"

Alright. First to your analysis. Information darwinism is the opposition to pig-headedness. Bring me the right arguments and I will be convinced - as anyone should be. But failing to do so you cannot convince me. You cannot convince me by begging, threats, bullying, bribing and whatever else you can think of. Only the argument is what counts. What's ""right"" is not defined by the mainstream opinion. If 2000 years ago, people largely figured slavery was the right thing, or that the earth was flat, or that violent computer games turn people into mass murderers, that doesn't make it anyhow right. The truth is not found by a demoscopic process, but instead, by an organic, darwinistic process that Information darwinism tries to understand and act in accordance with.

I do consider your thoughts on the subject flawed on a deeper level. Part of our problem to communicate is certainly because of the limitations of language. When we use words, and you understand certain words to have a different meaning than how I understand them (e.g. ""Force"") then we can not engage in a proper dialogue without first sorting out the terminology required. So if you do find that I use a word in a different way than how you would use it, or anything else ""weird"", request from me a definition of the term. This is purely the linguistic barrier that must be overcome.

Now to some items that I seem to have brushed over:

The data suggest rape victims suffer more psychological trauma than other victims of assault. 

What data? By what standards? Someone beaten into a bloody pulp, robbed, or whatever, may well suffer more severe psychological trauma than someone who is victim to ""rape"" by lax standards. These are problems rooted in terminology. If you want us to waste literally weeks to figure out the truthfulness of the statement ""rape victims are off worse than regular assault victims"" then I have to say, no thanks. Because as a categorical statement, I can tell you right away - that is false.

You claim to want rape treated simply as assault in one instance and then go and suggest it should be a special form of assault. (which it is)

It is a (special) form of assault. That does not mean it needs to be treated with different standards than other, specicific (! better terminology?) forms of assault. Assault with a gardening rake is also a special form of assault, that doesn't mean it has to be treated fundamentally different from assault with a pitchfork. Again, terminology appears to be the problem.

Having rape as a separate category of crime allows for special systems to be in place for victims and court systems.

This is not something that I have ""brushed over"". That is what you appear to be in favor of. I disagree strongly. If someone's victim of a criminal offense, he should not be treated ""specially"" - that is, not like other victims of criminal offenses. Otherwise you are just asking for rape victims being ridiculed by society / police / legal system while non-sexual assault victims get treated fairly. I claim that only if there is no legal difference between sexual assault and non sexual assault, that sexual assault victims (and perpetrators) can be treated fairly as everyone would wish.

Who do you actually propose giving these weapons to?

How exactly is it my job to decide who should get weapons? I would assume, similiar standards to car ownership and gun ownership should be applied. Both cars and guns are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands - lethal weapons you might say - but both serve an useful purpose: Security and Transportation. I do not think that anyone should be denied the right to own a handgun. And I certainly do not credit a state institution with the rights to decide who gets to own one and who doesnt. But what exactly are you asking me for? Elaborate the legislature of my dreams? I don't see sense in asking me that.

Well, there you have it. Basically all of the issues I have ""brushed over"" in your mind come down to linguistic issues, terminology and the such. The answers are irrelevant as they can never be given without a ludicrous amount of detail given to the questions. I've known this - This is one of the underlying problems that you have - You fail to identify different uses of terminology and resolve them accordingly. But I would suspect that we have even deeper still disagreements on very many things than just the attitude of resolving conflicts of terminology. This is why I suspect your methodology of thinking is deeply flawed - rather than my own. And that is why I tried to tell you ""You first need to get your shit straight"" before we can argue on actual subjects like rape legislature and social consequences thereof in a productive manner.

I assume you will misunderstand many of the things I said in this post right