No I'm not. I'm showing you how your own argument necessarily leads to that conclusion, if a woman wishes to absolve herself of blame in the case of her own rape.
Animal certainly did, and you endorsed it.
?
I'm noticing a new behavior pattern here, at least in your interactions with me: When a point is raised that you cannot effectively counter, you resort to non-sequiturs.
I am showing you what your own position implies, not endorsing it. You know the difference.
It's also your position, as well as Animal's. Do you not consider him to have a professional interest in the issue?
How many times must we go around in these circles?
If you're going to extend the imperative for women to run away from larger men--as it is presented on the website--then you can easily extend the imperative to stay away from men to staying away from all people.
It's taken directly from a professional's website.
No, it exists as a natural and logical category for any woman who wishes to absolve herself completely of responsibility in the case of her own rape, per your argument. The point is that you've stacked the deck in such a way that a rape victim cannot possibly be blameless without taking some extreme measure such as staying away from men. Is that incorrect? Can a woman be blameless in the event of her own rape?
The imperative for her to shut up was based solely on the fact that he was a physically large man who was infatuated with her. Her angry reaction to his rumored behavior (masturbating in the restroom) was considered provocation by the website author. In other words, mouthy female + large amorous male = rape.
No it wasn't, you misogynistic lackwit. The only approaches endorsed by the site were "Shut up" and "run away." Everything else--including martial self-defense techniques--was strongly discouraged.
How many times must it be said that I'm not offering or advocating such a position? I'm simply pointing out a necessary condition of your argument if a woman is to be absolved of blame.
Incomprehensible.
If I don't do what things?
Is this point truly lost on you, or is this another one of your little rouses perpetrated in the hope that no one notices the bloody corpse of your argument laying just over there?
Obviously, the use of hunter-gatherer imagery was to illustrate the most effective way to ensure one's own food is safe to eat. You then ridiculously claimed that hunter-gatherers agreed with your vague and seemingly arbitrary definition of "all one can do."
Yet another straw man.
It's not merely advocating a preventative strategy. It's the myth that a woman can reduce her risk to "virtually zero" without taking extreme measures. The implication is that the woman brings about the rape through her own actions rather than the actions of the rapist. It's the double standard that is prevention advocacy for the victim while considering prevention advocacy for the perpetrator "absurd." It's the suggestion that the woman should be the one who stops drinking, not the man. It's the suggestion that the woman ultimately decides whether she's raped or not. In other words, you blame the woman.
Once again, you have brought this idea to the discussion. You simply don't have the balls to own up to it.
Which idea is that? And when did I "so-call" anything brilliant?
Road safety campaigns put the onus for harm where it belongs. Anti-drunk driving campaigns, for example, target potential drunk drivers. Nowhere in their prevention advocacy do they suggest that sober drivers stay off the roads, let alone implicate them in the case of an accident caused by a drunk driver. What you're essentially saying is that people who drive at times and places where drunk drivers might be must share in the blame for any ensuing accidents.
To start, go here. Tell me where the hypothetical rapist is referred to as anything other than "he." He even prefaces the text by saying it's impossible to know who will rape you, implying that the only real "category" per se is "male."
Which begs the question: If you endorse self-defense courses as a form of prevention, then why did you first endorse a website that explicitly opposes such a measure?
You don't have to. It's implied.
You said they were responsible for "assessing the concomitant risk factors associated with the behavior," meaning they must take responsibility for putting themselves at risk to be raped. How does one logically then excuse them from this responsibility when they are raped?
I do. I simply believe there are less extreme and reasonably effective measures that can be taken instead of "stop drinking."
I agree. I've never advocated avoiding all men. I've done nothing but ridicule it as an unreasonably extreme measure.
I don't claim that it doesn't increase the risk. I've said quite the opposite. This is why I brought up the points about eating at restaurants and taking medicine; there is no reasonable way to eliminate all risk. If a person is going to live in today's western society, there are inherent risks. Blaming the victim--as you and your ilk do--for being raped when the only possible way to completely avoid it is by taking unreasonable measures, is not fair.
There is potential that drinking will complicate matters, but the odds are fairly remote and the alternative you suggest is oppressive. Stop drinking just because some creep hits on you at a bar? In what world is that a reasonable solution?
This doesn't do anything to explain how or why a right must be essential to be valid.
Could you honestly not make a case for the legitimacy of the right to consume alcohol? You can't think of any reason why that right should be maintained?
You very clearly do. Your particular brand of "prevention advocacy" mandates the victim receive at least some of the blame. You say she is to be responsible for herself at all times, and failing to do that--or acting in such a way that increases risk--makes her culpable. This is by definition diametrically opposed to victim advocacy.
No. I support prevention techniques. I think women who believe they are at risk should take self-defense classes, carry pepper spray, or whatever else makes them feel safer. I also don't think that women who choose not to adopt such techniques are somehow responsible when they are raped. Nor do I believe a woman can reasonably reduce her risk of being raped to "virtually zero," a spurious claim you've agreed with.
I've shown you numerous examples of your arguments that cannot lead to anything other than the woman being blamed. So have Bells, Tiassa, and iceura. And your cronies bilvon and wynn have said the same.
Again, it's not risk prevention that is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy, it's your brand of it that is.
It doesn't change anything. You're still advocating that women do all the work, and if they don't, it's their own fault for the rape. Men, apparently, can do nothing to help prevent rape.
LG fails at reading comprehension yet again.
At the expense of what?
The context changes nothing.
Again, I have problems with the kind of prevention you advocate, and the implications you make with your reasoning, not prevention as a whole.
And once again, you must rely on the false dichotomy that a liberty must be essential to be valid.
If you had any notion of it, perhaps that would be an apt quote. Sadly, most of the time you drop your repetitive "will the irony never end" OCD tick, you aren't pointing out anything ironic.
We've reached the point of no return, I fear. Tiassa had the right of it when he said you were operating on pure ego defense, as you repeat the same tired and exposed claims over and over. Your game, as it typically is, is simply to outlast the opposition.
You actually are, at least in the case of the second website you linked to. They did not advocate the same things you have, nor did they lay the blame at the feet of the victim as you have. The first site, however, agrees with you completely, though I'm not sure that's something you should brag about.
I am an American dear so I understand fully how violent our society is, but at the same time I do very little in terms of preventative measures mentioned in this thread to protect myself