Sexual harassment

tali89:

I don't run spell checks on my posts. The odd typo slips through. I used to go back and correct them, but generally I don't have a lot of time to make sure they're perfect these days. Rather, I rely on the basic intelligence of the readers here to forgive the odd error, especially when the meaning is clear. Clearly, you're an exception.

You're not responding to the most telling points I make in relation to what you post. As I said, your posts speak most eloquently in terms of what you leave out. You leave out the points that you can't answer, or that you know you can't defend.

And together we have concluded that sexual harassment is not a problem for men that needs addressing. Based on your own analysis, the most that a man can suffer when he is sexually harassed by a woman is an hour of possible discomfort. After that, he forgets it ever happened, takes control of his feelings and moves on with his life.

Why should we strive to minimise something that causes no long-term harm to anybody? That's something you have steadfastly failed to address. I wonder why.

What happened here is that your hypocrisy got exposed, and you weren't expecting that. You weren't expecting to have your own arguments come back and bite you. You were even so kind as to point me towards the posts by yourself that dismantle your own supposed position in this thread. That was a bad move on your part, because you gained nothing from referring to the other thread. You brought it up as a weak attempt to show some kind of inconsistency in my views but, as we have seen, your own views are far more susceptible to those criticisms.

As for ego, we can talk about that if you like. You're an unpleasant individual to talk to, tali89. You're never interested in having a real discussion. You lack basic courtesy in conversation. You're dishonest in your intent and duplicitous in your motives. This is a recurring pattern in all of your posts. Moreover, you have an enormous chip on your shoulder because of perceived past wrongs done to you by the evil moderators on this forum. Most of your time here is spent in battle against one moderator or another. I'd guess that this is the main reason you come here at all - to battle the moderators. It's David vs Goliath for you, isn't it? And if you feel like you've scored a point or two, then that's great for the ego, isn't it? What a shame that these battles over ideas tend to end so badly for you each time. You can only slink away, lick your wounds, then come back for another round at a later date.

I feel sorry for you, tali89. You must struggle in the real world if your real-life persona is anything like the one you present here. Instead of being open to learning, you think you know it all from the start. And sadly, you're slowly turning into the kind of typical right-wing conspiracy nut that we see from time to time around here. You think women are out to get you. You think liberals are out to get you. It's all us vs them for you, isn't it? What's wrong in your life that is leading you down this path, tali89? I bet people used to see a promising young man in you. Now, maybe not so much. Is that how it is?

Now, back to the topic.

Projection much?

I asked you (twice!) whether, in your opinion, inebriation might possibly increase a woman's sex drive and lower her inhibitions, such that she might be more likely to, say, grope a barman. You have steadfastly avoided answering that question. Why? Because you're not as stupid as you make out. You know the answer, but it doesn't suit your line of argument. And being who you are, you won't give the slightest bit of ground on anything. That would be giving points to the enemy. So, instead of admitting even to blindingly obvious facts, you skirt the issue indefinitely, leaving it as a live issue in the discussion. And - worse - you actually paint yourself into corners you can't get out of, because your adopted position becomes sillier and sillier and less and less sustainable as the discussion continues. And all because your inflated ego won't concede any ground.

Given a group of inebriated women, it stands to reason that some will be extroverts and others will be introverts. Some may be egotistical and controlling. Others will not be. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that one such woman might think to make her friends laugh by trying her luck at groping under the barman's kilt.

Let me note for the record that you are yet to suggest any reason why a woman might sexually harass a man, despite being asked directly a number of times. And this is your thread! So, remind me who's not being honest again? Are we having a discussion, or are we playing a game of "James does all the hard work, and tali89 tries to knock it all down to inflate his own ego."?

Yeah, tali89. That's the way. Quit while you're behind. You'll be back for another try before long.

Liberals! Ooh err! Be very very scared. They're coming to get you!

 

42 hours later...

*tumbleweed blows past*

 

It is now about 18 days down the track from where we got to with tali89 in this thread.

tali89 has now decided to re-open the matter - surprise! - in a different thread.

In that thread, he is attempting to misrepresent what went on here, so I am providing some cross-links for any interested readers. I am determined to keep tali89 honest on his pet issue of "men's rights", at least as far as is practicable.

Here's where tali89 re-opened the discussion:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/po...y-of-rape-culture.147927/page-13#post-3328497