trooper said:
It is happening in here, err.
Is not. You can't quote a single example.
tali89 said:
So now that you've been caught with your pants down making bogus assumptions, you're denying that you ever made the assertions in the first place.
Why yes, I am denying authorship of your crap.
tali89 said:
implying that I live in a rapist infested society.
That's somewhat more accurate, and cannot be answered by simple denial of authorship - see how much better you do when you quote rather than attempting paraphrase?
tali89 said:
Do you know where I live? If not, how can you know whether I live in a rapist infested society?
You write native quality English. You retail the standard misogynist and oppressive stereotypifications common to rapist infested societies. So I made the indicated inference.
It isn't necessary to my argument, of course. If I was wrong about the society you live in, your viewpoint becomes more mysterious in origin but no less confused and wrongheaded.
husband said:
Please clearly state you'r queston an i will answr it.!!!
Do you think Canadian women are irresponsible for not locking their front doors?
If "No", do you think that recommending the US adopt rape prevention approaches similar to Canada's would be irresponsible?
billvon said:
Reducing rapes by 26% would be a pretty awesome accomplishment - that would save, at a minimum, millions of women from being raped. I'd definitely support such an approach while working on the remaining 74%.
How about beginning to work on the larger matter first, so that the reference to “while working on the remaining 74%” has some basis in reality?
Meanwhile, about that ineffective and redundant and female oppressive approach to the 26% that is using up 100% of the resources and public discussion bandwidth:
1) Addressing only 26% of rapes in the first place is not reducing rapes by 26%, but leaving 74% of all rapes not even addressed.
2) Ineffective "rape prevention" approaches are even less effective if they fail to address most rapes.
3) Small percentage "rape prevention" approaches that actually interfere with better informed efforts to address the larger majority of rapes probably should not be emphasized in preference to those better informed efforts.
4) Efforts to "inform" people that mislead them instead are likely to be counterproductive. Efforts to "inform" people that reinforce damaging presumptions are almost certain to be counterproductive.
5) Given that no rape prevention approaches are 100% effective, you are far more likely to reduce rape by 26% if you address 74% of the rapes in the first place, as your higher priority.
6) Redundant "rape prevention" efforts - such as repeatedly informing the already informed - waste resources.
7) As an ethical matter: given equivalent scope and effectiveness, crime prevention efforts that primarily and seriously burden potential criminals should be given priority over those that primarily and seriously burden potential victims - and this ethical criterion applies even more strongly when the burdens on the potential victims from the victim focused efforts are much greater and more serious than the burdens imposed on the potential criminals from the potential criminal focused efforts.
8) Last but not least: emergency measures to deal with crimes in progress are not usually described as "prevention". That description needs justification, and insult piled on misrepresentation of those requesting better description is not justification.