The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
- Status
Ladies, consider:
Is he "Asking for it"?
Ladies, consider:
Is he "Asking for it"?
In legal terms... this is argumentum ad absurdum...
Take away the sexual penetration aspects of rape and it becomes just another example of physical assault. Any measures potential assault victims can employ to defend against or discourage such attacks is to their advantage. Self defense training, home and public surveillance systems, avoiding being alone with questionable men or in unsafe environments, and getting a protection dog are a few that come to mind.
I know you want to hear us say that society needs to do more to condition it’s male members to not be rapists, misogynists, murderers, thieves and swindlers so that women will be less burdened with matters of personal security. I can’t imagine anyone participating in this thread that doesn’t share that sentiment and would love to see it happen ASAP, but just as Elliot Roger couldn’t wave his magic wand and make society bend to his wishes, neither can you. It’s as if you’re advising women to wait until utopia arrives instead of personally doing what ever they can to mitigate their victimization in the hear and now.
The hate Elliot Rodger had for women, their male partners, and society in general was derived from the delusional perception that each represented a roadblock to the realization of his ill conceived social order.
She ignores misogyny by suggesting motivations for it? She’s a self loathing woman for wanting to understand behavior rather than simply label it? Being a woman she’s had to personally deal with its consequences every day of her life to some degree. As man you’re either a casual observer or a perpetrator, but never a victim. So how does your experience trump hers in regards to understanding misogyny?
Bells
Staff member
Asking for what exactly?
If you mean the outfit and whether he is asking to be raped, I don't know what a 'come rape me dress' is meant to look like. Do you? Is there one? He doesn't have a laptop strapped to his genitals, inviting all around to steal it, so perhaps he's not asking to be raped.
Perhaps he's wearing a 'don't you think I can lift my legs up high?' dress..
If he had a laptop strapped to his genitals, that would be an invitation to theft not rape, surely?
I hope you aren't equating stealing a laptop to the ravaging of this young man's body.
You know how predatory men are in Cardiff after about 20 pints.
Just because he chooses to dress in a low cut top is no reason why he should be treated as an object.
I hope you aren't equating stealing a laptop to the ravaging of this young man's body.
You know how predatory men are in Cardiff after about 20 pints.
Just because he chooses to dress in a low cut top is no reason why he should be treated as an object.
Bells said:
Where?
Kittamaru said:
My guess is that you and your wife are simple followers experiencing cognitive biases. I’ve asked you several times for evidence, but to no avail. It’s easier to jump on the bandwagon, isn't it?
I've defend Bells on several occasions when she was right. I’m defending GeoffP because he is right. He is not a rape advocate, or a misogynist, and neither am I.
Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate
Bells and Tiassa are intellectually dishonest.
You asked me for evidence, and someone else provided it already... or is that not admissible in your court?
Okay, how about turnabout:
Evidence that Bells and Tiassa are being intellectually dishonest, then. And I mean quotes and/or links as well as an explanation on why... it is quite the claim to make, after all.
I would also advise some caution... if you quote rhetoric or obvious sarcasm/cynicism, then I can just as easily show where you or GeoffP or Billvon or myself or, literally, pretty much anyone else on this site has used the same to showcase where someone is being blatantly absurd...
Bells
Staff member
Well according to some, we are meant to be able to find visual cues. Because rapists apparently give off signs.
The study consisted of images of 32 men. I only posted 6.
Only one person got it right.
Now imagine if you will, going to a party. A responsible person will be able to pick out the potential rapists from a room full of people. If you can't pick out from 6 people, in this case, males, how are you going to be able to pick out from a roomful of people?
So the assertion that a responsible woman will not involve herself with a rapist, especially a man she meets at a party because he could be a rapist, but how can you know? As a guy, do you know what a female or male rapist looks like? Can you pick the girls or guys who could rape you, from a crowded room, say like at a party? What if a woman buys you a drink? Do you refuse because she could rape you?
Can you pick the rapist in a roomful of strangers? If you can't pick them out of 6, what chance do you have with 32, for example?
There is nothing extraordinary about the faces of those 6 men to indicate that they could be rapists. Had they been women, there would be nothing that would have set them apart as being rapists either.
And that's the kicker.
I laugh when I hear some of the rape prevention theories bandied around in this thread. It sets the bar for paranoia so high, that really, why would you want to leave the house at all? Your rapist is more likely to be the person you sleep next to every night who one day turns around, instigates sex, you say no and they don't stop, than just some random stranger. Sometimes they get violent, other times not.
I think that it is impossible to tell which person is most likely to be a rapist from a photo.
It seems valid to take cues from behaviour.
Although, having just googled images of rapists, it seems to me that an unusual proportion of them are extremely ugly.
Could be that police photography does not show people at their best, but some of these warrant Ugly Bug Ball lifetime invitations.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...Gj0QXynYDIDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=709
But an uglyometer won't help you much. It's the clean cut good looking ones with kind faces that are the biggest threat.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/faces-jeffrey-marsalis-20099862/image-20099924
It seems valid to take cues from behaviour.
Although, having just googled images of rapists, it seems to me that an unusual proportion of them are extremely ugly.
Could be that police photography does not show people at their best, but some of these warrant Ugly Bug Ball lifetime invitations.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...Gj0QXynYDIDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=709
But an uglyometer won't help you much. It's the clean cut good looking ones with kind faces that are the biggest threat.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/faces-jeffrey-marsalis-20099862/image-20099924
You are the one committing libel, and poorly at that:
Where am I claiming that GeoffP is a rape advocate or a misogynist? I have simply attacked the idea that rape is a purely biological function, as well as the idea that the burden is entirely on women to defend themselves.
You know why they tell you not to smile when they take passport photos? It's because if you go on the run or do something criminal, that is the photo they release to the press to apprehend you and they technically make you look guilty before you're even tried, Due to how unsettling a non-smiling face is.
the thing is no they aren't. you and geoff and trying to play ignorant and pretend you don't understand the implications and connatations of what your saying. but the thing your both clearly adults who've mastered turning on a computer. I'm sorry that your both offended by the fact that your assumed to have mastered a middleschool level of communication and get that communication is more than just the words you say; that you know what your responding and how your responding effect the unspoken part of communication.
Bells said:
You should consider putting your law degree to good use. This should have never happened. That’s not how the legal system works. The sad, unavoidable truth is that women have to decide what's more important. Putting an abusive man in jail is important. He could do this again to another woman.
"Competency to stand trial hinges on a defendant's current mental state at the time of trial. It is generally a low-level standard that requires merely that a defendant understands the proceedings against him -- that he is being tried for a crime, and the relative roles of prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge -- and be able to assist his attorney in his defense. The low standard reflects the attempt to provide as many people as possible a day in court, while excluding those individuals who are so sick as to be completely unable to comprehend the proceedings or to assist their attorneys. There is a common misconception that if an individual is found incompetent, it is the same as being found not guilty. In reality, if the defendant is deemed incompetent, there is no trial, and no conviction or acquittal. A finding of incompetence merely signals a hiatus in the criminal proceedings. In the majority of cases, a mentally ill defendant deemed incompetent receives treatment until he is deemed "restored to competence," and returns to court." The insanity defense has nothing to do with a defendant's current mental status; to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, a judge or jury must evaluate the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense.
The M'Naghten rules
Ah, the fallacy of bifurcation... classic.
There is no such agreement at this time.
An interesting ploy to try and trap me though... either I disagree with your statement, and thus need to back my claim-by-disagreement that GeoffP IS a "rape advocate or misogynist", or I agree with your statement and as such "provide evidence" of some misdeed by Bells and Tiassa.
Clever... but not nearly clever enough.
- Status