Rape, Victim-Blaming, and... random stuff about religion

Page 3 of 9 [ 139 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

25 Jun 2012, 8:19 pm

HisDivineMajesty wrote:

If those are the facts about rape, I agree with them. However, they say absolutely nothing about a conservative dress code having a causal link to the prevalence of rape in society. We're discussing the chance of being raped when wearing certain types of clothes, not the overall chances of being raped. Additionally, I'll be the one to play the moral deficit card now. 'a very minimal concern' is an insult to those who have been raped.

Do you even know anyone who has been raped for dressing inappropriately? I find it an insult to everyone who has been raped that you would insinuate that women are at fault if they are raped while being dressed attractively.

_________________
Your Aspie score: 93 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 109 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits

Last edited by deltafunction on 25 Jun 2012, 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

25 Jun 2012, 8:21 pm

TM wrote:

Is having a computer and a television in your home a high risk situation of your own making? Having a computer and a television set unattended in the back of your truck on the other hand.

See? Here you go again with warped analogies that simply don't fit the facts of the situation, much as you might like them to. A woman dressing attractively is a normative and not terribly high-risk situation. Women do it all the time, go take a walk down the street. It's as normative and everyday as owning a television (and has a much longer history). So let's keep the analogies accurate to the situation, shall we?

Quote:

Just as a warning to you, cheap rhetorical tricks such as the one you're trying to pull here do not work on me. It's a straw man fallacy.

No, a straw man is attributing a false argument to another person in order to knock it down. Asking someone to keep their analogies at least slightly accurate to the situation they're referring to isn't a straw man or a rhetorical trick. It's a request for accuracy and focus on the actual matter under discussion.

edgewaters wrote:

I merely pointed out that in certain cultures uncovered women are considered fair game.

Yes, and Western civilization is not one of them today.

Quote:

A woman walking, alone, in the middle of the night, on a darkened street, while intoxicated is in a higher risk situation due to her actions as is a person walking around with wads of hundreds sticking out of their backpocket.Thus analogy is apt as it is not about simply possessing that which could be stolen, but engaging in voluntary actions that increase the chance of it being stolen.

The analogy isn't apt. Are we dealing with people wandering around drunk at night on darkened streets? Or how women dress? You want to confuse the situation by throwing in additional factors like wandering around alone at night etc. That's dangerous for a woman no matter how she dresses. Let's deal with the specific issue at hand. You need to look at normal situations where the only variable is the clothes. Otherwise you're just muddying the water on purpose.

HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

25 Jun 2012, 9:03 pm

deltafunction wrote:

Do you even know anyone who has been raped for dressing inappropriately?

Probably. I live in an area with plenty of people who have indicated that they find women without headscarves to be fair game. Muslims, they're called. They're a minority in terms of population, but a majority in terms of problems and cultural idiocy.

deltafunction wrote:

I find it an insult to everyone who has been raped that you would insinuate that women are at fault if they are raped while being dressed attractively.

They're as much at fault as someone forgetting to place a lock on his bike in a city, then returning to find it stolen.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

25 Jun 2012, 9:33 pm

HisDivineMajesty wrote:

They're as much at fault as someone forgetting to place a lock on his bike in a city, then returning to find it stolen.

No, bad analogy again. Besides having something desirable, there is no other security risk being taken, if we're looking at dress as a risk factor itself, in other words, in isolation. So they're as much at fault as someone who has a bike, uses it normally (ie locks it), and gets it stolen.

HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

25 Jun 2012, 9:54 pm

edgewaters wrote:

The body's the bike; the lock is clothing. Even if it's illegal, or widely considered immoral, there are plenty of opportunists who distinguish between what they think they can't have and what they think they can have by the way in which it appears available. I've heard thieves explain their reasoning as "if it was really theirs, they would have kept it secure".

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

26 Jun 2012, 5:32 am

edgewaters wrote:

TM wrote:

Is having a computer and a television in your home a high risk situation of your own making? Having a computer and a television set unattended in the back of your truck on the other hand.

Quote:

Just as a warning to you, cheap rhetorical tricks such as the one you're trying to pull here do not work on me. It's a straw man fallacy.

edgewaters wrote:

I merely pointed out that in certain cultures uncovered women are considered fair game.

Yes, and Western civilization is not one of them today.

Quote:

I never argued about the f*****g clothes, but you argue as if I did, hence straw-man. I argue about high risk situations, not clothing. Did you even read what I wrote or did you reply to what you thought I wrote rather than what I wrote? I never once mentioned that clothes were a big issue, both you and HDM are off on a discussion with no purpose other than making yourself look moronic. My arguments have since my first post on the issue been focused on high risk situations of ones own making, not what one wears when getting into said high risk situations.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

26 Jun 2012, 7:03 am

HisDivineMajesty wrote:

No, it still doesn't work, because clothing does not offer any protection (unless it's armour of some sort). It's not like a lock, which offers physical protection. The bike could be a piece of junk sitting next to a very expensive bike, but the piece of junk will get stolen because it has no lock. The lock has nothing to do with the desirability of the bike, it makes it more tempting not because the bike is any more coveted but because there is no security. Clothing isn't like that; whether in sackcloth or swimsuit, the woman's ability to resist an attacker is basically the same.

With a bike, the equivalent would be whether you took effort to make the bike look like crap, or not. A shiny new bike that is obviously expensive is more likely to be stolen than one that's showing some wear, even if they're the same bike, and both locked. Bike couriers sometimes deliberately beat up new bikes for this very reason. But it's not your fault at all if you have an expensive, brand new bike and it gets stolen while locked up, even though you didn't do what couriers do to make it look like s**t so nobody will want it. That's a more apt analogy, I think.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

26 Jun 2012, 7:10 am

TM wrote:

I never argued about the f***ing clothes, but you argue as if I did, hence straw-man.

Well, we're all having a discussion about women's clothing (even though we are far off-topic now), if you went off on some tangent that's no concern of mine.

Quote:

I argue about high risk situations, not clothing.

It's too late to disguise your intent - which is to shift some of the blame on to the victim. "She must shoulder some of the blame", in reference to rape victims, that was your opening in this discussion.

HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

26 Jun 2012, 8:12 am

edgewaters wrote:

A lock offers physical protection. However, most thieves would be able to break that lock in approximately five minutes. They do look for bikes that aren't locked, because those are much easier to steal. They see there's little in their way, psychologically, and they pick the easiest option. And if they're caught, it's easier to make their intentions seem less absurd if they stole an unlocked bike without anyone's name on it. 'Asking for it because of the way she dressed' is not legally justified, but it is an explanation often used. Life won't go away if you deem it morally wrong.

TM wrote:

both you and HDM are off on a discussion with no purpose other than making yourself look moronic.

Cheers, mate.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

26 Jun 2012, 11:00 am

edgewaters wrote:

TM wrote:

I never argued about the f***ing clothes, but you argue as if I did, hence straw-man.

Well, we're all having a discussion about women's clothing (even though we are far off-topic now), if you went off on some tangent that's no concern of mine.

Quote:

I argue about high risk situations, not clothing.

If she was in a high risk situation she is guilty of getting herself in that situation. She isn't guilty of being raped, but of being a moron. What you are doing is worse than what most anti-women people do, because you are implicitly saying that women are unable to take responsibility for their own actions. It's the rather classic "women are to get all the privileges but none of the responsibilities that come with them".

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Jun 2012, 11:15 am

TM wrote:

What you are doing is worse than what most anti-women people do, because you are implicitly saying that women are unable to take responsibility for their own actions.

Exactly. It's like leaving a top-of-the-range Mercedes SL unlocked with the keys in the ignition and a full tank of petrol, filled with state of the art electronics, in a rough inner-city area and expecting it not to get stolen. It wouldn't be your fault that it was stolen - that would be 100% the responsibility of the thief. However, you would share a large portion of the blame for being so damn stupid in leaving a car like that there in the first place.

It's the same if a scantily-clad attractive young blonde woman, completely unarmed and without any protection, walked through a particularly grotty, unlit and unsurveilled park in a dangerous majority-Muslim neighbourhood at 1am in the morning. If she was attacked or violently raped, the assault would not in any way be her fault. However, she would show an astonishing lack of common sense in choosing to do something so clearly risky in the first place as it would be like a red rag to a bull for those vermin.

It's all a matter of assessing risks. You can't live your life without taking risks, that's just stupid and would be a horrible way to life but you can avoid taking unnecessary, pointless and dangerous risks. People do all the time.

JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

26 Jun 2012, 11:17 am

We are in a forum for Asperger's folks. I think it's a bit unfair to assume every guy and girl here will be able to assess most risks.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Jun 2012, 11:18 am

JanuaryMan wrote:

This is really making us look bad.

If I went into the Bogside area of Londonderry just before the 12th July carrying a massive Union Jack and wearing a jokey (but offensive) T-shirt about the Pope would I not share some of the blame for being stupidly, suicidally reckless if I, as I surely would, ended up with the kicking of my life?

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Jun 2012, 11:20 am

JanuaryMan wrote:

We are in a forum for Asperger's folks. I think it's a bit unfair to assume every guy and girl here will be able to assess most risks.

To be quite honest with you if these people are unable to assess risks that would be glaringly, enormously obvious to the vast majority of the population then they shouldn't let out of the house on their own.

JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

26 Jun 2012, 11:20 am

Tequila wrote:

JanuaryMan wrote:

This is really making us look bad.

It would be safe to assume that, but I was recently going out with an AS girl and she really didn't understand the social boundaries about certain chants and things to say during football matches at pubs nor did she care. She painted her nails German for an England game and the like. We are a bit wiser and know better but we shouldn't assume everyone on WP should be as well.

EDIT: Some of that post you quoted to begin with was relevant to this topic but some of it was meant for another topic

was in the middle of reading 3 threads at once. D'oh!! !

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Jun 2012, 11:23 am

JanuaryMan wrote:

There's a big, big difference between social boundaries and actively putting your personal safety at risk. In the Bogside for instance, there are security and bomb alerts every week, there have been riots in recent years, people are still being shot there. Even most NI folk don't feel safe there.

JanuaryMan wrote:

She painted her nails German for an England game and the like.

See, I would find that quite amusing. Probably not so much if she painted them in the colours of Argentina though.

Page 3 of 9 [ 139 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Rape, Victim-Blaming, and... random stuff about religion Post Reply New Topic

Rape, Victim-Blaming, and... random stuff about religion