The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Asguard, Jun 4, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    We were talking about atheism and abortion, not rape. My comment was obviously facetious. Her comment was not.

    I am not a sadist. Demonstrate, retract and apologize, or stand down.

    Umm...HELLO...because you labeled us as rape advocates for simple saying that there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance.

    "Balance basic safety with living your life. Preventing rape should be on the shoulders of the rapists, plain and simple. However, the reality is that rape happens. Just like how we’d advise people to avoid driving on New Years Night because of drunk drivers or lock their car doors in bad neighborhoods, you shouldn't stop taking basic safety advice just because society should better educate people about what rape is."
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It would help if you actually made sense once in a while

    Start making sense.

    And, by the way, what does DBL's accusation that "Bells [is] using her awful tragedy, that I wouldn't even wish on my worse enemies, as if it was some victim card to discredit anyone on a whim" have to do with your comment in the atheism thread?

    After all, I would think your own similar accusation in this thread—

    "I'm telling you to stop being a vulture and using a tragic story to push your own agenda." (#425)

    —would be more relevant.

    IPA in lieu of actually addressing the problem is rape advocacy. As I noted last month:

    What it comes down to is that this gets too close to some men. They aren't the stalk-and-jump rapists, so it's easy to dispense self-righteous advice to women. But when we get down to the fraction of rapes within that 22% that such advice would actually apply to, it would seem very much a betrayal of one's protection advice to suggest that similar "common sense" does not apply to the conditions encompassing 72% of rapes. The problem with that, of course, is that suddenly, the suspicion they would thus ask women to hold all men in (while some of our brothers complain that women are holding them in suspicion) includes the advocates themselves. A man doesn't want to think of himself as a rapist, potentially, possibly, or otherwise. And many women put up with this behavior because society has informed them that it's their own damn fault, so it goes on and on because she made the mistaken decision to get married or have an intimate partner or even a male friend.

    (Boldface accent added)

    The thing about your brand of "risk avoidance" is that it accounts for a minority of rapes. As Billvon noted, applying such "risk avoidance" to the greater portion (72%) of male-on-female rapes is "not common sense by definition".

    I would also urge you to remember the underlying point of this splinter thread, which is injustice against men and the merit of #NotAllMen. In that context, you are advocating that women say, "#YesAllMen" in their "risk avoidance".

    And to reiterate an earlier point, if I have to prioritize the needs of a rape survivor against the ego of a not-all-man in an environment that demands women view all men as a threat, well, yes, it does somewhat suck for the League of Not All Men in that context—but that really is a lower priority.

    Meanwhile, I look forward to reading your prescriptions for "risk avoidance" relating to that 72% of male-on-female rapes reported.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    This is Tiassa you are talking to, and you disagree with him. Thus you will be likened to a sadist and a misogynist - and probably a racist and a pedophile as well, for good measure.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    No. I would say the apology should come from the other side. Because thus far, I have been accused of using being raped to my advantage, I have been accused of a wealth of things, such as hating men, having an agenda that no one can actually describe, just an "agenda".. Because being a victim of rape is such a good thing that I should revel in it? How fucking sick and perverted is that? What kind of pervert believes that someone can benefit from being raped? The very people you think I should apologise to are the ones who made such arguments.. And you think I should apologise to them? I'm sorry, but are you inhaling fumes?

    When people with heads up their butts demand that "not all men" and then repeatedly whine and blame women because women are not taking precautions that would have them view all men as rapists, while whining about women who view all men as rapists, then they become rape apologists. Thus far we've had one blame women for the misogyny they face, another declare that women can just read the signs and not marry men who may one day rape them and another demand that women dress and behave a certain way if they wish to avoid being raped and then likened women and how they dress and behave to leaving a cd player exposed in a car for thieves to steal. And this doesn't even include one who spent a large portion of the thread defending a mass murderer by describing his pain, yes, his pain, as though it were a Shakespearean tragedy.. Oh woe is him indeed..

    If those arguments are not arguments for rape apologists, I don't know what is. I've heard all such similar arguments made by defense lawyers in court as they defend their rapist clients. Certainly, sometimes they will get a judge whose heads is similarly up their backsides and declare that she was asking for it because she was drunk, dressed a certain way, married him, etc, but usually when that happens, reports are filed and the dumbass judge has to undergo further training or is stood down for his inadequacy. Why? Because such arguments are always, and I mean always, given to excuse the actions of rapists because they place the onus on the rape victim to not be raped.

    I don't particularly give a flying crap what you may think or believe is appropriate. Why? Because you have clearly and openly shown your true self in this and other thread and clearly shown your agenda on this site by the manner in which you constantly PM and then, miracle of miracles, you appear in a thread with the absolutely worst grammar known to man kind and troll the thread. While you may be entertaining for your followers, you do not entertain me.

    This thread is meaningful in so far as it has clearly shown just how low some would go because of who it is they are arguing against. So much so that they advocate and support the lowest of the low of arguments simply because the person they detest is arguing the opposite.

    And you think I should apologise to them?

    Keep snorting up those fumes.
  8. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I thank its perty obvous that thers not a dimes wort of diference in our opinions on the issues of the thred... i just thank the thred got off to a bad start an then took a wrong turn.!!!

    So oK... i will be the biger man an be the first to apologize for all those thangs you mentioned whether im guilty of 'em or not... balls in you'r cort.!!!

    Join wit me in my peace offerin.!!!

    FYI---I dont snort anythang or do recrerational drugs (legal or otherwize).!!!
  9. Bells Staff Member

    What exactly do you think I should be apologising to them for? Perhaps you should re-read my post and understand why I will not apologise to the people who accused me of benefiting from being raped as though being raped is such a great thing, nor will I apologise to them for their arguments in this thread. Nor should you.
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I think I could do with an apology for being called a "rape advocate". In fact, that move should be general, conducted by several of the mods in this thread, followed by more substantial measures to make sure that it doesn't recur.
  11. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Wrongs were committed in this thred... but i put the onus on mods to lead by settin a good example... an if that occured... like magic... discussions woud be much much more civil.!!!

    It makes me wonder... is a certan level of incivility part of a Sciforums moderator/Admimistrater plan to help build site traffic.???
  12. Bells Staff Member

    And you think that as a mod, I should apologise for the obscene and offensive arguments made against me, arguments which involved:

    1) accusing me of benefiting from being raped.
    2) accusing me of having a man hating agenda and then using my rape against me.
    3) accusing me of being a bad mother and a terrible woman.
    4) attempts to deny what happened to me.

    And you think I should apologise for their perverted and obscene arguments?
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Rehashin the old childish arguments ant gonna help;;; i suggest let by-gones be by-gones an start fresh wit the mods settin the good example for regular posters to follow.!!!

    Are you willin to go for that.???
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This and That

    Do you really think that's useful?

    • • •​

    Perhaps you shouldn't have acted as a rape advocate, then.

    And perhaps you shouldn't have included homophobia in your justification of a man's biological urge to rape.

    And perhaps you shouldn't have made such an effort to raise straw men by distorting people's words.

    And perhaps you should cram your ego in the back seat once in a while and actually try to be useful to a discussion.
  15. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I really do... lol.!!!

    If by useful you mean more civil discussion.!!!
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Another one for the Pakistani passport file?

    It's always a laugh when you go on a lark redefining terms. I mean, anything can mean anything in Tiassa's lexicon. As a part-time employment, are you considering law, or is there any economic imperative left to the industry of sheer rhetoric? I suppose there must be.

    I'm sure I would be amazed to learn how you redefine that into existence. By contrast, do you consider gay sex to be just some kind of power leveraging process? I bet there's some kind of science fiction analogy for it, but how you spring from some kind of partial imperative to full-blown rapid biology beats me: when you do this, do you think that your blatant misrepresentations are necessary out of loyalty to cause or to the general dialectic? Do you feel that any old kind of lie - so long as it serves the mainstem of social interest, as defined in your head, by you - is okay? Is this what your step-daddy burning your AC-DC records really has come to: physical bullying has to be repaid with an attempt at intellectual bullying? I'm not all those dirty, dirty people that don't like you, or that you suspect don't like you, and who need to be corrected, somehow, by whatever means is at hand. That sort of thing one might consider unethical; I expect you have a dictionary to hand, but I have learned that that is as much as one can really expect.

    I'm nearly speechless. That from the likes of you?

    Wow. Same response, I guess.

    By being useful to a discussion I guess you mean that one should be on the same page of the subject that you are, and nowhere else. Be useful seems to mean in fullest agreement, or perhaps alternatively to portray the bogeyman or sacrificial antagonist to the story. To disagree with Tiassa is to achieve subhumanity en passant: "rape advocate", "homophobe", even "anti-American" once. It's all there. One wonders: why exactly is there a discussion forum at all, since deviation from Tiassa's views is grounds for social crimethink? It would be a lot more effective, really, if you just locked each thread as you created it. Bells and others could write you for permission to post in it, and you could unlock it for a second to place their views - pending approval, of course; naturally there's a deal of latitude in the thoughtcrime you need to infer in the posters, so that each opinion should be checked on a case-by-case basis just in case something might be derivably amiss, and then into the memory hole it go. Maybe you could link to your blog as you go, making your contributory process really integral and much more simple. Once in a while you could allow a post from the unspeakables, just as an exemplar of the direction that SF is not to go in. The proles will get it, after a while.

    I'm not a councillor, but alternatively maybe we could just use the space here to try and solve your issues, since that's essentially the other thing that this subforum seems to be about now: Tiassa raises reductio ad absurdum and wails until someone responds in the way that he wants. If no one answers quickly enough, he posts a link - context-reduced, of course; our Tiassa is nothing if he is not conscious of brevity in certain situations - to an earlier argument in an attempt to drum up such a response. If the response earned either initially or subsequently does not fit into the puzzle of his preconceptions, he wails louder and hammers the piece until it does at least seem to fit. And then the rest of the thread is spent with one 'side' trying to hammer it in further, or perhaps just smarting that it's crammed illegitimately into the wrong space, while the other 'side' attempts to point out that the grass contrasts a little too obviously with sky-blue. Now, don't get me wrong: it's not unsophisticated trolling, per se, it's just that it's unnecessary by definition, which is the problem.

    But ultimately, this same problem is going to recur, isn't it? It's going to come back whether we all want it or not, because, well, Tiassa's ego, right? It's delicate. It has to be maintained, fed, watered. But ultimately I'm not sure from your body of work whether you really do do this (IMHO) out of the ignorance of a lingering narcissism, or whether such a narcissism could actually explain a deep, abiding kind of intellectual disjunction that you seem to work with regularly. If the one informs the other, does that mean they're independent, or would one call it part of the same general illusion? For example, I've made a host of very thoughtful responses to your ego - even reconciliatory overtures! - not that you'll 'be able to find those' when you cherry-pick a few subjects out of context in your succeeding post, but they're there, all the same. So will you deflect them, or just ignore them? Who can say! You know at least two ways to dodge an element and if those recur, it's because they work, damnit.

    Ah well. No worries. Nothing is too good for the narrative, Tiassa, and gratitude is a disease of dogs. I enjoin you not to be offended - actually or 'functionally' - by the above. As an oxymoron, your behaviour coupled with your responsibilities on SF speak to SF far more eloquently and succinctly than I could ever do.
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to swing by.

    Unless I was walking past Ethics, Morality and Justice, say. In which case, well: reasonable risk avoidance, I guess.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    File Under "Duh"

    Civil is good, but useless if it's not also useful.

    Even the "clueluss" can figure that out.

    • • •​

    No redefinition necessary; I simply attended your words:

    "I assume from the above you've never heard of inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization."

    Remember, Geoff, this was your argument in defense of rape as a sexual urge, and offered in response to questions of why one would rape non-reproductive people.

    A sexual urge leading to "inappropriate breeding attempts" with non-reproductive people?

    Welcome to the Gay Fray, circa 1992? 1800? Fourth-century Rome?

    The thing is, Geoff, you argue in the moment, and don't seem to think through the implications of what you're saying. That's how you got yourself into that whole mess defending rape as a biological phenomenon.

    Furthermore, the most part of your arguments are more about your own pride. Perhaps if you undertook some substantial argument instead of egocentric fisking, you wouldn't embarrass yourself so badly. Which is a big source of the friction between us, it seems. You've been this way at least since you felt offended because I wouldn't let your denigration of suicidal teenagers stand unchallenged. And the other thing that is apparent from that 2007 episode is your tendency to argue in the moment, egocentrically and disruptively.

    The bottom line, Geoff, is that if you don't want to be held accountable for the implications of your arguments, then it would behoove you to consider those implications on the front-side instead of just whining about it afterward.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for givin me that credit... but it apears to be Geoffp who nailed it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    An thats fine... you are quite the character... Tiassa... lol.!!!
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Then perhaps you could explain why you have decided to jump into something that had already died down for the most part and then gone on a spray of rehashing the 'childish argument' by opening up an array of new threads dealing exactly with the 'childish arguments' and why you are now demanding that I apologise to them for their arguments? How is that helpful exactly?

    I am setting a good example by not bowing down to the likes of rape apologists who have spent weeks making excuses for rapists and in some instances, blaming the victims for the crimes committed against them. But you are free to continue sucking up to them if you like. It is what you do best.

    Go for what? Refusing to cater to those who make excuses for rapists and mass murderers and who took such glee out of abusing a rape victim? Sure, I'll always go for that.

    Don't you have a bridge to go and troll under? Or do you want to stir up some more trouble under the guise of making sciforums a better place to be? I mean is this all politeness?

    That's the thing with you. You demand to remain relevant to this place and the only way you are able to do that is by trolling and trying to rehash painful episodes and demanding I apologise for those who deliberately set out to cause me as much pain as they could because of who it is they are arguing against and then whining about their hurt feelings when their argument is displayed for what it is. Why don't you just go back to PM'ing and stirring up trouble in the background, because that is what you have always been best at. Your personal agenda is showing cluelesshusband and it is showing bright and clear. You have always had a mean and nasty streak. I did not expect any better from you.

    So go away and leave me alone.
  21. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member


    Jus one thang... is a certan level of incivility part of a Sciforums moderator/Admimistrater plan to help build site traffic.???
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    What About You, Clueluss?

    I'm sure that's an endorsement he wants.

    Then again, it's true that he and I differ on the idea of what is useful.

    To wit, he raises a controversial evolutionary justification for rape that he defends with homophobia. He thinks this is useful. I don't.

    He thinks it is useful to view the rape phenomenon through a predominately male lens—as demonstrated by his inability to consider the effects of Infinite Prevention Advocacy from a woman's perspective. I don't.

    He thinks it useful to defend those who would try to shame a rape survivor. I don't.

    It's clear that Geoff and I have different opinions of what is useful, but what about you, Clueluss?

    What, to you, is a "civil" discussion? Or a "useful" one?

    C'mon, give it a shot. After all, discussion of the rape phenomenon for the last six years has not been able to move past, "Women need to take precautions", without massive protest that we would dare move on to consider something more effective. And the whole biological thing? Great, we're back to 2008, when men were mere machines—"if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?"—and this, apparently, is useful. Because, you know, it's all to the women, since that's just how men are.

    It's occurred to me before, but if that's the policy, I never got the memo.

    Then again, it is pretty much official that the "Intelligent Community" idea is dead. Right now, as I understand it, the site is whatever its members want to make it. And if that means a brain-dead site where people celebrate their lack of rational faculties, the membership will eventually win.

    Indeed, you're doing a fine job for the cause right now.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Back to the basics

    I'll take some time with this response in order to conceivably generate understanding on your part, because while you definitely found some words, you don't seem to have really attended them too well. Firstly, this was in response to a comment about rape, not homosexuality, having no non-psychological basis:

    My comment above was that animals will, in extremis, attempt to mate with a wide variety of things, including other species, sometimes forcibly, as a response to Bells' question about mating with non-reproductives being definitive proof that rape is entirely and completely about power dynamics. The proposition is that this might exist as a partial and limited 'biological' motivation for sexual assault in humans, overlain by the massive and masking effects of psychological construction. It was not a statement on the cause of homosexuality, and I think even you probably realised this.

    So your inference begs the question: do you equivocate homosexuality with rape, then? Do you think these behaviours have the same psychological, biological, or generalised non-biological basis? Even if the proposition of the biological basis was accurate, there would be no reason to conclude either from my comments or generally that homosexuality was coincident with or even linked with the basis for rape in any greater way than the forms of heterosexual rape against non-reproductives, or reproductives for that matter. And so I don't jive with your ridiculous proposition about my statement, nor have I made such an argument, nor would I, because it would be ridiculous and offensive. The comment had nothing to do with the 'basis' of homosexuality, nor could it possibly be so interpreted, except by someone desperately scrambling to find leverage - in this case, a novel argument terminator - for his latest character attack. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you actually believe the above. I think you just pretend that you think I do, for the purposes we've discussed. (Be sure and pare this complicated discussion down too to fit your objectives. School pride and all, old boy.)

    Still, I suppose that none of this will really get absorbed - there are crucifixions on the schedule for the forums, after all - so that you will probably refer to it later on out of context and with all impunity: I certainly look forward to the next time(s) I have to waste my time walking you through it again. Is it masochistic to ask whether any of this is sinking in? But why should I ask? Clearly, by inquiring after the cessation of my defamation, I must be some kind of "attention whore", or "egocentrist". That naturally follows. If one were a sociopath, perhaps.

    Ironically, the bolded phrase is another of those deliberate little misrepresentations that you seem to like - specifically, a huge exaggeration as to the implications of causation - but at least you do the service of tacitly admitting that your motivations are more about a witch hunt than a discussion. For that, I can at least offer you a little credit. (I'd ask why you didn't go after Kitta for a much more weighted statement as to cause, but I know better.)

    Really, now? Pride in fighting against being labeled? It makes me laugh to see you attempt the 'big boy talk' as you endorse libel out of the other side of your mouth. Have you got any bearing at all on why I might be forced into such a position? Could it be because in every argument with the Mod Squad one of you attempts to put me in such a position? So what are you trying to say here, Tiassa? "Accept your libel and move on because I have?" Idiotic and risable.

    Yes, Tiassa, I know your stated basis for the hate you apparently attach to me. This is why, when I force you to pare your argument down to the admission of personalities, that same thread comes up where I don't consider gender as particularly important - and that is not denigration, and neither is it homophobia. I would go on drawing attention to the ridiculous construction that you wouldn't "let me denigrate suicidal teenagers", but it would be ultimately pointless, because it's not denigration, and because it's not really what this is about either. Would it help if I apologized for unintentionally bruising your feelings? I apologize for unintentionally bruising your poor feelings, ages and ages ago.

    So, all better? Can you discuss like an adult now, instead of resorting to trolling?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page