The only real question is whether you're oblivious to current events—which is entirely possible—or think other people are.
Your timing is impeccable. I adore these silly coincidences.
The shirts, as I understand it, have been pulled, but I'm sure you can still find one in your size if you look around.
The problem is the same as it was five years ago when men were going so far as to compare themselves to brainless machines in order to duck the responsibilities of a rapist to not rape, and put that burden back onto women.
You might honestly believe that you have already explained yourself, or that people "keep expecting [you] to defend a point [you] have never claimed", but a review of your posts in this thread doesn't reflect that.
•
#35: Entry post. Implies women have some clairvoyance to see five or ten years into the future, and ignores the vast body of psychological literature addressing the phenomenon of spousal abuse.
•
#37: One-sentence post accusing false dichotomies while ignoring what is observable.
•
#46: Trying to protect LG and yourself against the obvious implications derived from the observable; at this point, it would have behooved you to actually pay attention to what you were defending.
•
#47: Reiterates that masculine behavior and ideas are the duty of females to mitigate, reinforcing the point about putting the onus of rape onto the victims.
•
#65: Offers simplistic example, selfishly abuses the word "rape"; excludes a member of this forum from human society; rejects opposing rhetoric without offering any affirmative detail or principle.
•
#66: Attempts to turn rape phenomenon against women while ignoring arguments and ideas on the record in this thread.
•
#67: Useless, trolling speculation that ignores the discussion record.
•
#68: One-line personal attack against. Last in a series of rapid-fire posts quite obviously composed without giving the subject much thought.
•
#73: Declares rape apologists "harmless"; declares justice nonexistent; mounts personal attack; empowers rapists by characterizing the effort to reduce misogynistic societal attitudes as "likely to exacerbate and prolong the very problem that you are fighting against".
•
#:75 One-liner reinforcing LG's personal attack against another member.
•
#88: Continues defense of rape apologists; offers no affirmative argument.
•
#89: Reiterates your unwillingness to acknowledge the record of this discussion; no affirmative argument.
•
#95: Calculates false dichotomy. No affirmative argument.
•
#97: No affirmative argument; implies people ought to be dismissed from any responsibility to consider the implications of their arguments°; turns rape against women.
•
#98: Incomprehensible nonsense that would have been well-served by real-world examples that you either cannot provide, or are too lazy to bother with.
•
#121: Reiterates false dichotomy (
see #95).
•
#122: Rapid-fire response reiterating #35.
•
#123: Ignores record of discussion; characterizes open-ended prevention theory as "an ounce".
•
#124: Continues disproportionate representation of prevention theory.
•
#125: Ignores vast body of literature about spousal abuse.
•
#139: Ignores record of discussion; minimizes open-ended prevention theory.
•
#144: An interesting question that can be answered with a dictionary. For the record, "crime supplication", by definition, means asking to be a crime victim. You know, as in, "It's not rape because she was asking for it." Yeah. That's the guy you're backing in this discussion. No wonder he decided it was a poor choice of words.
•
#145: Justifies the burqa; surrenders to Original Sin.
•
#147: Backs crime supplication theory.
•
#148: Minimizes rape prevention theory; implicitly compares "being vigilant 24/7" (
see #145) to the minor effort of locking a car door or attaching a lock club to the steering wheel. And if you're wondering why people find this attitude offensive, it is in no small part because it ignores the record of this discussion. That is, for instance, if you disagree with
#26 ("Locking a car door, using a club, locking your house doors and keeping the porch light on ... yeah, these are the equivalent of an open-ended prevention theory that women are somehow expected to subscribe to.") it might actually help your point if you explained that disagreement instead of simply ignoring it. After all, it is easy to see that some people do disagree with the imbalance of prevention theories described in
#15, but none of those have expressed in any coherent terms
why they disagree. Simply pretending the point isn't there might be comfortable in the moment, but for others in the discussion, it is indicative of your attitude.
•
#149: Continues support for crime supplication theory.
•
#153: Refuses opportunity to clarify argument.
•
#166: Minimizes prevention theory; see commentary on #148 above.
•
#167: Boilerplate cheerleading and reinforcement of prevention theory excluding any real consideration of the discussion record.
•
#206: Fails to comprehend what it addresses; equates perpetrators and victims.
•
#216: Minimizes prevention theory.
•
#217: Predictably misses the point; also reinforces the point missed.
•
#218: See above note on #35.
•
#243: Compares rape prevention to not stepping on an obvious and visible hazard. such as falling into an open manhole or stepping in dog leavings.
•
#245: More on clairvoyance; grotesque simplification of human behavior—not every rapist wears the outward signs.
•
#246: Compares open-ended rape prevention theory to not approaching an unfamiliar dog, a malicious minimization and mischaracterization.
•
#252: Self-reinforcement in lieu of a rational argument.
•
#253: Incomprehensibly tangential.
•
#261: Rides nobly to the defense of the discussion's foremost rape apologist.
•
#262: Useless dismissal.
•
#280: Wasted post with no relevance; one might construe it as some manner of personal attack, but it is hard to do so because of its irrelevance.
•
#282: Denounces erroneous quote attribution; offers no correction.
•
#297: Something about elephants, apparently, but not so important as to warrant explanation.
•
#299: Rubber-glue retort; no affirmative argument.
•
#307: Contains curious assertion with no detail or support that implies considering societal attitudes toward women is irrelevant to the rape phenomenon; makes ironic joke.
•
#311: Considers intoxication in context that reflects your disdain for modern society.
•
#313: Brings us back to the present, sort of. Complains that nobody's listening, that you have already explained yourself, and attempts to evade the implications of your own argument by relying on dysfunctional literalism. The problem, of course, is that people
are attending your complete lack of any useful, affirmative argument. Perhaps you wish to escape the implications of your trolling, but that's something you should have considered at the outset.
•
#314: In which you suggest you are incapable of critical analysis.
—is that the complaint depends on the underlying presupposition that what you're saying has absolutely no context whatsoever;
, in turn, suggests that your entire contribution to this thread is to simply troll and distract the discussion.
The problem is that we cannot escape the functional implications of what we say. So, to reiterate
It would be fair to say that I am often amused by how often people fail to think through the implications of their words.
Think of it this way: My former partner once threatened to kill me. At the time, I didn't think much of it because she was drunk and in a vile mood. It was only when I was chuckling about the incident to someone the next day that things got serious. Everyone I know suddenly flipped out.
In my partner's defense, though, she could always say that she never threatened to kill me. After all, what she actually threatened was to shoot me, and, yes, she owns a gun. Never mind that the implication was that she should shoot me so that she could be rid of me and be happy; she never actually said the word "kill", so it really is unfair to say she threatened to kill me. And, indeed, I never took it as an actual threat. I just took it as a drunk idiot lashing out in ego defense. But even today, people will remind me: "Remember, she threatened to kill you once."
Why would people think she threatened to kill me? After all, she never said the word "kill".
No, really. I would like your answer:
