Rape and the "Civilized" World

[Balerion]

Agreed. There is no reasonable behavior change that can reduce the risk to zero. There are a great many behavior changes that can reduce the risk to some degree.

You understand that the implication here is that rape victims currently engage in behavior that makes them prone to being raped, correct? I'm curious as to what you think these behaviors are, and I find it suspicious that you have yet to mention any.

Nor is there no one street that a black person can go to avoid being profiled. They can try (as women can) but will not always be successful.

How can a black person "try" to not be profiled? The profiling, in this case, is based on race. Are you suggesting that black people hide their race while driving? How does one do that, exactly?

Do you honestly think that the only two options are to take any action at all without regard to risk, and "lock themselves in their homes and don't have visitors?"

I think the concept you and LG and the other troglodytes are calling "risk assessment" is really, at its core, a condemnation of women. That is made apparent every time one of you clowns offers any "advice" for how to prevent rape, which typically amounts to avoiding men.

The website does not say that.

Yes it does.

Marc asked what she planned to do about the situation. Upon hearing her answer, it took every bit of self-control he had not to drag her to the airport and send her home to her parents and safety. Her plan was to once again confront him and "tell him what she thought of him and his behavior."

Given the circumstances, that was the functional equivalent of putting a loaded gun to her head and pulling the trigger. ​

There is only one person responsible for how a woman acts, or dresses, or travels - the woman. Full stop.
There is only one person responsible for a rape - the rapist. Full stop.

Can you agree to that?

Of course. Can you? It certainly seems not to be the case.

Are you suggesting that the way a woman dresses contributes to rape?

No one is suggesting that women avoid all men to avoid being raped.

Essentially, that's all one can do to theoretically absolve oneself of blame, given the logic of prevention advocates. Because the woman is the one provokes the would-be rapist with her actions, it becomes her fault when she is raped.

No, the insinuation is that women have power over men, and they are not hapless victims on the inevitable path to being raped. That power includes the power to recognize that rape is possible and take steps to remove oneself from the situation.

Is this a super power, perhaps? Because I'm not aware of many rape victims who had any inkling that a rape was imminent. Barring long-term abuses from a husband or a family member, of course, in which case other factors apply.

The inevitable corollary: What do we make of a woman who doesn't recognize or remove herself from a threatening situation? She is, by the claims you've laid out above, at fault for her own attack. And before you try to divorce responsibility and fault like a snake shedding its dead skin, remember that you can't have one without the other. If a woman is responsible for the position she finds herself in, then she shares blame for the attack. There is no other way, so when you say a woman is responsible, you are saying she brought it upon herself. If you're going to take this side of this ridiculous debate, you might as well have the stomach to really take it.

OK. Is poking a bear with a stick a reasonable thing to do? If someone said they were going to do that, would you tell them that maybe that wasn't such a good idea? Or would you let them do it, fearing that if you told them not to poke the bear with the stick you'd be a "bear attack apologist?"

You missed the point. There is no bear in this context. A woman who confronts a man likely has no reason to suspect he's capable of such a heinous act, and her actions are not a trigger. Women aren't being raped because they confront men in their lives. And even if that were the only reason men raped women, asking women to stop confronting men who have wronged or angered them is not a reasonable request.

Exactly correct. And if that black motorist avoids parts of town where blacks are ticketed - and the woman avoids parts of town where rapes are common - neither is an "apologist."

No one suggested they would be. But when you try to say that not avoiding those parts of town makes them responsible for their own suffering, you become an apologist.

Locking one's door would be a good equivalent. (I am assuming that even you would not equate locking a woman's door to being a "rape apologist.")

I again have to wonder what the use is of such advice. Do you suspect that any significant number of rapes or sexual assaults are perpetrated by intruders who walked in through an open door?

And again, that inconvenient corollary: What if a woman forgets to lock her door one night? Is she not then responsible for what happened to her?

That behavior did not "bring about" the rape; it was one of many factors that led to an escalation of the situation.

In other words, it brought the rape about. You can dress it up however you like, it amounts to the same thing. Without her mouthing off to the big scary man, she wouldn't have been in a situation where she was about to get raped. Once again, it's the woman's fault.

Knowing that the situation is escalating - and knowing when to leave - is a good tool to use to prevent rape.

And how exactly was that illustrated in the story provided? Because what I see is a jilted admirer who is presumed to have been masturbating in the restroom without any evidence, and then is publically accused of it by a classmate. If the story is even true (which I highly doubt) this sounds more like a case of juvenile teasing and gossip than one of an imminent sexual assault. The guy even tried to talk to her in front of the boyfriend, which seems exceedingly odd if his intentions were violent. Perhaps he wanted to air out his grievances, or maybe even apologize for laughing at her. Who knows? All I know for sure is that the sole example that this website bases its philosophy on is not an actual "near-rape" story.

The fact is, no woman who believed she was about to be assaulted or worse needs to be told to run. That's why this whole "prevention advocacy" business is bullshit. It's about putting women in their place.

Getting away from a rapist safely is as good a "weapon" as self defense training.

And if the website provided any advice on how to do that effectively, I'd have commended the author. But they didn't. Which is odd, considering it's a self-defense website. Instead, they perpetuated the myth that a woman cannot hope to defend herself against a larger man without "years and years" of "specialized training."

Advocacy indeed.

 

[billvon]

You understand that the implication here is that rape victims currently engage in behavior that makes them prone to being raped, correct? I'm curious as to what you think these behaviors are

There are a great many, and they vary depending on the person, the situation, the location etc etc. For example, being very drunk almost always increases your risk of being assaulted.

How can a black person "try" to not be profiled?

By avoiding areas where profiling is common.

the concept you and LG and the other troglodytes

You have just revealed your incapacity for higher level discussion, so I'll simplify things and ask the same questions I asked Iceaura.

If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that?

 

[Balerion]

There are a great many, and they vary depending on the person, the situation, the location etc etc. For example, being very drunk almost always increases your risk of being assaulted.

Okay, so now women who get drunk are making themselves targets for sexual assault?

You see how we're encroaching upon normal social behavior? I have to wonder how long before you're asking women to stop wearing pencil skirts.

By avoiding areas where profiling is common.

So if it's a person's home town, what then?

You have just revealed your incapacity for higher level discussion, so I'll simplify things and ask the same questions I asked Iceaura.

What I've done is destroy your misogynistic arguments with simple logic, and you have no good answer for any questions I've posed. My only mistake was giving you an excuse to bail. Sadly, I find it difficult to bite my tongue when in the presence of misogynists or other lower forms of life. Oh well. It's not like I'm missing out on much.

If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

And what situation might that be?

100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that?

You can't seem to agree with yourself on that. By saying women essentially have all the power, you're saying they must share in the blame. There is no way to attribute 100% of the blame on the rapist when you also claim the woman put herself in a position to be raped.

 

[lightgigantic]

You can't seem to agree with yourself on that. By saying women essentially have all the power, you're saying they must share in the blame. There is no way to attribute 100% of the blame on the rapist when you also claim the woman put herself in a position to be raped.

However you don't find that idea (namely of diametrically opposing victim advocacy and risk prevention) enjoys anything close to strong representation amongst any sort of professional individual or organization tackling the problem of risk (which includes Rape education / crisis centres ... ).

IOW there is a very strong bias to work both victim advocacy and risk prevention together as a more effective means of negotiating absolutely any risk from absolutely any time that will, can or did happen to absolutely any person absolutely anywhere.

Okay, so now women who get drunk are making themselves targets for sexual assault?

Certainly.

Its a major factor in date rape .... so much so that there are even "date rape drugs"
Some statistics even indicate that 23% sexual violence occurs in and around licensed premises

and lo and behold, there are even some organizations that educate people on how to negotiate the high risks of these situations ( none of which involve working with the category of "man" as a hazard or locking one's self in a room and throwing away the key)

And what situation might that be?

"hey dad, is it okay if I got to this party. The last one was really cool, even though Jane got her drink spiked and woke up on the lounge room floor with no underwear. She only found out what happened after someone posted it on youtube."

 

[Balerion]

However you don't find that idea (namely of diametrically opposing victim advocacy and risk prevention) enjoys anything close to strong representation amongst any sort of professional individual or organization tackling the problem of risk (which includes Rape education / crisis centres ... ).

IOW there is a very strong bias to work both victim advocacy and risk prevention together as a more effective means of negotiating absolutely any risk from absolutely any time that will, can or did happen to absolutely any person absolutely anywhere.

There is a world of difference between what you're billing as "risk assessment" and the advice offered on this latest website you've linked to. They offer common sense advice, and don't pretend that a victim somehow should be aware that she's about to be assaulted. It doesn't put the responsibility on the victim, it simply shares some tips for how to help yourself if you do find yourself in a certain situation. It doesn't pretend there are obvious warning signs, or suggest that you should see it coming, as the other website did.

What you advocated by linking us to that nononsense website is far different.

Certainly.

Its a major factor in date rape .... so much so that there are even "date rape drugs"
Some statistics even indicate that 23% sexual violence occurs in and around licensed premises

and lo and behold, there are even some organizations that educate people on how to negotiate the high risks of these situations ( none of which involve working with the category of "man" as a hazard or locking one's self in a room and throwing away the key)

The website doesn't list specifics of the seminar, so I'm not entirely sure how you've come to the conclusion that it doesn't promote anything like that. What do they mean by "respectful relationships?" Is this some ploy to promote abstinence?

In any event, the advice offered for free on the website is innocuous enough. But it's certainly not the kind of thing you're talking about, which involves avoiding men because they're jocks or because they use certain language or because they like to have a few beers. It also doesn't blame the woman for her own attack, which your previous manifesto did, and your attitude certainly agrees with.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is a world of difference between what you're billing as "risk assessment" and the advice offered on this latest website you've linked to. They offer common sense advice, and don't pretend that a victim somehow should be aware that she's about to be assaulted. It doesn't put the responsibility on the victim, it simply shares some tips for how to help yourself if you do find yourself in a certain situation. It doesn't pretend there are obvious warning signs, or suggest that you should see it coming, as the other website did.

What you advocated by linking us to that nononsense website is far different.

Feel free to try and explain how they are not advocating any risk assessment and risk management models.
Everything (well, ok, maybe not their education programs for certifying trainers and counselors ) that they do that is not part of crisis counselling for rape victims (ie victim advocacy) is risk assessment and risk management (ie risk prevention) - IOW they deliver that information to individuals who may be likely to become rape victims, with the idea of changing their attitudes. I guess thats why they call themselves Rape Prevention Education.
They even have separate tabs at the top their page : PREVENTION and ADVOCACY ... an apparent big no no for several posters on this thread.


This is how it usually works in the real world ... as opposed to placing them as mutually exclusive diametrically opposed categories ... which appears to only be something that occurs on online discussions ....

The website doesn't list specifics of the seminar, so I'm not entirely sure how you've come to the conclusion that it doesn't promote anything like that. What do they mean by "respectful relationships?" Is this some ploy to promote abstinence?

In any event, the advice offered for free on the website is innocuous enough.

ATM its sufficient for you to just come to the table and acknowledge the role drugs play in rape, and that this information subsequently shapes risk assessment and management models.

I am pretty sure that you already understood this however, since you balked at giving a response to the situation of parenting a 16 year old daughter .

But it's certainly not the kind of thing you're talking about, which involves avoiding men because they're jocks or because they use certain language or because they like to have a few beers. It also doesn't blame the woman for her own attack, which your previous manifesto did, and your attitude certainly agrees with.

I haven't been talking about using the category of "man" as a hazard. And I also haven't been talking about how rape prevention advocacy equates with blaming the victim.

You have.

eg

Bill :No one is suggesting that women avoid all men to avoid being raped.

You: Essentially, that's all one can do to theoretically absolve oneself of blame, given the logic of prevention advocates. Because the woman is the one provokes the would-be rapist with her actions, it becomes her fault when she is raped.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Feel free to try and explain how they are not advocating any risk assessment and risk management models.
Everything (well, ok, maybe not their education programs for certifying trainers and counselors ) that they do that is not part of crisis counselling for rape victims (ie victim advocacy) is risk assessment and risk management (ie risk prevention) - IOW they deliver that information to individuals who may be likely to become rape victims, with the idea of changing their attitudes. I guess thats why they call themselves Rape Prevention Education.
They even have separate tabs at the top their page : PREVENTION and ADVOCACY ... an apparent big no no for several posters on this thread.


This is how it usually works in the real world ... as opposed to placing them as mutually exclusive diametrically opposed categories ... which appears to only be something that occurs on online discussions ....

You're not following. Your idea of "prevention" is to stop drinking, to stop wearing "slutty" clothes, and to stop hanging out with "certain" men. What little specific information the website provided about prevention included advice such as "If you feel uncomfortable, be loud, get help, leave if you can." It even contradicts your first website's advice to not "poke the bear" with the following:

Women have been socialised to be polite. Do not do anything you do not want to do just to avoid a scene.​

This is the direct opposite of what your buddy "Animal" advises women to do.

ATM its sufficient for you to just come to the table and acknowledge the role drugs play in rape, and that this information subsequently shapes risk assessment and management models.

No one denies that alcohol plays a role. What I object to is the notion that therefore drinking should be avoided. By that same logic, men should be avoided, since men also play a role in sexual assault.

I am pretty sure that you already understood this however, since you balked at giving a response to the situation of parenting a 16 year old daughter.

And I am pretty sure you have no business calling anyone out on balking, since you balked at responding to an entire post.

I haven't been talking about using the category of "man" as a hazard. And I also haven't been talking about how rape prevention advocacy equates with blaming the victim.

Sure you have. You linked to a website that did precisely that. It even claims that a woman's behavior can reduce the likelihood of being raped to "virtually zero." Is that you don't understand the implications of that claim, or is it that you simply don't have the spine to own up to it?

As I told billvon, if you're going to take the wrong side of the debate, you might as well take it properly.

Bill :No one is suggesting that women avoid all men to avoid being raped.

You: Essentially, that's all one can do to theoretically absolve oneself of blame, given the logic of prevention advocates. Because the woman is the one provokes the would-be rapist with her actions, it becomes her fault when she is raped.

Again, what you and bilvon are doing amounts to stabbing someone to death while saying "Now, keep in mind, I'm not stabbing you..." No matter what either of you says about blaming the victim, your arguments for "prevention" amount to blaming the victim. You can't say that a woman can and should recognize the dangers in her path, and has the power to avoid them, and then say when she does get raped that she doesn't share in the blame. That's not how logic works. You don't get to divorce responsibility from fault or blame, so when you say the woman is wholly responsible, you're saying she's at least partially to blame.

:shrug:

Yes, I can tell that you're lost.

 

[lightgigantic]

You're not following. Your idea of "prevention" is to stop drinking, to stop wearing "slutty" clothes, and to stop hanging out with "certain" men. What little specific information the website provided about prevention included advice such as "If you feel uncomfortable, be loud, get help, leave if you can." It even contradicts your first website's advice to not "poke the bear" with the following:

Women have been socialised to be polite. Do not do anything you do not want to do just to avoid a scene.​

This is the direct opposite of what your buddy "Animal" advises women to do.

Guess you haven't been paying attention.

This is actually what I have said :

If certain behaviours bring risk to an environment, it pays to at least be aware of what they are.
I guess you could call it intelligence but it is a concept so elementary you could even call it common sense.

Granted that there may be controversial discussions about what such behaviours may entail (and they may even change according to time, place and circumstance) but to outright say that risk prevention strategies are prohibited from having any bearing on any individual actions, attitudes or appearances is a douche-bag of an idea ... and one that certainly doesn't have a precedent in the real world, not even amongst daredevil stuntspersons ... who are perhaps the only ones attempting to make a business of somewhat flaunting this age old and very basic precept of sane living.

IOW the only thing there isn't room to discuss is the idiotic idea that prevention plays no role in negotiating the problem of risk.

My idea of prevention is that it plays a role in negotiating the problem of risk, and that rape is but just one example of risk.
Its also my idea that there is a broad range of information out there that gets discussed and implemented in a variety of forums.

You on the other hand say prevention not only doesn't negotiate the risk, but lays blame on the victim and exonerates the perpetrator ... which, at least as far as professional commitment to dealing with the problem is concerned, gives you less charm than a turd in a thermos.

:shrug:

No one denies that alcohol plays a role.

well you were certainly unprepared to acknowledge that reality just a few posts ago ....

What I object to is the notion that therefore drinking should be avoided. By that same logic, men should be avoided, since men also play a role in sexual assault.

perhaps by your logic, but it doesn't appear to be the logic professional organizations utilize. All of them work with the category of "alcohol" as a hazard. None of them work with the category of "man" ....... and as another disclaimer, all of them advocate a tiered risk management approach - IOW they explain how the hazard contributes to the incident and offer an array of strategies for managing the risk ... as opposed to suggesting that there are no pending issues for examining the phenomena of rape and all and any data for risk assessment simply flies through one's radar undetected.

IOW this "all or nothing" approach to risk management is simply another misconception of yours about how risk management does and does not function.

And I am pretty sure you have no business calling anyone out on balking, since you balked at responding to an entire post.

I'm responding to you now.

So whenever you are willing to answer this question, since you are now a bit clearer on it :

If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

Sure you have. You linked to a website that did precisely that.

You must be mistaken.
I have linked maybe a dozen sites.
None of them utilize the category of "man" as a hazard.

It even claims that a woman's behavior can reduce the likelihood of being raped to "virtually zero."

Again you must be mistaken.

The words virtual and zero don't even appear on that link.

Is that you don't understand the implications of that claim, or is it that you simply don't have the spine to own up to it?

What you don't understand is the nature of risk assessment and management

As I told billvon, if you're going to take the wrong side of the debate, you might as well take it properly.

the problem is that you take it upon yourself to represent the wrong side of a debate and totally ignore or imagine the information you are trying to discuss.
:shrug:

Again, what you and bilvon are doing amounts to stabbing someone to death while saying "Now, keep in mind, I'm not stabbing you..." No matter what either of you says about blaming the victim, your arguments for "prevention" amount to blaming the victim. You can't say that a woman can and should recognize the dangers in her path, and has the power to avoid them, and then say when she does get raped that she doesn't share in the blame. That's not how logic works. You don't get to divorce responsibility from fault or blame, so when you say the woman is wholly responsible, you're saying she's at least partially to blame.

Once again, its only you who is saying they deserve to be blamed - not me, not bill and not in any of the links.
Its kind of funny because apparently its an idea you don't agree with.

Yes, I can tell that you're lost.

:shrug:

 

[billvon]

Okay, so now women who get drunk are making themselves targets for sexual assault?

Nope. It does increase their odds of being raped, though. This has been proven through several epidemiological studies.

>>If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

>And what situation might that be?

If you cannot answer that question "yes" I very much hope you never have any children.

>>100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that?

>You can't seem to agree . . .

And if you cannot answer "yes" to that I very much hope you are never on a jury on a rape case.

 

[Balerion]

Nope. It does increase their odds of being raped, though. This has been proven through several epidemiological studies.

And what is your advice, then, if that's the case? To stop drinking with men? It's very telling that neither you nor LG can give a straight answer on this. Scifes may be an idiot and a creep, but at least he had the stones to state his vile opinions unequivocally.

>>If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

>And what situation might that be?

If you cannot answer that question "yes" I very much hope you never have any children.

It's a bullshit question, because it presumes that any significant amount of rapes can be reasonably avoided. This is simply not the case.

>>100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that?

>You can't seem to agree . . .

And if you cannot answer "yes" to that I very much hope you are never on a jury on a rape case.

More straw men. There has never been any doubt as to whom I put the blame on. I've been arguing against your and LG's bogus prevention protocols precisely because they shift the blame from the rapist to the victim. The question--though it really isn't much in doubt either--is to where you put the blame. Yes, you say 100% of it is on the rapist, but then you promote "prevention" which amounts to putting all of the responsibility on the woman. You can't have it both ways. If a woman is totally responsible for her situation, then she shares the blame for the assault because she put herself in an avoidable situation when she should have known better. This is why you agreed with the unsubstantiated and, frankly, insulting claim that "virtually" all rapes can be prevented through action by the potential victim.

 

[billvon]

It's a bullshit question, because it presumes that any significant amount of rapes can be reasonably avoided. This is simply not the case.

The question was "If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?" Not SAFE, SAFER.

If you cannot answer that question in the "yes" without weasel words, we have nothing further to talk about.

 

[wynn]

The question--though it really isn't much in doubt either--is to where you put the blame. Yes, you say 100% of it is on the rapist, but then you promote "prevention" which amounts to putting all of the responsibility on the woman. You can't have it both ways.

So for you, it appears that the most important issue in all this is who is to blame,
and not perhaps personal safety and wellbeing?

Assigning blame is more important than personal safety and wellbeing?

 

[scifes]

And what is your advice, then, if that's the case? To stop drinking with men? It's very telling that neither you nor LG can give a straight answer on this. Scifes may be an idiot and a creep, but at least he had the stones to state his vile opinions unequivocally.

Which you couldn't respond to in a logical manner. Except calling me names.
I get off the fast lane while driving within the speed limit, to an idiot flashing behind me to exceed the speed limit. I give up my right, give up the lawful thing to do, to the unlawful and idiotic.
And it's the smart thing to do.
Because as LG put it so eloquently, and offended Bells with his logic he baffled her, apparently the same way I baffled you;
Do you prefer to be right, or alive?

 

[scifes]

This reminds me of that time in my stubborn days, when I used to take the leftmost lane and drive exactly at the speed limit, and ignore all the law-disregarding-drivers flashing and honking behind me. I was going to pick up my dad from the airport at 2AM in the morning, still battling sleep in the 4-lane highway, when a BMW behind me went of with the usual, but this guy was persistent, he refused to bypass me like the others end up doing and kept at it for quite some time, insisting I get out of the way for him, eventually he passed me from the right, came in front of me, and hit the breaks. The sudden injection of adrenaline into my blood set me flaring awake, and the humiliating memory of the same thing done to me once before set my heart beating like crazy. This guy was NOT getting the best of me like the last guy, I floored the accelerator to swung the steering wheel while he was still decelerating to do the same thing to him. He accelerated, to prevent me, we zigzagged in the (luckily) not too full highway, it was too fast and crazy I only recall cars whooshing past me and swinging right and left trying to over take the BMW without smashing into any of the other cars and trucks, eventually he swung to the far right trying to avoid a car and was way ahead of me.
I exhaled, checked my speedometer, 140km/h, I slowed down and continued to the airport.
Right didn't subjugate wrong, but it didn't give in to it either. I was proud of myself, I redeemed myself from the last time, when the other guy decelerated ahead of me, forcing me to slow down, looked me in the back mirror, and gestured with his hand out of the window "what're you gonna do?". Today I showed his kind who's boss.

Now, if I was the son or husband or brother of any of you, what would you say to me?
Bells? Balerion?

 

[billvon]

Do you prefer to be right, or dead?

I'd rather be right than dead. Is that really what you meant to ask?

 

[Balerion]

The question was "If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?" Not SAFE, SAFER.

If you cannot answer that question in the "yes" without weasel words, we have nothing further to talk about.

The fact that you're asking me questions you already know the answer to, while continually avoiding direct questions such as "What would you suggest doing to make her safer," demonstrates that we've never had anything to talk about in the first place. You're a misogynistic creep who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[billvon]

The fact that you're asking me questions you already know the answer to, while continually avoiding direct questions such as "What would you suggest doing to make her safer," demonstrates that we've never had anything to talk about in the first place. You're a misogynistic creep who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

If you are really unable to (or are afraid to) answer that question in the positive, I pray that you never have any children.

However, I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've just gotten caught up in the usual Internet bullshit and would in fact try to protect your daughter from rape. We'll see.

 

[Balerion]

Which you couldn't respond to in a logical manner. Except calling me names.
I get off the fast lane while driving within the speed limit, to an idiot flashing behind me to exceed the speed limit. I give up my right, give up the lawful thing to do, to the unlawful and idiotic.
And it's the smart thing to do.
Because as LG put it so eloquently, and offended Bells with his logic he baffled her, apparently the same way I baffled you;
Do you prefer to be right, or dead?

This is hysterical. The dichotomy is between being right and safe, not right and dead. Though it speaks volumes of your stunning lack of intellect that you not only failed to realize how nonsensical the question was, but even went on to repeat it, praising its "eloquence." What a joke.

Had it been phrased properly on the website it originated from, the question would have looked like this: Would you rather be right and raped, or quiet and safe?

Now, if I was the son or husband or brother of any of you, what would you say to me?
Bells? Balerion?

I would disown you.

 

[Balerion]

If you are really unable to (or are afraid to) answer that question in the positive, I pray that you never have any children.

However, I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've just gotten caught up in the usual Internet bullshit and would in fact try to protect your daughter from rape. We'll see.

Feel free to address any of the questions you've ducked along the way first, then we can talk about answering ridiculous, and ultimately rhetorical questions.

 

[billvon]

Feel free to address any of the questions you've ducked along the way first

As soon as you answer the two direct questions I asked you, which you apparently know the answer to. If you can't even answer two yes or no questions then there's no point in going any further.

If you are willing to answer those questions then I will be happy to answer yours.