You don't have to say it; it is what your arguments suggest, and what your first site flat-out said.
You say I say stuff.
I say that not only I don't, and not only that no one in any of the links says it, but also challenge you to quote exactly where and by whom these things are being apparently said ..... and your response?
That its not required.
:shrug:
Its one thing to misinterpret what someone says .... Its quite another to advocate one has no requirement to interpret what is being said in the first place.
That you're nitpicking key words rather than key ideas or concepts shows how little you actually understand this subject
That you say someone says something and offer a reference, yet offer no references to where they say it, it shows how little you understand basic cornerstones of comprehension and literacy ... or probably more correctly, how you are prepared to waiver such elementary principles for teh sake of saving face on online discussions
--or likely any other, for that matter. You're probably talking about my reference to staying away from "all men" being the only possible way to avoid blame according to Animal's website. While the site does not actually say "all men," it puts the onus so squarely on the victim that avoiding all men is the only way in which the victim avoids sharing in the blame. This is just one example of your intellectual impotence, but I'm sure you'll offer more before we're done.
Well for start, there is no reference to women accepting the blame for rape and there is no reference to anyone using the category of "man" as a hazard.
Funnily enough, the only references one can find for that statement come from you.
:shrug:
Once again, no one has said that there aren't things that can be done when in a situation.
Not only have you said it, but you have said that the very nature of even
beginning such a program of risk assessment and risk management is necessarily unlimited and synonymous with misogyny.
(nb . Despite apparently agreeing that you would act to make a dependent safer from rape ... but no doubt falling short of actually saying it since it obviously jeopardizes the big pile of horse shit you have been diligently building up on this thread so far ....namely that if you would act in such a manner when you thought it would increase their safety, you effectively just limited the nature of precaution/risk management, and have thus rendered about 90% of your contributions so far moot)
This has been made plain to you several times, by me and others. The complaint against "prevention advocates" is not that they say there are useful bits of advice for potential victims, but the multitude of lies and myths they propagate, such as the one your first website mentioned when they said a woman can reduce her chances of being raped to "virtually zero."
Well once again, where is this "virtual zero" reference, since those words don't even appear on the link ????
(and in fact I can even show you references - that you no doubt, haven't, can't and won't read - from some of the dozen or so links where they do
clearly establish that identifying the hazards of rape is a challenge to risk assessment modelling ... )
But even then, given I have made my point clear at the onset (that there are a variety of preventative measures arising from a variety of outlooks for a variety of persons ... even to the point of being controversial), its hard to see how illegitimizing merely one approach suddenly renders the whole equation of risk assessment and risk management as applied to rape untenable.
"Advocates" in this thread have also cited a woman's clothing as making them targets, and the overall tone of your and others' argument has been one of a woman bringing the attack upon herself, that it could have ultimately been avoided had she merely avoided certain kinds of men or worn less "sexy" clothing. That's the issue with "prevention" advocacy--so much of it is just misogynist boilerplate.
Once again, unless you can actually reference these so called contributions of others (contributions that - for some uncanny reason - only appear to be offered by you as strawmen in order to lend some credibility to your statements), you are not
even moving in the general direction of making a valid case.
:shrug:
Shrug all you like, you've dodged essentially every direct question posed to you in this this thread. You don't seem to have the stomach to own up to the conclusions your own arguments lead to.
basically your number one problem is that you can't actually address people on the strength of what they say, and take it upon yourself to invent things.
