|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at.
or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with
|
On November 10 2017 06:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2017 05:20 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt,
Do you believe that the franchise should be limited to individuals who are not dependent upon government spending? Or do you believe that the two issues are completely unrelated and that the franchise is an absolute right, regardless of the level of dependence upon government spending?
I ask because you're heavily implying the former but refusing to come out and say it. This is the question I want an answer to. Igne's right about a few people and that's why xDaunt has been answering them and not this. I would like to see it answered as well. xD has managed to dodge answering Kwark because he can bite on what other people are saying instead, implicitly refusing to answer, so that's what he's done so far. He and Danglars can act like they're put out all they want, but it's a single straightforward question. It shouldn't be that hard to get an answer. That's what I take issue with, at the very least.
You have a poor understanding of single, straightforward questions.
|
United States43565 Posts
On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt.
Are we reading different articles? None of the women in that article gave consent. Or are you suggesting that asking, which he didn't do in all of those cases, is sufficient? The way I do consent you ask and then if they say no, you stop. You're not done just by asking, the answer matters.
|
United States43565 Posts
On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at. or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with
That's not at all what he said. Also since when has "denying rights is okay as long as the victims are privileged" been a xDaunt belief. If he meant that I'd have more questions, not less.
|
On November 10 2017 06:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:26 warding wrote:
I think the coming to light of all these accusations of sexual harassment and rape will probably lead to a better society where these things happen less often. Having said that. ..
It's a bad thing if the new normal is to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, right? Public justice does have drawbacks...
Do we simply banish from society every famous creep now? Is there no redemption possible? Louis ck's specials were really good. Can't he go to creep guy rehab, do a few months of community service and come back to host SNL again? Innocent until proven guilty is the standard set for the state bringing the power of force against a citizen for a crime they committed. Just like beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of public opinion has no judge. No rules of evidence that are enforced. No penalty for lying. The legal standard can’t apply because we can’t prove anything. We don’t even have a system in place to judge is something proven. So you are left with your own personal judgment.
I'll rephrase:
- The court of public opinion has dramatic flaws. Not only in judgement but in punishment;
- The internet and social media heavily exacerbate the court of public opinion as anyone can communicate an accusation against any other person in a permanent public record that can reach everyone everywhere.
We're currently cheering for the results of these societal and technological changes but they might end up being dystopic in a way.
In one of his SNL monologues, Louis CK makes a point about pedophiles not being able to help themselves, doing things thst ruin their lives for the short moment in which they engage in the crime. That point connects to the idea promoted by Sam Harris that we don't really have free will. The point that immediately follows is that we should be more empathetic towards criminals. I wonder how much CK's own creepiness informed his joke.
|
On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about why this isn't true, I think Kwark details that sufficiently above. What I will get at is, don't you ever wonder why you end nearly every conversation you're a part of with "well I said my piece, it's not my fault if literally everybody else was too stupid/mean to understand me"?
Like, I'm not trying to make this personal, obnoxious as I find it, but communication is a two-way street. I know you know this, you're not stupid. When someone claims that the reason no one understands them is because everyone else just didn't "get" them, they're usually full of shit in one way or another. You're the one making the claim or statement, so it's on you to make your position clear to a certain degree. When someone asks you for clarification, you don't go "well you're just stupid and need to reread what I said". Like Kwark said, either clarify your position, or retract it and admit you misspoke.
On November 10 2017 06:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:13 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2017 05:20 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt,
Do you believe that the franchise should be limited to individuals who are not dependent upon government spending? Or do you believe that the two issues are completely unrelated and that the franchise is an absolute right, regardless of the level of dependence upon government spending?
I ask because you're heavily implying the former but refusing to come out and say it. This is the question I want an answer to. Igne's right about a few people and that's why xDaunt has been answering them and not this. I would like to see it answered as well. xD has managed to dodge answering Kwark because he can bite on what other people are saying instead, implicitly refusing to answer, so that's what he's done so far. He and Danglars can act like they're put out all they want, but it's a single straightforward question. It shouldn't be that hard to get an answer. That's what I take issue with, at the very least. You have a poor understanding of single, straightforward questions.
Thank you for your input. I value it highly.
|
Starts post with "I don't want to get into a pissing match with you" provides to start a pissing match with person.
|
On November 10 2017 06:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Are we reading different articles? None of the women in that article gave consent. Or are you suggesting that asking, which he didn't do in all of those cases, is sufficient? The way I do consent you ask and then if they say no, you stop. You're not done just by asking.
i was just playing with your imprecision. you said "asking for permission" solves a lot of problems. but i dont disagree with you on this issue.
to correct the record though, consider the 2002 incident with the two women in the hotel room. the women apparently recall "screaming and laughing" (iirc) in response to him asking permission and then whipping his dick out. it seems like they might have responded to his question with incredulous jokes and sarcasm rather than a "no" and he took advantage
|
Now Steven Segal is getting accusations of sexual harassment. Those I definitely believe.
|
On November 10 2017 07:00 Sermokala wrote:
Starts post with "I don't want to get into a pissing match with you" provides to start a pissing match with person.
If you remove all other context, sure that's what it looks like. Saying I don't want to start something over this particular thing because it's already been addressed is not the same thing, as making a statement about how someone always seems to find themselves in the same verbal corner every time he says something he refuses to clarify.
|
Norway28739 Posts
Kwark I read 'A fifth woman, who remains anonymous, also spoke to the newspaper, alleging that he repeatedly asked her if he could masturbate in front of her. She eventually relented.' as her saying it was okay, even if she wasn't.
Aside from that, 'Comedians Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov told the paper that C.K. asked to take his penis out while they were all hanging out in a hotel room in 2002.
The comedy duo thought it was a joke until he actually did it.
“He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating,” Goodman said. “We were paralyzed.”
“I think the line gets crossed when you take all your clothes off and start masturbating,” Wolov concurred. “Because of this moment, as gross as it is, we feel compelled to speak.”' to me reads like they didn't object until he actually started doing it, and then the article doesn't say anything about whether he stopped.
Fourth one also seems like he just asked, not that he necessarily went through with it. Phone call didn't give consent but it's also over the phone, he could have just not mentioned it. It's all weird as hell and totally creepy behavior, but iunno, this doesn't qualify as sexual assault to me.
|
On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . .
I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later.
Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine.
Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
|
On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about why this isn't true, I think Kwark details that sufficiently above. What I will get at is, don't you ever wonder why you end nearly every conversation you're a part of with "well I said my piece, it's not my fault if literally everybody else was too stupid/mean to understand me"? Like, I'm not trying to make this personal, obnoxious as I find it, but communication is a two-way street. I know you know this, you're not stupid. When someone claims that the reason no one understands them is because everyone else just didn't "get" them, they're usually full of shit in one way or another. You're the one making the claim or statement, so it's on you to make your position clear to a certain degree. When someone asks you for clarification, you don't go "well you're just stupid and need to reread what I said". Like Kwark said, either clarify your position, or retract it and admit you misspoke.
Let me make this abundantly clear for everyone who still doesn't get it: I have neither the time nor the inclination to suffer fools. If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation with me, I'm more than happy to do so. When people stupidly read all sorts of inane shit into my posts rather than just read what I put out there, my reaction is not going to be so good -- if I react at all. I explained my position regarding DC quite directly, making it clear that I don't care, and that to the extent that there is any injustice, it is more than offset by DC's unique position in the country and the economic benefits derived therefrom. That is more than adequate. In light of those statements, Kwark's subsequent question was not only patently stupid but also inherently dishonest in how it was framed. Unsurprisingly, the smart posters in the thread understood that. The dumb ones ... not so much.
|
On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2017 06:13 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2017 05:20 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt,
Do you believe that the franchise should be limited to individuals who are not dependent upon government spending? Or do you believe that the two issues are completely unrelated and that the franchise is an absolute right, regardless of the level of dependence upon government spending?
I ask because you're heavily implying the former but refusing to come out and say it. This is the question I want an answer to. Igne's right about a few people and that's why xDaunt has been answering them and not this. I would like to see it answered as well. xD has managed to dodge answering Kwark because he can bite on what other people are saying instead, implicitly refusing to answer, so that's what he's done so far. He and Danglars can act like they're put out all they want, but it's a single straightforward question. It shouldn't be that hard to get an answer. That's what I take issue with, at the very least. You have a poor understanding of single, straightforward questions. Thank you for your input. I value it highly.
You’re welcome. I hope to have more back and forth discussions with you in the future, based on mutual understanding and not one-sided accusations of bad faith and purposeful obtuseness. There’s a lot to learn from each other in political viewpoints. Your recent affinity to generalizing poster bad behavior and engaging in pissing contests (to momentarily engage in this very thing myself to prove the point) is a departure.
|
On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at. or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with
dc residents don’t agree with this. they consistently push for statehood.
|
Do we know which State Roy Moore did whatever he did? In Georgia (shares a border with Alabama) the age of consent was 14 until 1995.
Would it matter?
|
On November 10 2017 06:58 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:39 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2017 06:26 warding wrote:
I think the coming to light of all these accusations of sexual harassment and rape will probably lead to a better society where these things happen less often. Having said that. ..
It's a bad thing if the new normal is to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, right? Public justice does have drawbacks...
Do we simply banish from society every famous creep now? Is there no redemption possible? Louis ck's specials were really good. Can't he go to creep guy rehab, do a few months of community service and come back to host SNL again? Innocent until proven guilty is the standard set for the state bringing the power of force against a citizen for a crime they committed. Just like beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of public opinion has no judge. No rules of evidence that are enforced. No penalty for lying. The legal standard can’t apply because we can’t prove anything. We don’t even have a system in place to judge is something proven. So you are left with your own personal judgment. The point that immediately follows is that we should be more empathetic towards criminals.
The way you apply that is with a norwegian type of prison system, heavily focused on rehabilitation. I agree with the reasoning but I don't think you can apply it to someone's image being damaged.
|
United States43565 Posts
On November 10 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about why this isn't true, I think Kwark details that sufficiently above. What I will get at is, don't you ever wonder why you end nearly every conversation you're a part of with "well I said my piece, it's not my fault if literally everybody else was too stupid/mean to understand me"? Like, I'm not trying to make this personal, obnoxious as I find it, but communication is a two-way street. I know you know this, you're not stupid. When someone claims that the reason no one understands them is because everyone else just didn't "get" them, they're usually full of shit in one way or another. You're the one making the claim or statement, so it's on you to make your position clear to a certain degree. When someone asks you for clarification, you don't go "well you're just stupid and need to reread what I said". Like Kwark said, either clarify your position, or retract it and admit you misspoke. Let me make this abundantly clear for everyone who still doesn't get it: I have neither the time nor the inclination to suffer fools. If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation with me, I'm more than happy to do so. When people stupidly read all sorts of inane shit into my posts rather than just read what I put out there, my reaction is not going to be so good -- if I react at all. I explained my position regarding DC quite directly, making it clear that I don't care, and that to the extent that there is any injustice, it is more than offset by DC's unique position in the country and the economic benefits derived therefrom. That is more than adequate. In light of those statements, Kwark's subsequent question was not only patently stupid but also inherently dishonest in how it was framed. Unsurprisingly, the smart posters in the thread understood that. The dumb ones ... not so much.
The lack of voting rights is "offset" by the economic benefits they receive?
Also my follow up question was not only not dishonest, it was also completely easy. It was so you believe voting rights are absolute. That's not a difficult question designed to trick you. Just say yes. How can you not just say yes to that.
Your level of dishonesty is absolutely incomprehensible to me. "Are voting rights absolute?" isn't a trick question, it's a chance for you to say "yes" and for all of us to move the fuck on. But instead you refuse to answer and insult me for asking it.
|
On November 10 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . . I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later. Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine. Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
sure maybe not. but the majority of flirting actually hapoens outside bars. let's also read these events in light of the decline in teen sex associated w increased screen time:
Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
Today’s teens are also less likely to date. The initial stage of courtship, which Gen Xers called “liking” (as in “Ooh, he likes you!”), kids now call “talking”—an ironic choice for a generation that prefers texting to actual conversation. After two teens have “talked” for a while, they might start dating. But only about 56 percent of high-school seniors in 2015 went out on dates; for Boomers and Gen Xers, the number was about 85 percent.
The decline in dating tracks with a decline in sexual activity. The drop is the sharpest for ninth-graders, among whom the number of sexually active teens has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1991. The average teen now has had sex for the first time by the spring of 11th grade, a full year later than the average Gen Xer. Fewer teens having sex has contributed to what many see as one of the most positive youth trends in recent years: The teen birth rate hit an all-time low in 2016, down 67 percent since its modern peak, in 1991.
you can argue whether teen sex declining is good or bad, maybe its good. but the whole thing is set in a context of decreased risk-taking, autonomy, and agency.
|
On November 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about why this isn't true, I think Kwark details that sufficiently above. What I will get at is, don't you ever wonder why you end nearly every conversation you're a part of with "well I said my piece, it's not my fault if literally everybody else was too stupid/mean to understand me"? Like, I'm not trying to make this personal, obnoxious as I find it, but communication is a two-way street. I know you know this, you're not stupid. When someone claims that the reason no one understands them is because everyone else just didn't "get" them, they're usually full of shit in one way or another. You're the one making the claim or statement, so it's on you to make your position clear to a certain degree. When someone asks you for clarification, you don't go "well you're just stupid and need to reread what I said". Like Kwark said, either clarify your position, or retract it and admit you misspoke. Let me make this abundantly clear for everyone who still doesn't get it: I have neither the time nor the inclination to suffer fools. If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation with me, I'm more than happy to do so. When people stupidly read all sorts of inane shit into my posts rather than just read what I put out there, my reaction is not going to be so good -- if I react at all. I explained my position regarding DC quite directly, making it clear that I don't care, and that to the extent that there is any injustice, it is more than offset by DC's unique position in the country and the economic benefits derived therefrom. That is more than adequate. In light of those statements, Kwark's subsequent question was not only patently stupid but also inherently dishonest in how it was framed. Unsurprisingly, the smart posters in the thread understood that. The dumb ones ... not so much. The lack of voting rights is "offset" by the economic benefits they receive?
It makes sense if you believe all inhabitants of DC are lobbyists or the lawyers who provide them services.
it kinda falls apart the moment anyone middle/working class lives in the area.
But I'm sure xDaunt knows that no such people could ever live in DC. /s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
