Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 21, 2010 at 11:13 pm (This post was last modified: May 21, 2010 at 11:15 pm by Dotard.)
(May 21, 2010 at 11:06 pm)tavarish Wrote: You called me an idiot, great. Any other relevant discussion elements to throw into the mix?
Yeah, she's a name-caller. I forget what it was she called me earlier in this thread. Idiot, dumb-fuck, retard or something like that. It's not important enough for me to go back looking for the exact quote.
Funny shtuffs...
How come I'm not invited to the live chats anymore?
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
--------------- NO MA'AM
(May 21, 2010 at 11:06 pm)tavarish Wrote: You called me an idiot, great. Any other relevant discussion elements to throw into the mix?
Yeah, she's a name-caller. I forget what it was she called me earlier in this thread. Idiot, dumb-fuck, retard or something like that. It's not important enough for me to go back looking for the exact quote.
Funny shtuffs...
How come I'm not invited to the live chats anymore?
The client doesn't work anymore, you have to use the alternate, it has a link for it right when you click "chat".
Something like "If the chat doesn't work, click here".
I agree with Tarvish, responsibility is different to blame of course, blame has the negative connotation of it being someones "fault". You can be the victim and still be partially responsible for what happened to you in the sense you didn't take enough precautions or were careless or whatever so it increased the likelihood of you getting hurt, NOT in the sense of "blame" in the sense of it's your "fault".
Emotions always get in the fucking way of arguments IMO. Even with the most cood headed people it can be an issue. I fucking love emotions, but when you mix them in with debates everything is fucked up to fucking fuck.
May 22, 2010 at 5:48 am (This post was last modified: May 22, 2010 at 5:49 am by tackattack.)
(May 21, 2010 at 11:06 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 21, 2010 at 10:11 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: How about you look at a dictionary.
Quote:blame [bleym] Show IPA verb,blamed, blam·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don't blame you for leaving him.
2.
to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually fol. by on): I blame the accident on her.
You're an idiot, and I mean that in the nice- ....no, I don't.
Words mean things, NOW I GET IT!
How about instead of ranting about how words mean things, you read what the fucking text says and analyze its CONTEXT.
Do I know that blame is necessarily putting responsibility on a certain party? Of course.
Did I say that rape is a victim's fault? NO. In fact I argued the opposite. Rape is bad in nearly any context and is unjustifiable.
Did I say that a woman should be aware of her surroundings and watch her back when she gets extra attention? YES.
NOT the same thing. There are definitely times when women don't do all they can to avert a situation like this from happening. This does not shift blame or make the act justifiable, it just allows a frightening statistic to increase as a result of negligience, apathy, or ignorance.
I know your vagina practically origami'd itself when this thread was made, but please try and keep the emotions under control, all I said was for women, particularly attractive ones, to exercise caution when they leave the house wearing attire that attracts attention.
If you don't understand the difference between these things, I honestly don't know what else to say. Every post gets a "ZOMG YOU BLAMED THE VICTIM" when that's the complete opposite of what I was saying.
If I advised you to get an alarm for your house, would you tell me that I was telling you it's your fault if you get robbed?
You called me an idiot, great. Any other relevant discussion elements to throw into the mix?
Use your fucking head.
Hate to chime in with my 2 cents, but some atheists aren't great with contextual reading, Eil seems to be one that definately good at that. I think I'm with Eil on this one. For directly personal violation, responsibility should be a one sided, all or nothing thing. I think when dealing with direct violations of personal rights/ freedoms, (hate crimes, rape, zealotry, etc.) the better route would be one of absolute personal accountability and one-sided responsibility. On less direct violations/ crimes you can possibly spread the responsibility out with intent, not in this case, IMO.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 22, 2010 at 5:48 am)tackattack Wrote: For directly personal violation, responsibility should be a one sided, all or nothing thing. I think when dealing with direct violations of personal rights/ freedoms, (hate crimes, rape, zealotry, etc.) the better route would be one of absolute personal accountability and one-sided responsibility. On less direct violations/ crimes you can possibly spread the responsibility out with intent, not in this case, IMO.
I completely agree with the above quote of yours, Tack. Stop that, you christians. I don't like it when I agree with you. It's much easier when I disagree with everything you say.
May 22, 2010 at 9:12 am (This post was last modified: May 22, 2010 at 9:13 am by tackattack.)
uh oh... I must be a POE then
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 21, 2010 at 10:11 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: How about you look at a dictionary.
Quote:blame [bleym] Show IPA verb,blamed, blam·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don't blame you for leaving him.
2.
to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually fol. by on): I blame the accident on her.
You're an idiot, and I mean that in the nice- ....no, I don't.
Words mean things, NOW I GET IT!
How about instead of ranting about how words mean things, you read what the fucking text says and analyze its CONTEXT.
Do I know that blame is necessarily putting responsibility on a certain party? Of course.
Did I say that rape is a victim's fault? NO. In fact I argued the opposite. Rape is bad in nearly any context and is unjustifiable.
Did I say that a woman should be aware of her surroundings and watch her back when she gets extra attention? YES.
NOT the same thing. There are definitely times when women don't do all they can to avert a situation like this from happening. This does not shift blame or make the act justifiable, it just allows a frightening statistic to increase as a result of negligience, apathy, or ignorance.
I know your vagina practically origami'd itself when this thread was made, but please try and keep the emotions under control, all I said was for women, particularly attractive ones, to exercise caution when they leave the house wearing attire that attracts attention.
If you don't understand the difference between these things, I honestly don't know what else to say. Every post gets a "ZOMG YOU BLAMED THE VICTIM" when that's the complete opposite of what I was saying.
If I advised you to get an alarm for your house, would you tell me that I was telling you it's your fault if you get robbed?
You called me an idiot, great. Any other relevant discussion elements to throw into the mix?
Use your fucking head.
Hate to chime in with my 2 cents, but some atheists aren't great with contextual reading, Eil seems to be one that definately good at that. I think I'm with Eil on this one. For directly personal violation, responsibility should be a one sided, all or nothing thing. I think when dealing with direct violations of personal rights/ freedoms, (hate crimes, rape, zealotry, etc.) the better route would be one of absolute personal accountability and one-sided responsibility. On less direct violations/ crimes you can possibly spread the responsibility out with intent, not in this case, IMO.
Tack, do you recognize that there's a difference between telling someone to watch out for danger, and blaming that same person when that danger happens to them? I'm not blaming the victim. I'm advising them to watch out and be alert. That's my argument, at a very basic level so everyone can be on the same page. My initial gripe was with some attractive women and how they were apparently oblivious of the clothes they left the house with, as the attention came as somewhat of a surprise to them. That's it. I'm not blaming someone when they get sexually assaulted.
Nor, did I state you were blaming anyone. When you give somone advice, warning, instruction though that's unsolicited; it's percieved with intent. You have to realize that first. If a girl said man theese guys keep grabbing my ass, what should I do tav to get them to stop? That's when you can easily rationally explain the male-female dynamics, without any talk of blame or slighting their feelings of accountability. When that same advice is on the side or unsolicited, then it forces the person to assess your reasons for saying that, which usually involoves accountability. They're already a victim so they would naturally assume your accountability rests with them. It's not what you're saying tav.. I get it. It's how and when you say it, your tact, that is the crux of this I think.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
May 22, 2010 at 10:10 am (This post was last modified: May 22, 2010 at 10:18 am by Dotard.)
(May 22, 2010 at 9:34 am)tackattack Wrote: It's how and when you say it, your tact, that is the crux of this I think.
If the problem is with tack, then attack the tack, tackattack, not the position.
Unsolicited? This is a debate forum, don't enter into discussions if you're gonna get all butt-hurt over the opinions of others. And I believe you may have failed to noticed the biggest sore-ass in this discussion was the one who started it.
I didn't start this thread with "Tips for rape prevention". My OP was asking about women objectifying themselves when it comes to beauty pageants, mens magazines and the like. Posting an unsolicited de-railing comment about rape in an open discussion forum effectively solicited the responses.
(May 22, 2010 at 2:54 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I agree with Tarvish, responsibility is different to blame of course, blame has the negative connotation of it being someones "fault". You can be the victim and still be partially responsible for what happened to you in the sense you didn't take enough precautions or were careless or whatever so it increased the likelihood of you getting hurt, NOT in the sense of "blame" in the sense of it's your "fault".
Quote:Emotions always get in the fucking way of arguments IMO. Even with the most cood headed people it can be an issue.
Sometimes. Not always. I have absolutely no emotional attachment to this discussion.
Quote: I fucking love emotions, but when you mix them in with debates everything is fucked up to fucking fuck.
Fucking fucked up fuckity fucked up fuck.
Did we mention that's pretty fucked up?
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
--------------- NO MA'AM
(May 22, 2010 at 9:15 am)tavarish Wrote: Tack, do you recognize that there's a difference between telling someone to watch out for danger, and blaming that same person when that danger happens to them? I'm not blaming the victim. I'm advising them to watch out and be alert. That's my argument, at a very basic level so everyone can be on the same page. My initial gripe was with some attractive women and how they were apparently oblivious of the clothes they left the house with, as the attention came as somewhat of a surprise to them. That's it. I'm not blaming someone when they get sexually assaulted.
Even though you personally are not blaming the victim, any expectation for the victim to have to be more alert than men have to be for their whole lives, will not go over well, especially when to do so would be to avoid the very things society tells us we should do, like dress attractive.
That expectation for the victim to prevent the rape from happening is too often used as the reason to blame the victim, even if you weren't trying to do that. There is too much history of, and current situation of, blame being put on the victim of rape for not protecting herself enough. In some countries, women are in this day and age being punished with the death sentence for being a victim of rape with all blame assigned to the victim for having 'tempted' her attacker (another thank you to those abrafuckinghamic god believers). The wound is too fresh to women in the world for a statement about how it shouldn't have been a surprise. Anyways, it's not ever been concluded that sexy clothing catches the attention of potential rapists any more than a loud attention-getting voice might. Or being noticeably short. Or being noticeably fat. Or any other thing that might catch a criminal's eye. I doubt that rapists, like any other person on this planet, have their horniness restricted only to a particular style of clothing. Lots and lots of guys get horny over plain, even 'ugly', women, as proven by how many have kids. Any woman with a vagina is vulnerable to rape. Disabled wheelchairbound women get raped at a higher percentage than other women. Are they extra sexy looking?
Even if risk/vulnerability were not being used against victims to shift blame to them, in the case of rape and attractiveness, no measurements have ever been done. It would first require defining what's considered attractive by men who want to rape. Visually and clothingwise this would be difficult to do. The only thing that has ever been determined for sure about what rapists often find attractive is vulnerability in, personality weaknesses like won't fight back/scares easy/appears to lack confidence/low self esteem/won't tell, and physical ones like smaller size than attacker for ease in overpowering. I read this stuff years and years ago though and I'm completely paraphrasing, so I can't cite anything. If true, then a sexily dressed, strong looking and confident looking woman will be much safer than a plainly dressed and scared looking physically weak woman.
![[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img824.imageshack.us%2Fimg824%2F7042%2Fattemptingtogiveadamnc.gif)
uh oh... I must be a POE then 
