “good” I’ll stay home and sober and be safe, because if I go out I am inviting it?

    Why not throw a burka over me and be done with it? 

    You are trying to justify what cannot be justified. We are not talking about a woman (not a girl) who is making false accusations. Your scenario is a rape scenario. A woman who does drugs with people is consenting to doing drugs. Only a rapist would think that simply being in a club/bar/party implies consent. Only a rapist or a rape apologist finds any justification in assuming consent based on location, or on drug use, or anything other then actual consent.

    Period. If she does not say yes, it is rape. If she is not capable of giving informed consent, it is rape. The person doing wrong is the rapist. Getting raped for being in the wrong place seems a bit of an extreme consequence, doesn’t it.

    I mean, if you were in prison, even just overnight before your lawyer got there, and you got raped, well, you WERE in prison…as you said: “However going to a place YOU KNOW is dangerous and LETTING YOUR GUARD DOWN on top of it that makes you AN IDIOT and IDIOCY HAS CONSEQUENCES…”

    Does that sound right?

  • Justin

    Regarding the actual topic, the service is only as ethical as any other insurance policy or wager (same thing, really – insurance policies just have very detailed odds). I would be more supportive if the site didn’t have a fear-mongering tone; I would much prefer a challenge for believers to put their money where their mouth is.

    Regarding the rape debacle, I’ve always been a little confused about the whole “too drunk to consent” thing. If both parties are too drunk to consent, and they still manage to engage in sexual intercourse that they both regret after the fact, then who is the rapist? The last one to pass out, maybe?

    I’ve also wondered that if the argument for cognitive inability to consent is valid, does it then mean that mentally handicapped people are never cognitively qualified to give consent, and therefore must never experience sexual gratification, lest their partner is guilty of rape?

  • ash

    @Justin, ‘mentally handicapped’ is a huge area, covering the mild (mental illness, learning difficulties) right through to the serious (close to non-functional); obviously some people can never give consent, and in some cases would be impossible to know if they even had a sex drive without imposing abuse. Any understanding of sex would have to be determined by interview, e.g., if one partner was obviously more competent than the other. I vaguely remember a huge debate years ago about a Down’s Syndrome couple – not about their sex life tho, about the fact that they could have kids but weren’t capable of looking after them and her ability to understand, let alone cope with pregnancy. For a lot of mentally handicapped people in the spectrum tho, there would be an issue of teaching about consent – not even all ‘sane’ people get it apparently.

    The drunk thing; if it were truly mutual, 2 choices; both charged or neither. I suspect that as most men find it more problematic acheiving and maintaining an erection when drunk (too drunk to give consent) I would want further proof (receipts, testimonials etc.) that he actually was drunk and not merely using it as an excuse to escape blame.

  • ash

    Again, sorry for the thread derail, but I thought it was a discussion worth having. Back later if anyone wants me to comment further.

  • keddaw

    The problem people appear to have is that they are unable/unwilling to differentiate between being drunk enough to make ill-informed/bad decisions and being unable to make a decision.

    There is a huge difference between picking up a girl or guy who is virtually unable to stand and being picked up by someone who is smashed. One person is incapable of making a judgement, the other is incapable of making a rational judgement. Only one is wrong.

    @Darlene – I respect your husband’s choice, but if he relented in that situation it would not be rape. It is an attitude like yours that leads to many innocent people being accused of rape. If you are drunk and frisky then you are capable of exercising (possibly poor) judgement. If you come home and pass out that’s entirely different.

  • Seeker

    @Jen, winning or loosing is not important. Getting my point across was. I guess you’re right in the maths too though. I understand why someone might be so absolute on their stance.

    @ash. It’s still rape. Something done to you without you being able to make a choice is forced. It falls in the rape drug category. About the violence part, I’ll agree with you. However no-one says that you should provoke or respond to provocations.

    The gray area here is that you didn’t agree to sex but you put yourself in harms way in a way that can stand in court to your rapists defense. Do you see the problem here? If you accuse the person of rape what do you think are your chances of winning? This may be more about law than ethics and I know the two don’t always coincide, but do you understand what I am trying to say?

    @Darlene. It sounds about right. If I land in jail, I won’t be pleased but I won’t be surprised if I get raped. However, going to jail is not exactly a choice is it?

    Nor did I speak about the fairness or rightness of it. I spoke of the predictability of it. I don’t go to clubs and get drunk alone myself because I don’t feel sure that I won’t have unpleasant surprises. Should I wear a burga too then?

    As for the rape scenario: I have talked to women who explicitly said they went to clubs and got drunk with the sole purpose of getting laid with someone. Will you claim that they are not real women as in “no true Scotsman?” That is why I know that there are girls and women who want this to happen.

    One of these women told me however that three times she regretted it. Still she blamed herself for acting stupid. What’s your take on this? Did the men not harass her until she changed her mind? Did the ones she did not regret also harass her? Something else entirely?

    @everyone: The joke was unfortunate as I admitted from my third or fourth post. What I have been trying to get across is that this is a dangerous world, like it or not. Acting irresponsibly and stupid will usually have nasty consequences. If you think that becoming a victim grands total and immediate absolution, then I’m sorry but I can’t agree with you.

    If it were so, what would be the point of having a talk with your child where you tell them to only drink from bottles they had always in their hands, not accepting cigarettes and rides from strangers etc.?

    Another thing I am also trying to get across is that if you act irresponsibly, you have a hand and some blame in propagating the situation. Would anyone become a televangelist if no one paid them any money for the BS they spew? Would casinos be built if no-one gambled and lost fortunes?

    So do you have to get drunk, alone in a club? Do you really need to? Must you really walk down dark alleys? Is it so difficult to practice some caution when going to places frequented by creeps?

    More cruel but just as important in my opinion, is it that irrational to ask that everyone gets his or her own share of blame? How else can people learn if they do not recognise mistakes?

    This is my last post here. I am sorry but I can put no more time or effort into this. You want to think I am a rape-approving, woman-hating phallocrat, a heartless creep, it’s your right to do so. Also, you can disregard everything I’ve asked in this post since I won’t be answering to it. I hope that whatever you may have said here, you do act smart when going out. So long.

  • Beijingrrl

    @Seeker – I think you’re not representing yourself well. At least I hope not. And the original joke was tacky and offensive. I think I do get what you’re trying to say. There’s a big difference between “the” drunken girl and “a” drunken girl. Despite what others have said, I do think it’s fairly easy to tell the difference, particularly in a setting where people have seen each other a few times. I definitely knew girls who played the “I was so drunk, I didn’t know what I was doing” card in a disingenuous way. They repeatedly got hammered at parties and hit on guys, never once during sex said no, and then professed to be sorry later. Often more than once with the same guy. These were not stupid women, so the only logical conclusion is on some level they pathetically wanted it to happen. I always felt sorry for them and honestly a bit repulsed by them too for not being able to treat themselves with more respect. I also had no respect for the guys who went home with them because ewwwww. And honestly, most guys wouldn’t go home with them because they had higher standards, too. I believe most guys do not want to be involved in anything remotely nonconsensual. But “the” drunken girl would just keep at it until someone took her home. There was just no way to protect her from herself. Just as there’s no way to protect a person who’s deluded enough to sign up for one of these rapture services. Most normal people would go ewwwww and refuse to take advantage of them this way, but they will persist until they find someone to feed their delusions.

    I went to exactly one frat party in college. I stayed sober and still felt lucky getting out of there without being assaulted. I chose not to go to any more because it didn’t feel safe. Sure, I could have gone to others and it wouldn’t have given anybody the right to assault me, but it didn’t make sense to put myself in a situation where it seemed not only possible, but probable that I’d have to deal with it. I’m still baffled as to why any girl would want to go to parties/clubs with that vibe unless they were looking to get groped or more. If I’m some place and the mood turns that way, I go somewhere else.

    @Ash – I’m sorry for the bad experiences of you and your friends. Wherever you live sounds horrible. I’ve been to hundreds of clubs around the world and only been treated disrespectfully once. Have you tried going to gay clubs? Usually they’re pretty open to having straight women there and there aren’t any harassment issues when you just want to dance. And there must be some classier straight places in your area, too. At least I hope so, because it sure sounds like all of the assholes are convening at that place.

  • Angel

    What I find more disturbing than the jackasses who have created this unkind farce are the attitudes of some of the people commenting here. They seem to have the ethics of sociopathic pirates. If they really believe their own rationalizations for why exploiting people is okay, then THEY are the fools, the idiots, the suckers.

    Agreed. I’ve been talking about this with my husband off and on since Hemant posted the first link and we simply can’t believe that we’re in the minority for this “are they or aren’t they” debate.

    I had typed this up on the FB posting, but I’ll repost this little bit here…

    It is also extremely disturbing to me that so many people seem to be leaning on the belief that it is acceptable because they personally believe that these particular group of individuals, evangelical fundamentalists, “have it coming”.

    I like to think that I have better morals and ethics than those particular people. If I’m willing to take their money by preying on their fears, I’m no better than they are. In fact, I’d be less than because I can’t even justify it to myself with the years of indoctrination and brainwashing.

    I also like to look myself in the mirror. As Ray (a FB poster) said, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

  • japanther

    Mea Culpa time:

    I am the site owner, and I am going to take in all fo this feedback and change a few things. I really like a few of the suggestions, including those that were vehemently against it. I am not going to take down the site, but I am going to change some things. Honesty is important. The truth is important. Thank you all. Really though, I launched 2 days ago, and I do not seriously expect any real ‘customers’. Ever. That’s why I might even put small google-ads at the very bottom like EE-BP and even Friendly Atheist do, just to cover hosting and related fees.

    Things I am very likely to implement this week include: having an internal policy of refunds. Roughly like this: 50% refund for people who deconvert completely (probably need the blasphemy challenge, though I may just take their word for it). 100% refund for sick/dying children (during the contract term). A similar policy for parent’s health. I say internal policy because I don’t want it to be taken advantage of, and I want them to be aware of how sure they are. Also I don’t want to be upfront about the deconversion bit, because it might cause a genuine believer emotional harm by feeling financial pressure to blaspheme (unforgivable sin, to many).

    If I started getting a profit, I’ll certainly donate a fixed percentage somewhere, perhaps the Secular Student Alliance. I’m new at this, and I still doubt it will be anything more than a funny website that blurs the lines of Poe.

    I will definitely take to heart the points about the wording, including the fear-based stuff. I might not agree with all of the suggestions and points of view, but points were made.

    I have to say, some of the jokes are pretty funny even if the profit-concept totally fails. My wife helped with a lot of it, including the baby concept. It was great fun making it, and I don’t regret it at all.

    About the rape topic, interesting scenario: What about two alcoholics, like the all-day drunk variety? How could either give consent
    to eachother? Are they doomed to rape eachother forever? (This is not a serious reply to the situation, the thought just popped in my head.)

  • Darlene

    @ keddow: you said “@Darlene – I respect your husband’s choice, but if he relented in that situation it would not be rape. It is an attitude like yours that leads to many innocent people being accused of rape. If you are drunk and frisky then you are capable of exercising (possibly poor) judgement. If you come home and pass out that’s entirely different.”

    That is exactly wrong. If I am not able to give informed consent then any consent I give is invalid, and therefore is rape. This is why having sex with a minor is rape, even if they consent: the premise is that they are not capable of giving informed consent. Same with certain medical issues. 

    The key is being drunk vs. being tipsy or a bit buzzed. If I can have a few glasses of wine with dinner and still be functional, then I can give informed consent. If I’m slurring my speech and stumbling then I’m probably not capable of thinking enough to give informed consent. 

    If a woman in a bar is drunk, pissed, smashed–whatever the word–she cannot give consent. She isn’t capable of it. She can be awake and yet not be coherent. It is dangerous to imply that only being drunk to the point of being passed out makes it rape.

    I have a male teen, and part of the sex ed. is that booze and sex don’t mix. Drugs and sex don’t mix. Full stop. It is attitudes like mine which hold rapists accountable. Rapists who purposefully circle the drunk woman and get her another, knowing that there are people who will allow and accept his behavior as normal, and give him a high five afterwards. Predators who seek out the vulnerable, knowing when she asks for help she’ll be told that she asked for it, and that the rapist is the victim here.

    If she slurs yes, it isn’t a yes. If she couldn’t sign a legal document because she would be considered incapacitated, then she can’t say yes to sex.

    My husband respects me, as a person. I am not just an object to be bonkedmwhenever a chance arises. If more men felt that way, less women would be raped. 

    And rapists wouldn’t being living in a culture that supports and encourages them.

  • Claudia

    @japanther glad you could come into the conversation. I would love to hear from you directly why you think this is ethical? From my standpoint you are taking advantage of the stupid beliefs of others (assuming you get clients) and even more unacceptably, exploiting their love for their children for personal gain. How is this different from the “mediums” who take people’s money in return for “talking” to their dead relatives? Yes I know you at least admit you don’t believe it up-front, but I still can’t fathom how this could be acceptable.

    I’m guessing the best justification is that you are offering them peace of mind for a price. But that simply puts you in the same category as people who “throw out” ghosts in “haunted houses” or offer “spells” to get rid of the Evil-Eye. Do you see these activities as ethical? If not can you explain in which way yours are meaningfully different?

    [edit]: If this site is turned into an edgy joke, I have no problem with it at all. However I think you do need to consider how you will act when a worried parent sends you an email. Will you be comfortable taking their money?

  • keddaw

    @Darlene

    I absolutely agree with you on the culture issue.

    However, with regards to consent, it is very difficult to judge when someone has had too many to make a legally valid decision and slurring a yes does not make it non-consensual. Many, many legal contracts are signed or agreed to in various states of intoxication and only a very few would/could ever be revoked and only in cases where the person is obviously in no state to make a decision.

    It is advisable to err on the side of caution – if you are unsure of someone’s state you should always say no, but to simply have a blanket ban on any sexual activity where drink or drugs are involved is wrong. I can be fairly far gone and still make a decision, it may be a poor one but as long as it’s my decision then I am not having you (society) removing my autonomy. Likewise I will not remove anyone else’s, even with the Orwellian justification “it’s for their own good.

    We do have to protect people, sometimes from themselves, but not at the price of their freedom.

    What we are in danger of doing is taking a very real problem (men’s treatment of/attitude towards women – e.g. Seeker) and turning every man into a potential rapist and every woman into a victim waiting to happen. This has already happened in the UK with every adult being a potential paedophile and it is an insidious and nasty attitude.

    We have to remember that in most situations men are just as intoxicated as the women but you are seeming to treat them differently (“men can’t perform if they’re too drunk” is a common theme, even if it is completely untrue).

    While your position may be of benefit to a teenager as a general rule it is of no import to me as a thinking adult. I do not like the idea that when I have had a few drinks my girlfriend is raping me, or vice versa. In fact, the more I dwell on it I actually feel quite insulted* by the implication. By describing such a situation as rape you devalue the term and insult the people who have gone through such a horrible experience.

    *It is an emotive subject.

  • OverlapingMagisteria

    It’s ABSOLUTELY wrong to take money under false pretenses. I initially thought that EarthBoundPets was a joke but was disgusted to hear they are earning money off of it. I hope that this site is not going to accept money.

    I’m also disheartened to hear some of the attitudes brought up by commenters here; especially the comments on the line of “It’s no different than what religious leaders do.” This is a really piss poor rationalization for fraud. Religious leaders acting dishonestly does not give license for others to do so as well.

    …and we wonder why people think atheists have no morality… way to fight the misconceptions…

  • Are the terms of the deal completely above board? Are the beliefs of all involved parties out in the open? If yes to both, it’s ethical.

  • @Matt Stone… thanks 🙂

    That was a question I had. I couldn’t find it in the bible… I wiki’d it and it seems like it was added as a tenet in the 1800’s…

    There was a brief mention in the bible about being ‘plucked up’ or something to be with Jesus, but it says nothing of pets, or children.

    I would hope that Christians would know their religion well enough to know that this and the pet scheme is pure bullshit.

  • japanther

    @Claudia

    I’m afraid I just disagree with you. The Rapture eschatology(s), aren’t even really in the Bible. I’m (potentially!) taking money from people who changed their entire life based on dispensational books, and likely 99% of those books are from the Left Behind series. The authors clearly were well-researched enough to realize that the whole Rapture theory was based on a strange non-linear reading of jumping around and twisting a verse here and a verse there, and picking out a convincing read-between-the-lines story. The word ‘Rapture’ is not in the bible. Yet, the authors made millions (billions?).

    It seems like your argument applies to them, much more so. But you don’t think it was unethical to write religious fiction (redundant, I know) like The Da Vinci Code, or Chronicles of Narnia, or Left Behind, do you?

    I’m in the same category as someone who says “Ghosts don’t exist at all, but if you are going to pay someone to say BEGONE, then I’m your Ghostbuster.” By the way none of those activities are illegal, and I think that whatever sub-legal ethical dilemma you are describing, is more ethical than the dishonest version (not admitting that you don’t believe in ghosts, or whatever).

    Also, I can do good things with the money.

    Also, I can make people laugh.

    Also, you didn’t address any of my points of concession.

    Also, should I take the bait and have the ‘comfort’ argument with you? If you think the above reasons don’t trump the comfort argument, then we will just have to agree to disagree right there and then.

    But seriously, thank you for the feedback. I didn’t expect anybody besides my family to even see it, but I guess I knew there was a chance.

  • @Japanther

    The word ‘guaranteed’ is spelled incorrectly under your basic package.

    Rationalize it anyway you want. I would hate to see the Secular Student Alliance taking money made in this manner.

    ***

    Parts of this thread sicken me. This whole rapture thing isn’t even in the bible. Not to mention that I am a ‘rape baby’. Life isn’t all black and white, but taking advantage of the gray area will get us nowhere.

  • Richard Wade

    GSW,

    If on the other hand people are paying out in advance, the ethics depends on what is being done with the money. One good cause would be supporting children who have been victims of religious mistreatment, rape included.

    Still unethical. If it involves deception, fraud, exploitation of credulity, or encouragement of foolish behavior that causes a loss for the other person, then it is unethical. Putting the money to what you think is a “good cause” makes no difference whatsoever. That’s just an attempt to compensate for the fact that it’s fraudulent, deceptive and exploitative. Using the money for a purpose other than what the agreement stipulated is additionally unethical.

    To those using the “it’s like insurance” argument, ethical fail. Selling someone insurance that you are certain is completely unnecessary is taking advantage of their foolishness, and is unethical. Even being completely up front with your opinion of how foolish it is, but still taking their money is still unethical.

    Take a look at yourselves, arguing like lawyers, looking for loopholes to make it okay to exploit someone.

    Taking a legalistic attitude about an ethical question is completely missing the point of ethics.

    It’s about respect, kindness, honesty, and consideration of everyone’s interests.

  • japanther

    It’s about respect, kindness, honesty, and consideration of everyone’s interests.

    I still think I satisfied this definition of ethical… and I’m willing to give a refund if the money is really needed for the child/parent’s health and safety. Or even if they lose their faith!

    Also, you are all forgetting about this: most people (100% so far!) wont just blindly accept my 4 sentence rant against baptism, which is believed to solve this problem from the beginning.

    I am extremely unlikely to ever have any customers. You are blowing this out of proportion to even consider it ‘shameful’ ‘deception’ etc. But I can relate to your passion for truth, and I really understand what your saying even if I totally disagree.

  • keddaw

    @Richard Wade,

    I feel you are being unnecessarily harsh here. The offering of a service is not in the same league as forcibly selling it, door to door or mass mailing for example.

    Besides which, since when did ethics ever come into business?

  • @keddaw

    the quakers back in the day belived in ethical trading in buisness which is why the general populace loved them, was somthing new, honest buisnessmen 😛 lol ok mabie they’re a 1 off and i dont know if this is still true anymore with the modern ones but thats how they became sucesful at the time (i suppose wouldnt work now heh)

  • muggle

    Okay. Now they’re gettng a bit creepy.

  • The Other Tom

    I think it’s ethical as long as you are prepared to implement the services offered. So, for example, if you’re offering post-rapture dog rescue, you have to have a plan on how you will get to the dog, how you will get the dog out of whatever home it’s in, where the dog will be cared for, by who, and what it will be fed. This plan should be through and responsible, and ensure that there is adequate money to care for the dog for the rest of its natural life. I say this because the customer should have an expectation that if they purchase a service from you, you should be able to carry it out professionally.

    Consequently, I think the dog rescue service isn’t charging enough money. And a baby rescue service for $195? I think they should be asking for an awful lot more money. I don’t believe a dog can be cared for for life or a baby can be raised to the age of 18 for a few hundred dollars.

    And lastly, I don’t think any of the advertising material should imply that the rapture is actually going to occur, if you don’t actually believe in it. For a rapture believer to advertise based on the belief that it will happen is merely silly, while for an atheist to do so is fraudulent.

  • Claudia

    Consequently, I think the dog rescue service isn’t charging enough money.

    Neither does the guy offering the so-called “service”. He was interviewed:

    And to pet owners, he has already delivered something of great value: peace of mind, for just 92 cents a month. “If we thought the Rapture was really going to happen,” Centre says, “obviously our rate structure would be much higher.”

    There’s a quote in there from a fundie preacher doubting that atheists can be trusted to take care of pets. The typical bigotry irritated me, but it got me to thinking. If I were a fundie parent (ok so that’s a big if) it would really give me pause that I was paying to have my baby raised by people whose ethics allowed them to take my money in the full belief they would have to give nothing in return. My child would be going to someone who thought they were cheating me and who doesn’t seriously expect to become a parent all of the sudden.

    Hell, if I had fundie friends who I couldn’t talk out of the notion of the rapture and I thought they were willing to pay for something like this, I’d offer to adopt their kids for free. At least that way they know that though I don’t believe it I don’t have ulterior motives.

  • Richard Wade

    japanther,

    I still think I satisfied this definition of ethical…

    So you assert that what you’re doing is respectful? That what you’re doing is kind? You might be able to squeak by on honesty, once you clean up the fear mongering and manipulative content in your proposal, and perhaps add a clear statement that you think their beliefs are complete nonsense, but you assert that you are taking everyone’s interests into consideration?

    Really?

    I’m sure your rationalizations for why you are being respectful, kind, honest and considerate of everyone’s interests would have to be elaborate and would have to be verbose, but I’m getting tired of hearing so many people giving their hollow justifications for shitty treatment. Just ask yourself this:

    Would you be okay with someone like you running a number like this on someone you love? Would you consider somebody who is exploiting the foolishness and gullibility of your grandmother, grandfather, mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, wife, or best friend,… to be a respectful, kind, honest and considerate person?

  • Angel

    I say internal policy because I don’t want it to be taken advantage of…

    The sheer gall of that (partial) sentence alone infuriates me.

  • Richard Wade

    keddaw,

    I feel you are being unnecessarily harsh here. The offering of a service is not in the same league as forcibly selling it, door to door or mass mailing for example.

    Comparing the method of promotion to more aggressive methods makes no difference. Selling snake oil online or door-to-door, using soft sell or hard sell, it’s still selling snake oil.

    I never realized so many lawyers were aboard the Black Pearl.

    Besides which, since when did ethics ever come into business?

    You are alive because the people who prepared your food, your medicine, your car, your home and the infrastructure of your community followed at least a rudimentary code of ethics. There are many ethical violations in business, and they are all self-defeating, sometimes spectacularly so.

    There could never be a civilization like the Ferengi from Star Trek. They would have annihilated themselves the moment they reached their industrial age.

  • bill

    I think that to even attempt to be ethical (if you are seriously prepared to accept money if you gain real customers), the site owner would have to actually use the money from customers to prepare for the possibility that the rapture could happen at any time. Like preparing a place for children to live and being prepared to travel in the event that judgment day is upon us, as well as assembling a team and preparing all the encrypted messages and such that are promised. Basically fulfilling the agreement. You promise the service, you have to actually be prepared in the event that the rapture actually does happen, even though you and probably everyone on this board feel certain it won’t occur. Even if you did take all the steps to prepare for an imminent rapture, you’d still be blurring and crossing ethical boundaries. But if you did fully prepare for the rapture with the money taken in from customers, I think the business could actually be fully legal and you would be able to defend yourself against lawsuits.

    That said, japanther, you cannot seriously be considering taking money for this. You obviously aren’t intending to fulfill the service you offer. You talk about doing good things with the money, but if you take in any money you are obligated to spend it preparing for the rapture because that’s the service you promise. And even if you fully intend to fulfill your end of the agreement in the event of the rapture actually occurring, the fact that you’d make a profit from simply intending to care for orphaned children is sickening. Simply put, you should make the site with disclaimers saying that it is not a real service and remove all your paypal links (or at least make them fake links that simply go back to your sites homepage or something).

  • muggle

    Man, am I ever glad I don’t drink now that I’ve read through the thread. This is one reason I don’t for what that’s worth. I’ve seen too many tipsy women taken advantage of and put out when they otherwise would have had the good sense not to. I’ve had too many girlfriends cry to me about it the next day. (I did not, for the record, pat them on the back and say you know this was partially your own fault, don’t you? You must be some great friend to have, Seeker. Hope I never meet you off-line.)

    While, yay me for having the sense, any dude who takes advantage of a strange chick who’s had a few too many is a scumbag, plain and simple no matter where the letter of the law falls. And he’s even a bigger scumbag, if she’s someone he knows who has never given him the time of day before. Just being out at a club is not saying I’m yours for the taking.

    Some chicks will blame themselves; that doesn’t mean it ain’t rape. It means they have self-esteem issues. Which often happens in rape even when alcohol isn’t involved. If a woman works late at night and is raped at a bus stop trying to get home from work, is that also her fault? She put herself out alone downtown after dark after all. If she kicks herself for waiting at a dark bus stop, does this just prove she was asking for it?

    In any case, if you’re that defensive about its being called rape, that alone should give you pause to stop and consider that maybe picking up drunk chicks isn’t the smartest damned way to get laid.

    Pretty fucking pathetic when you think about it too. Is your self-esteem so crappy, that you think you need to do such a scumbag thing to get any? Dudes have some self-respect. Geeze.

  • Moxiequz

    Reading over the responses I do think people are confusing the concepts of “legal” and “ethical”. Maybe the site owner isn’t breaking any laws but that doesn’t excuse the fundamental drive behind the site which is separate gullible people from their money.

    It’s unethical for every single reason that Richard Wade has eloquently laid out. Thank you for arguing the point so well Richard.

    I’ll also reiterate what’s been said: it’s sad to see so many supposedly “good without God” humanists supporting and cheering on this scam.

  • muggle

    You know the analogy of kids instead of cats and dogs does rather put it into perspective and on reflection, I’ve stopped laughing. No, this is not ethical. In either case. It’s massively scummier in the case of children but it ceases to be a joke even with the pets once money was accepted for the service. The most this should have been was a cartoon or a comedy skit.

  • Angel

    From the website:

    Our services will be very costly after the Rapture event, so we need as much support as we can get. If you would like to support Rapture Orphan Rescue, but do not want or need the services we offer, please use the button above to donate $5 (US). As a free gift to our donors, our Rapture Alert newsletter will keep you up to date with the latest trends in prophecy fulfillment. You will be alerted to major events that have eschatological impact, via e-mail, SMS, instant message, or RSS. Donors can opt out of this, if they so choose. If you wish to make a donation in a different amount, please contact us.

    In addition to taking money for services, you are soliciting donations in order to prepare for the costly Rapture expenses? Shouldn’t you be charging people enough to account for all of those expenses? Why does your business plan not cover that? You do realize that you can’t, in all good conscience, spend a CENT of that money. Not at any point.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • japanther

    That said, japanther, you cannot seriously be considering taking money for this. You obviously aren’t intending to fulfill the service you offer. You talk about doing good things with the money, but if you take in any money you are obligated to spend it preparing for the rapture because that’s the service you promise.

    Ummm, the ‘contracts’ expire after 5 years, and that is not arbitrary. That is roughly the age of accountability, or the age of reason. The age when the Baptism magic wears off and you need to get Born Again. I obviously wouldn’t spend money over the minimal hosting fees until then.

    And even if you fully intend to fulfill your end of the agreement in the event of the rapture actually occurring, the fact that you’d make a profit from simply intending to care for orphaned children is sickening.

    The ‘omega program’ is over the top and highly unlikely to take any bites. I am going to re-visit it and ham it up beyond belief, and jack up the price to $100,000. That price is more realistic anyway. However, I am definitely not offering to care for the kids for $195/$295 I am simply offering the service of ‘witnessing to the child’ when they are of the age of reason in exactly the manner the parent would have. Usually by having the kid say “I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.” with many slight variations on the theme, while also teaching the child enough to understand the concepts. Maybe a day or two of work?

    Simply put, you should make the site with disclaimers saying that it is not a real service and remove all your paypal links (or at least make them fake links that simply go back to your sites homepage or something).

    I don’t think I have to worry about that. I think you might change your mind when I add more than just a rudimentary 2 day rush job’s worth of effort. Although, the people who thought the pet thing was unethical, not so much.

    Also, I’m not sure if you are all aware that the idea is out of the bag now. The pets idea already has a few imitators, i wont mention the links because they are claiming to be christian based, but you can find them, the term ‘after|the|rapture|pets’ without the |’s should show you something. And no, I had nothing to do with that or any other mark-up. Ethics aside, this business idea WILL spring up elsewhere, likely in a dishonest ‘christian-based’ form. Like the Left Behind novels, but more expensive. (no that is not an attempt at rationalization, just a point that hasn’t been mentioned yet.)

  • japanther

    In addition to taking money for services, you are soliciting donations in order to prepare for the costly Rapture expenses?

    I will make it explicitly mentioned over the next day or two, but that was a subtle attempt to let Atheists support me. “do not want or need the service.”

    Shouldn’t you be charging people enough to account for all of those expenses?

    Excellent point, though I had thought of that myself, too. It is on my list, as I indicated a few comments back. I am jacking the price way up, based on realistic spending on raising a child for 5 years + 20% for uncertainty. This is the first website I ever built, I am new to Dreamweaver. I couldn’t even figure out how to spell-check in program!

    Why does your business plan not cover that? You do realize that you can’t, in all good conscience, spend a CENT of that money. Not at any point.

    I addressed this a few comments up (and originally in the website too, in multiple places), the contracts would expire in 5 years, and not for an arbitrary reason. After which, why should I have to hold on to the rapture money? The kid will be ‘Saved’ by Jesus by then.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Alright, Dad. (:

  • bill

    The real point I was trying to make is that, no matter what price you make the services, you still “offer” and may take in money for these services that you know you will never fulfill.

    The ‘omega program’ is over the top and highly unlikely to take any bites.

    The likelihood of getting customers doesn’t matter because you still offer these services and could still conceivably have some customers willing to pay you obscene amounts of money for the services you offer. Why even deal with potential situations where someone could actually pay you $100,000 through paypal for something that they themselves would obviously find extremely important while you find it humorous?

    Ethics aside, this business idea WILL spring up elsewhere, likely in a dishonest ‘christian-based’ form.

    Whether or not others start the same type of business in a slightly more dishonest form isn’t relevant. Your business is still dishonest and unethical.

  • Angel

    As an atheist who works for a non-profit, the thought of soliciting for $5 a pop donations as a “gift” to the site disgusts me. You want atheists to give you money because they think you are funny? That’s not a donation.

    Your “donations” are separate from your programs. As you state that you are collecting for Rapture expenses, that money doesn’t have an expiry date. You are obligated to use that money for the reason you have stated and nothing else.

    Your “business” is reprehensible. And that you have gone to such lengths to try and justify it leads me to believe that you know it is as well.

  • japanther

    @bill

    Ethics aside, this business idea WILL spring up elsewhere, likely in a dishonest ‘christian-based’ form.

    Whether or not others start the same type of business in a slightly more dishonest form isn’t relevant. Your business is still dishonest and unethical.

    Way to quote-mine there.

    Ethics aside, this business idea WILL spring up elsewhere, likely in a dishonest ‘christian-based’ form. Like the Left Behind novels, but more expensive. (no that is not an attempt at rationalization, just a point that hasn’t been mentioned yet.)

    I wonder why you left that last bit out…
    That is kind of unethical, I think.

  • bill

    So you say I’m unethical to not include your analogy of your business to a series of books? Which you say isn’t an attempt at rationalization but you used it as if it does justify your “business”? I mean, you’re basically saying that other people have done and are doing similar things, so what’s the big deal if I capitalize too? I didn’t leave it out to try to misrepresent your argument, but because you’ve on multiple occasions talked about how unlikely it is that you will have actual customers. Again, whether it is likely or not, you still leave the possibility open. You still leave the option open for people to pay you enormous sums of money for services you will not deliver. That’s still unethical.

  • japanther

    Richard Wade, You have made a lot of great comments. I’m sure you noticed that I didn’t choose to respond to your very well thought out points of view. I value your contributions to both this site and this conversation. I think in its current form, I definitely want to (not ‘need to’) change some things on the site (ethically, not legally, but still…) I already felt like this version was very much in its infancy, and planned on modifying it heavily. Don’t take my silence at your comments for me just saying ‘NYA NYA NYA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.’

    Your comments and suggestions (along with a few other peoples) did make a lot of sense. I don’t think that arguing back is appropriate when you accept somebody’s position or arguments, so forgive my silence. I’m not going to take it down, and I’m not going to make it a joke-only. But I will modify it.

    We really do just disagree about a lot of the issues you raised. Thank you for your input on those issues anyways.

    I’ll leave you guys to argue about the rape-joke some more for now while I edit the site.

  • Justin

    Personal certainty concerning a wager that has not already been indisputably decided does not negatively impact the ethics of the wager. If one is to argue that all wagers are unethical, the onus is on that individual to demonstrate the ethical failing in the concept.

    What WOULD be unethical is taking money into a pot for a wager, then spending it before the wager is decided. That would be downright despicable.

  • japanther

    So you say I’m unethical to not include your analogy of your business to a series of books?

    You are clearly not seeing what I meant, a consequence of discussion on the internet. The Left Behind comment was an aside, an attempt at illustrating the greater point that precedes it and the qualifying remark that follows it. Perhaps I should have written it like this:

    Ethics aside, this business idea WILL spring up elsewhere, likely in a dishonest ‘christian-based’ form.(no that is not an attempt at rationalization, just a point that hasn’t been mentioned yet.)… Left Behind novels spring to mind…

    Keep in mind I even put the relevant portion in bold before. I thought I was being clear before, but i hope I am now for sure, right?

    Which you say isn’t an attempt at rationalization but you used it as if it does justify your “business”? I mean, you’re basically saying that other people have done and are doing similar things, so what’s the big deal if I capitalize too?

    I was trying to make a conversational point, while recognizing that my point does not justify anything. I was just throwing it out there as an interesting bit of news for the conversation. I thought I was being explicitly clear (that time 🙂 ).

    I didn’t leave it out to try to misrepresent your argument, but because you’ve on multiple occasions talked about how unlikely it is that you will have actual customers.

    I’m not sure I follow you here. Maybe we just misunderstood each-other from the get go.

    Again, whether it is likely or not, you still leave the possibility open. You still leave the option open for people to pay you enormous sums of money for services you will not deliver. That’s still unethical.

    I just don’t see it. It’s plain to see that many here would agree with you, and many here would agree with me. I’m upfront about telling them that I do not think it will happen ever. I do need to tone down the fear-mongering stuff, and present it more of as a challenge to faith in my pitch, maybe. But I really don’t see any problems with this. It really is an insurance policy type agreement. That is not some bullshit ethics. They (meaning the imaginary customers who forgot what the ‘know’ about baptism based on a few sentences) really would feel better just in case of a Rapture event. I’ll hold on to every cent until the kid is old enough to be saved (5 years, though this is a little flexible, maybe I should make it 7 which would correspond to the amount of time typically given to the Post-Rapture event, Pre-Armageddon event. Well according to the eschatology I grew up with. And there are a few variations).

  • japanther

    Personal certainty concerning a wager that has not already been indisputably decided does not negatively impact the ethics of the wager. If one is to argue that all wagers are unethical, the onus is on that individual to demonstrate the ethical failing in the concept.

    Thank you for this. This is exactly the parsimonious way I’ve been meaning to reply to a lot of the complaints here. Thank you, Justin. I consider the concept ethical in part, because of this bit of logic right here. My approach certainly needs a re-write, as I am and always have been willing to do.

    Speaking of, I have to stop responding for a while! I have mistakes!

    What WOULD be unethical is taking money into a pot for a wager, then spending it before the wager is decided. That would be downright despicable.

    100% agreed. I need to respond to this explicitly in the website, but I already agreed with this. This money is untouchable until my ‘wager’ proves correct. (Except of course, to buy Rapture-related supplies. But I’m still indecisive about whether or not to do even do this.)

  • Angel

    If you aren’t willing to actually purchase or even have ready what you are claiming on the website (up to and including a home invasion team), you are not only crossing ethical lines, but legal ones.

    I would suggest hiring a lawyer.

  • Ham Nox

    This one seems like a hoax, so I greatly disapprove of it. What would be involved in REALLY going out and converting these children… I don’t think they’ve prepared at all.

    The pet one I believe is legitimate, and I support that effort whole-heartedly as I would support a zombie-invasion support force. The way I see it, it’s not about profit. It’s about realistically providing care for the animals and people who would get left behind, just in case. Do you think that anyone who DOESN’T have a plan of action in case of a sudden apocalypse (zombie or otherwise) is going to have time to save the kids and pets? It’s a vital service.

    I’m not so arrogant that I believe it’s impossible for me to be wrong in my belief that there will not be a religious apocalypse. Highly improbably, yes, but not impossible. If there was a religious apocalypse, I would definitely sign up to help them in their cause, but in order for me to do that there has to BE a group of people who’ve used funds given by religious folks to track down a number of kids/pets who are sure to be without parents/owners and need immediate help. Even if by some miracle we’ve still got something of a working rescue aid system left to take care of the problem, that list is going to be pretty darn useful.

    Since the religious are the only people expecting a catastrophe, I’d suggest that THEY be the ones to prepare for it, but they won’t be here, will they?

  • ash

    Actually, what I thought was a thread derail was totally on topic.

    Shorter thread – stupid people deserve to be taken advantage of, people making stupid decisions deserve to be hurt; physically, emotionally and financially. The society that enables and encourages stupid decisions should never be held accountable, nor should the fuckers that take advantage; instead we should deride, blame and laugh at the victims because they’re asking for it. And we can feel good about ourselves because we never do anything wrong, and people will be able to tell that when something adverse happens to us, unlike them, it’s never our fault.

    I believe that a good way to judge a society is by looking at how they treat their most vulnerable. If this thread is indicative of our society, too many of us fail.

  • Solution:

    Since raptured people will be gone, why not simply let them leave a clause in their will that if they get raptured leaving pets/kids behind then you obtain ownership of their Earthly possessions and use that cash to look after their pets/kids.

    Surely there is no problem with this? I’m never entirely sure whether suggestions like this make me the smartest person in the room or the dumbest.

  • L. Foster

    Well, this is nothing if not an educational read.

    I know I was very surprised to hear about Eternal Earth-Bound Pets getting numerous contracts already. I don’t know which surprises me more: that people have given money, or that they have agreed to take it. I know that the idea of actually taking the money doesn’t sit right in my gut. It sounds an awful lot to me like you, japanther, are offering rationalizations rather than reason.

    And I’m not even going to touch the rape and rape joke discussion. Everything I’d want to say has already been said; there’s no need for me to repeat it.

  • japanther

    If you aren’t willing to actually purchase or even have ready what you are claiming on the website

    I am willing to purchase everything listed on the site. I was pretty careful the first time around to mention that ‘phase one’ of ‘omega program'(read: the most sarcastic option on the site) includes shelter of the existing homes of our team members.

    (up to and including a home invasion team), you are not only crossing ethical lines, but legal ones.

    I would suggest hiring a lawyer.

    A home invasion team would consist of a local team member (let’s say state level for now) and his/her trusty crowbar. I really am building that team now. I have already received a dozen or so offers of this kind without even asking. I’m adding a section to volunteer, which will explicitly state all of the requirements. Should be up in a few hours.

  • Angel

    (Except of course, to buy Rapture-related supplies. But I’m still indecisive about whether or not to do even do this.)

    “Willing to” is a lot different than “doing”.

    I also suggest getting the services of a bookkeeper as well as a lawyer. And a business license for everywhere you expect to be operating, what with your vast network of trained home invasion experts that you claim cover the entire country.

    Those are some pretty basic foundations of operating a business. Even one that provides a hypothetical product in exchange for real money.

  • sailor

    The blurb starts with “Scripture clearly says that the Rapture will come”
    Well that in itself is a lie. The rapture is not part of mainstream religious thought, though accepted by many. It is not that clearly spelt out in the bible.
    So, start with a lie unethical.

  • Richard Wade

    japanther,
    I appreciate your comment to me, and I don’t take your silence to me as a refusal to hear me. I take your silence as you having nothing to say in rebuttal to my arguments.

    It’s okay. I don’t need any response. I’ve had my say, and I won’t pound it into the ground. I’ve planted the idea that people have more than a legalistic duty to cover their own asses, they have a human duty to help each other, and to not harm each other. Hopefully that idea will grow in you, and it will make other ideas about using people as if they were things untenable.

    You have a lot to think about, and you’ll have a heck of a lot more to think about if some nincompoop actually sends you money. Suddenly your bluff will have been called, and you won’t be able to use the “it’s a joke” dodge, or the “nobody’s been hurt so far” dodge. You will have received money from some foolish person whom you have encouraged to be even more foolish. Then you’ll see the actual level of your ethical character. Will you send it back or keep it? Will you treat him as a person, or as a thing?

    There are several people here who have high standards for how people should be treated, and clear principles to guide their ethics. They will not be supportive of your site. Then there are a few shallow, self-centered, unprincipled jerks here who will be your friends. Those are people who will screw you if they get a chance, exactly the way they say it’s okay for you to screw others.

    I wish you well in your journey at this crossroad.

  • japanther

    For what it’s worth,

    WEBSITE NOW WITH 20% MORE ETHICS!

    Try purchasing the omega program now.

    I’m too tired to do more tonight, and if interest hasn’t already died in this thread, it likely will by tomorrow. But you should take another look, you might like the new direction a lot better, especially Richard Wade.

  • japanther

    Strange timing, Richard Wade.

  • Richard Wade

    japanther,
    Get some rest. A clear head tomorrow, a new chance to make a friend.

  • john locke

    I think it is ethical only because they were very explicit that they think the buyer is wrong and wasting their money.

  • Ex Partiot

    As far as I am concerned any way you get something out stupid christians do it, ehtical or not. those who are dumb enough to believe in mythology need to be fleeced

  • Richard Wade

    john locke,
    You, like several others here, seem to equate ethics with being legally covered.

    You have no idea what ethics are.

  • Richard Wade

    Ex Patriot,
    We attract people who think the way we do, and behave the way we do. So you’re surrounded by people just like you.

    Sleep lightly.

  • Ex-pat, you said something really dumb just now, I hope it was just booze talking or a language-barrier. Why would you treat other people unethically? This thread isn’t about that at all. The topic was, ‘is this type of service ethical?’ It should be a given that unethical behavior is to be avoided. We are just discussing whether or not it’s ethical, not if it’s ok to be unethical (it isn’t).

    Richard, I’m probably going to be sending you an email when I get off work today. Please feel free not to be as verbose as your legendary column pieces. You’ve already spent a lot of time writing on this subject. I just have a few questions that aren’t appropriate for this venue, if you don’t mind sparing a tiny bit more time.

  • NorDog

    Richard Wade @ August 3rd, 2010 at 10:56 am

    LOL. Beautiful.

  • Anonymous

    Well ethical, unethical…It’s all ridiculous, these poor people don’t even know their own religion very well if they’re thinking about buying into something this ubsurd. Sooo…chances are they’ll be here anyway post-rapture…the children with their pre-paid rapture service will not.