Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, Jun 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Geoff- the evidence has been posted and reposted... Capracus quite literally called Bells out for not "doing more" to ensure her own safety.

    Please stop trolling for a reaction and get on with whatever point you are after, or I will simply remove you from the thread.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Infallible. If the incidence of assault by strangers has decreased over a given period, then it is effective to that period and population. Whether it is better than another method is another question. The problem is not to heap on additional 'safety tips' to women out of all proportion to risk - and to reassess whether enough attention is being paid to preventative measures aimed at males. I suspect the latter is largely lacking: though whether there is more or less than, say, Canada is difficult to say.

    Male victim statistics were collected in a 1998-2002 DoJ report I just saw. I didn't find anything on statutory rape but I expect it's also collected. Do you have a link to the FBI reports?

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I have little doubt that you would do so anyway - it would permit a little more damnation without fear of rebuttal. I am not a troll - I am asking to see the evidence that this was his objective opinion, in context, with a link. Moreover, this is being applied, en masse - that means "as a group" - to those arguing that what is being termed "rape prevention" still has a place in society. Failure to comply with such a request is considered, in fact, a violation of SF rules - with which you may be grazingly familiar - and attacking a person's character without support is trolling. I have posted my content above, and that is that. Both sides are arguing past each other and now labels are being handed down that could put SF in hot water. Your position on SF is not "Bells' windvane enforcement representative". If you don't know the difference, ask around. Enough.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Would they? The seeming complete loss of nuance suggests otherwise.

    Well we apparently have nothing else despite your claims. As to responsibility, I suggest you read my screed above about the term. It's a split concept.

    First, we have to know whether they are different. Are they? Is there a heterogeneity among American assault rates that also correlates to the attack rate? That kind of information would be nearly irrefutable proof that the American approach is, flat-out, not working, whatever that approach might be. As it is, I have no idea what the American approach - state, federal - actually is. Are there pamphlets that could be posted, or e-seminars? Is there a way to quantify these differences. A solid finding that there is a difference in effectiveness would be an absolute bombshell and conceivably help millions of people. I'm in deadly earnest here.


    EDIT: An example here: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

    Sexual assault rates as supplied by the Bureau of Justice indicate that the rate of sexual assault in the US declined from an incidence of 1.1/100,000 in 2001 to 0.5/100,000 in 2009 and 0.7/100,000 in 2010. Although they attach a lower confidence to the 2010 numbers, this corresponds to a decline of 48.5% and the 2009 numbers support this general conclusion.

    Now this would suggest that the American system is working, right? Which would contradict the supposition of the thread.

    ... but is that mostly a decline in attacks by relatives, by strangers, or what? What system was in place? When was it begun? What attacks occurred under what state systems? What was the corresponding change in Canadian rates and under what preventative systems? Nothing. Not a freaking scrap that allows you to interpret anything at all. Just: rates down. Nor is there any sign of what each or any system under which any of the attacks occurred was in place. Nothing, no information, that's all, proles.

    And that, which I have been alluding to for some time now, is the problem, here and generally.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Evidence against Capracus:

    Capracus blaming Bells for not "securing her home sufficiently".

    Capracus insinuating that Bells is stupid/ignorant for "not having followed advice that would have enabled her to secure her house correctly".

    Capracus saying that it is unreasonable for one to expect to be able to live without fear of being raped.

    Capracus ignoring other situations/types of rape in favor of arguing solely for "stranger rape of the male vs female variety".

    Capracus CONTINUING to harp on Bells security system (even though we already know it was a relative who was familiar with said system who committed the act).

    Capracus comparing a rape to a "no-fault accident" and again implicating the victim is somehow guilty of not "doing the right thing" (in this case, wearing a seatbelt)

    And that is just from the last few pages...
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I perceive neglect, on my part.

    Obscuring the central matters of threat reduction and degree severity and specific crime prevention, the entire topic of the thread and issues under consideration, by posting bullshit about abstract existence/nonexistence of evil in the world, is a waste of bandwidth and an example of bad faith. Not a "counter-argument".

    OK. Now review the posts of Capracus, Trooper, and the rest of the advocates of rape prevention via women's behavior modification, and see if you can see a real world problem illustrated therein.

    One's imagination is of course one's own to evaluate, but it is not at all impossible to observe (rather than imagine) other people arriving at other conclusions regarding, say, degree of guilt and degree of responsibility and so forth - especially in the situations where a women has "failed to take" what a given evaluator, say a judge or jury or police officer or talk radio host or poster in this thread, considers the expected precautions of a responsible woman.

    edit in:
    No, we don't.
    No, and no.

    No, it isn't. It is being applied to those who are arguing that an approach focusing on modification of women's behavior and restrictions on women's lives and constant informed vigilance by women has the central and highest priority place in "rape prevention", so central and fundamental a place as to be synonymous with the term "rape prevention".

    I'm beginning to see why you think this thread is some kind of Gordion knot.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    So, because there are no links - again - you're forcing me to read the entire thread in detail.

    So thanks for that. Fine.
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    You have no idea of the context or structure of threat reduction and degree severity and specific crime prevention. You have no idea about the simple nature of the false philosophical dilemma. You have no idea about the nature of the systems in place. Yet you feel empowered to comment on them. So, yes, I do see some bad faith here, iceaura.

    Oh, certainly. None of you are able to post a hyperlink, apparently, so it appears I must dredge the thread. Well done. New socialism is nothing without your effective indifference and casual preconception.

    EDIT: I will restart, probably eat, and then do your work for you. Again.
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    The links are part of the quote- the little arrow beside the persons name links back to their post (much like how in the old forum design the post number was a link you could click)

    I suggest using right-click -> Open new tab (otherwise it actually moves your current page to that link)
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    While I agree that there is no one here who truly meets the definition of a "rape advocate" it is unfortunately necessary to discuss the term, since some less responsible posters seem to enjoy using it. Hopefully that will stop being an issue.
    Agreed that they should not be treated differently. They will of course be discussed differently; whether or not someone locks their door has a direct bearing on how easily a criminal comes through it. Thus other homeowners benefit by hearing "his door was unlocked" because they then know that that may have been a factor in the burglary.
    Given that this is not boot camp, what's the analogy? Does this mean people here feel they must troll to get a desired emotional response, rather than a rational one?
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Then perhaps you should read instead of whining about the moderation and not reading the evidence they present.

    Continue in this vein and I will moderate you. I have had enough of the trolls in this thread. It stops here. You can complain that we are not meant to address each other, but when you repeatedly make forays into this thread and comment on a discussion in which I am party to, then I will respond to you if I see fit to do so. And when you repeatedly ask for evidence that you have openly admitted you are refusing to read, then this is nothing short of trolling. If you are incapable of even this level of honesty, then you can read the last 4 pages of this thread for clear evidence of what you are looking for. But continue to ask for evidence that has been quoted and linked specifically for you to read and you openly refuse to read it and keep demanding more, then that sir, is trolling.

    Have I made myself clear enough for you now?
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    That was not a suitable answer. I am reading the thread in its entirety. You saw this in my statements above. You are engaging in deceptive argumentation - "bad faith", as one of our neighbours would say. This is against SF rules, as I understand.

    Then stop. Stop whining about "rape advocates". Learn some polite forms of address. Stop insisting that those who disagree with you are "rape advocates". Learn patience and discrimination - no, not that kind - between the investigative and the inflamatory.

    Then decide: you wanted me not to address you. I did not. You attacked me. I responded. You demanded I stop posting, above, at the thread of 'moderation'. I return this: moderate me unethically and I will respond, ethically. Do you understand?

    Yes, I saw your uncited list. There were no links. I went back and rechecked it again - no links. NONE. So what evidence is it? Uncited, unsupported. And you have the gall to accuse other people of trolling?

    While I agree with your more deferential address here, if I ask for quotes with links, that is not trolling. Kittamaru actually provided links, which I didn't see because the format has changed drastically in the last month. I don't expect you to accept that statement, but then again being familiar with your inventive use of language and logic, I rather doubt it matters.

    I am reading this thread and checking Kittamaru's links. Since you cannot address me with equanimity, do not address me. This conversation is done.
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Indeed you have neglected things: I have found more. I have found enough neglect to keep us in neglect the rest of our lives. It's a Smaug's cache of neglect. No, a hoard of neglect!

    Edit in:
    Yes, we absolutely and utterly freaking do.

    This goes right to the very basis of the process of hypothesis setting and analysis. I've seen a lot of strange things on SF, but this may well take the cake: in order to assign success to the Canadian 'system' - whatever the hell this actually encompasses, and for which you won't post supporting evidence, which I certainly would appreciate. You cannot - CANNOT - simply make such a claim without assigning such success to a source. This is statistics. This is statistical hypothesis setting. This is how we come to know things. I can't believe I'm having this discussion with a grown adult.

    Allow me to clarify, just for your edification - no, no: don't retreat into your shell, this is important: You cannot assign success to an effect without even a proximate attempt at a test thereof.

    Do you sort of - vaguely - understand that? Effect testing is critical to the logical process. Observation, proposition, experimentation. In this case, since the data has been summarised already, experimentation is reduced to statistical approaches. Effect testing. The effects are essentially demographic and established: the information is already in. We're reduced in this case to post-hoc investigation as to what proposed effects mean to the discussion. This is necessary to make the conclusions that you are attempting to make and which I think are at least partially correct.

    "No and no." Wow. And why is that? Well... just "no".

    So - so far from an open mind on the subject, even the suggestion - which I immediately falsify for the purposes of demonstration; which is to say that I immediately refute the initial conclusion that the US method is better - that your already-established perspective might be wrong is more than sufficient to just knock you into rote, childish gainsaying. You cannot even entertain the process, leaving aside entirely the possibility (remote, as I see it) that it might turn out to be incorrect, that other factors might account for it. Never mind whether or not other safety-mitigating factors might account for the effect; just "no", because iceaura sez. Wow. If I had not seen this in black and white, I would not have believed it on a science forum.

    That does not make "rape prevention" synonymous with "rape advocate" by the greatest stretch of the functional definition. I thought you refuted this above. Well, what the hell do I know? Iceaura sez 'no'. Then 'yes'. Then 'no' again.

    I'm beginning to see why it is. You are lost so badly in the adversarial process that you don't care about the truth. I can't believe I'm having this discussion on what is alleged to be a science forum. Hypothesis testing? Evidentiary process? Fuck no. Iceaura said. So there. Jesus Christ, I don't believe I'm wasting time with this shit.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    I provided links as well. Perhaps you should learn to click on them instead of declaring you are refusing to read them. Just saying.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Are you a young woman in the US? Conservative pundits are asking you not to vote, because they think you are incapable of understanding enough to vote..

    Fox News is discouraging young people from voting again, but this time the target is more specific: young women.

    "The Five" co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle said Tuesday that young women should excuse themselves from voting in the upcoming midterm elections because they don't share the same "life experience" as older women and should just go back to playing around on Tinder and Match.com.

    "It's the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea," Guilfoyle said. "They don't get it!"

    Earlier in the conversation, co-host Greg Gutfeld made the point that "with age comes wisdom" and the "older you get, the more conservative you get."

    In other words: "Hey kids! Hold off a little. You don't have to vote just yet. Wait until you're conservative enough old enough!"

    Guilfoyle agreed, suggesting that you can't cast an informed vote until you've gone through adult things, like paying the bills.

    "They're [young women] like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world," she concluded. "They can go back on Tinder or Match.com."

    Naw, conservatives don't have a problem with women at all....

    Heaven forbid these young women vote on issues that matter to them, such as access to birth control and abortion rights and parental leave rights if they have children and equal pay. Because obviously, young women who are voting on such issues are too stupid to know better.

    Misogyny? What's that!?
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    This thing about having or not having links...

    I can't see any links in posts at the moment unless I mouse over them. They aren't underlined or anything. Perhaps this is the problem.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Does not mean the links are not there. Even when quoted material has the obvious arrow which is a direct link, that one can hardly be missed and repeated requests for links when they have been provided and even explained where they are provided, then really, this borders on the 'silly' and wasting people's time.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Of course.
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Well, admittedly, the links in the quotes are the little arrow beside the name of the person being quoted,rather than an inline URL
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Either gibberish, or false. I can't tell which. I have an idea of the contents of this thread, which you claim to have read.
    I know that your meandering around about philosophical dilemmas in this thread is bullshit.
    I know what's been posted here. By you, among others.
    On the contents of this thread, yes.
    I doubt that. You appear oblivious still, by the evidence.

    Except, of course, that I never attributed, attempted to assign, or even mentioned, "success" to "the Canadian system". I specifically denied knowledge of it and relevance for it with the perfectly clear reference and dismissal "whatever it may be". The nature of "the Canadian system", if any, was irrelevant to my posting, explicitly, by my claim. I not only made no arguments based on it, which a competent reader in good faith would of course have noticed, but I explicitly and directly stated that the question I was posting had nothing to do with it.

    Whatever "the Canadian system" is, and whatever its "success", it performs better - Canadian rape rates are lower than US rates. For all I know, that may be because their "rape prevention" system is a complete failure - unfunded, ignored, without effect, achieving none of its objectives. Judging by the Saudi and US setups, that is a real possibility. But that is not what my posts involve.

    That's not geoff's problem. His problem is that nobody is willing to cooperate with his attempts to bullshit the thread.

    He can start following arguments and responding in good faith, or he can go pound sand.

    For example:
    Your continuing attempts to equate "rape prevention" with women's behavior modification will continue to be met with simple denial and stonewalling. After 25 pages revolving around the illegitimacy of that claim and the consequences of that fundamental error, pages you claim to have read, that's no longer something you can simply post.
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page