Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

You're posting here, not "around" or wherever I am supposed to be looking to find such denial of information. It's not happening here, and it's not happening in any of the posts you claim to be responding to.

No. I'm asking whether you would label the practices of those who are demonstrably better at preventing rapes "irresponsible".

Along the way, of course, we have that to add to the many sources of evidence that burdening women with onerous expectations of self defense does not in real life seem to reduce the threat of rape to any significant extent. I mentioned Saudi Arabia and similar places, closer to home we have the US military - a set of organizations unusually devoted to training women in the methods and means of self defense, in which the threat of rape is severe and rape is unusually prevalent even by US standards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is happening in here, err.

The three tier plan focuses on the size of instructional group. Tier 1 focuses on all of the students. Tier 2 provides supplemental instruction for a larger group. Tier 3 is an increased level of supplemental instruction promoting understanding of the law for a smaller subgroup that may not see themselves as "rapists", or victims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like hypothetical questons but im not sure what you'r queston is.!!!

Please clearly state you'r queston an i will answr it.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i'm left at awe in your level of maturity. the world is a darker sadder place because of you. may whatever deities you believe in have mercy on your soul.

 

I don't have a soul. There are no deities.

And like I said ,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

you can tell me to fuck off all you want i still expect you to answer the question on the 85% of sexual assaults your rules ignore. we've been waiting for an answer for a while now. so what do you suggest someone do to prevent being raped by someone they know, you know the 74% of rapes that your rules would do nothing to stop? or immaturity doesn't absolve you of the resposability for the failures of ideas. that you cannot answer a simple question with out attacks and vulgarity says a lot about your character.

 

Reducing rapes by 26% would be a pretty awesome accomplishment - that would save, at a minimum, millions of women from being raped. I'd definitely support such an approach while working on the remaining 74%.

 

So now that you've been caught with your pants down making bogus assumptions, you're denying that you ever made the assertions in the first place.

You stated (I quote): "So you are not really at that great a risk from women getting together and coming up with ways of curbing and regulating the behavior of the men in your rapist-infested society - since you refuse to even consider the matter.", implying that I live in a rapist infested society. Do you know where I live? If not, how can you know whether I live in a rapist infested society? You're basically engaging in unsupported conjecture.

 

Is not. You can't quote a single example.

Why yes, I am denying authorship of your crap.

That's somewhat more accurate, and cannot be answered by simple denial of authorship - see how much better you do when you quote rather than attempting paraphrase?

You write native quality English. You retail the standard misogynist and oppressive stereotypifications common to rapist infested societies. So I made the indicated inference.
It isn't necessary to my argument, of course. If I was wrong about the society you live in, your viewpoint becomes more mysterious in origin but no less confused and wrongheaded.

Do you think Canadian women are irresponsible for not locking their front doors?
If "No", do you think that recommending the US adopt rape prevention approaches similar to Canada's would be irresponsible?

How about beginning to work on the larger matter first, so that the reference to “while working on the remaining 74%” has some basis in reality?

Meanwhile, about that ineffective and redundant and female oppressive approach to the 26% that is using up 100% of the resources and public discussion bandwidth:

1) Addressing only 26% of rapes in the first place is not reducing rapes by 26%, but leaving 74% of all rapes not even addressed.

2) Ineffective "rape prevention" approaches are even less effective if they fail to address most rapes.

3) Small percentage "rape prevention" approaches that actually interfere with better informed efforts to address the larger majority of rapes probably should not be emphasized in preference to those better informed efforts.

4) Efforts to "inform" people that mislead them instead are likely to be counterproductive. Efforts to "inform" people that reinforce damaging presumptions are almost certain to be counterproductive.

5) Given that no rape prevention approaches are 100% effective, you are far more likely to reduce rape by 26% if you address 74% of the rapes in the first place, as your higher priority.

6) Redundant "rape prevention" efforts - such as repeatedly informing the already informed - waste resources.

7) As an ethical matter: given equivalent scope and effectiveness, crime prevention efforts that primarily and seriously burden potential criminals should be given priority over those that primarily and seriously burden potential victims - and this ethical criterion applies even more strongly when the burdens on the potential victims from the victim focused efforts are much greater and more serious than the burdens imposed on the potential criminals from the potential criminal focused efforts.

8) Last but not least: emergency measures to deal with crimes in progress are not usually described as "prevention". That description needs justification, and insult piled on misrepresentation of those requesting better description is not justification.

 

I think there would be less rape in America if there were less 'Muricans and more Americans

 

Nope, you're done. You can't answer for your posts, nor respond to direct and to-the-point questions... your trolling is done.

Hopefully now that the two biggest trolls (Trooper and Capracus) are gone, this thread can, perhaps, become something at least a little productive?

 

It remains to be established whether the functional outcomes of the philosophical objectives of the thread are supported, and what the real contrasts between the positions are, if indeed these are actual positions.

 

I thank a coment that Kitt made is a good answr for you'r questons:::

 

Uh, translation please. How would one hope to establish the existence of support for the functional outcome of a philosophical objective? Begin at the beginning: how does one identify the outcome of an objective?

One reasonably simple observation you could make, upon reading the posts, is that the proponents of focusing rape prevention efforts on modifying women's behavior in various ways are basically incapable of making sense in response to even the simplest of objections to that approach. Whether that has any bearing on the functional outcomes of their objectives I leave to those capable of philosophical objectionability in the support of remaining establishment outcome functionality.

You forgot the parts about locking doors, Canadian, rape prevention approaches, recommendation, irresponsibility, and women. Admittedly the attempt to clarify the original difficult question by splitting its aspects into two simpler questions may have been a mistake, as direct simplicity causes people to go spla in this thread, but really - how about just dealing with question #1, which is not a rhetorical question at all on this thread, and which you promised to answer:

are Canadian women who routinely leave their front doors unlocked irresponsible in that respect?

 

Actually, we'll just address the first question: rape advocate, as a term, is hugely unethical. Do you really think Trooper et al are actively seeking to increase the number of rapes? Because that is what the phrase means. Rape being the 'outcome', how can you and the others possibly use such a term? Do you really think their philosophy encompasses this? Sheer piffle.

This is one of the problems with the thread: the divorce from evidence. Could you document this please? Three instances would be sufficient, I think, to at least begin discussing this.

 

I have a question: are people - of any kind - who leave their doors unlocked irresponsible? I think the answer to this question will begin unraveling the Gordian knot that this thread has been made into - though whether such an unraveling will be resisted is another question.

 

Well... i dont know what these Canadian rape preventions aproaches are except that you mentioned fewer of 'em are raped if they leave ther doors unlocked... so if fewer rapes is the goal... then them leavin ther doors unlocked is responsible.!!!

 

In the first, not all Canadians leave their doors unlocked. My experience is that it is quite the reverse - most Canadians do lock their doors. Meanwhile, in a high-crime municipality in the US where I worked, absolutely everyone locked their doors - for some reason or other.

In another municipality - definitely not a high-crime area - far fewer did. I think perhaps at the least we can separate the issue of locked doors from... well, whatever the hell it was meant to convey in the first place. If one wishes to point to Canada as a success story, it must be taken as a sum across all relevant effects, and with high heterogeneity (variance) among municipalities.

 

Of course. It could not be argued otherwise.

 

I'd say it depends primarily on whether _they_ think it is irresponsible; they are the only really authoritative judges of their own level of responsibility.