|
On June 19 2013 01:29 Cynry wrote:
@Reason : Oh yeah seems I totally was the one offended for nothing here, understood your post completely the wrong way.
My bad !
I'm guilty of exactly the same thing on page 46 so unless I want to be a massive hypocrite, no problem! 
|
On June 19 2013 01:16 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 01:10 Reason wrote:Off topic stuff about the inappropriately dressed horse (never thought I'd write that) + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more  I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. If he (you, yes YOU marvellosity  ) understood the reference then this post makes no sense: On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. On June 19 2013 00:34 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. You're welcome  . I laughed too, for the record. Reason I get where you're coming from. I don't think any one here is a rape apologist though. But if you found the joke offensive I understand. Noooooooooooooooo  Lol. I'm offended because whenever people mention that women can take sensible precautions or alternatively put themselves at a higher chance of rape people usually respond with OMG VICTIM BLAMER ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOUR SICK, when in actual fact it's a very valid point and has nothing to do with blame. Hearing you refer to such people as rape apologists makes me want to tear my eyes out. Having somebody "satirise victim blamers" is what pisses me off! In case I didn't make this clear I'll quote you my post from the top of this page... On June 18 2013 23:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 22:54 ihufa wrote:
if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy Rape jokes aren't funny. I must be a terrible person then, because I giggled. It's patently ridiculous because it's a horse, cmon man ^^ I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion. MiraMax I'll try to form a reply soon, please spoiler that quote of me if you can it's bigger than my monitor :O + Show Spoiler +
It makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't it? I was pointing out that it was ridiculous, it wouldn't be funny without the implied connection to a serious case... the 'benefit of the doubt' was that he was making a joke, not having a dig at whoever.
While we're in the spoiler, there's a difference between blaming the victim for being raped (bad) and it being a fact of life that women *could* lessen the risk (even though in a perfect world they shouldn't have to). Don't mix and match the two!
+ Show Spoiler +Being that this kind of sidebar is discussing very sensitive issues that can derail threads, could it be possible to move this discussion to PM's instead?
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 19 2013 01:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 01:16 marvellosity wrote:On June 19 2013 01:10 Reason wrote:Off topic stuff about the inappropriately dressed horse (never thought I'd write that) + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. If he (you, yes YOU marvellosity ) understood the reference then this post makes no sense: On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. On June 19 2013 00:34 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. You're welcome . I laughed too, for the record. Reason I get where you're coming from. I don't think any one here is a rape apologist though. But if you found the joke offensive I understand. Noooooooooooooooo Lol. I'm offended because whenever people mention that women can take sensible precautions or alternatively put themselves at a higher chance of rape people usually respond with OMG VICTIM BLAMER ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOUR SICK, when in actual fact it's a very valid point and has nothing to do with blame. Hearing you refer to such people as rape apologists makes me want to tear my eyes out. Having somebody "satirise victim blamers" is what pisses me off! In case I didn't make this clear I'll quote you my post from the top of this page... On June 18 2013 23:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 22:54 ihufa wrote:
if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy Rape jokes aren't funny. I must be a terrible person then, because I giggled. It's patently ridiculous because it's a horse, cmon man ^^ I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion. MiraMax I'll try to form a reply soon, please spoiler that quote of me if you can it's bigger than my monitor :O + Show Spoiler +
It makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't it? I was pointing out that it was ridiculous, it wouldn't be funny without the implied connection to a serious case... the 'benefit of the doubt' was that he was making a joke, not having a dig at whoever.
While we're in the spoiler, there's a difference between blaming the victim for being raped (bad) and it being a fact of life that women *could* lessen the risk (even though in a perfect world they shouldn't have to). Don't mix and match the two!
mmmm okay I understand about the benefit of the doubt thing now. What I'm saying though is that when people state this "fact of life" they are often referred to as "victim blamers", I'm not mixing and matching the two but this very kind of stupid joke satirising "victim blamers" does exactly that as far as I'm concerned.
+ Show Spoiler +I think the difference is merely that I chose to laugh at the ridiculous component of it, without making any sort of value judgement to what it was referring to. It was the serious -> ridiculous I was chuckling at, wasn't reading any message into it ^_^
edit: sorry Magpie, that'll be the end of it <3
|
Nevermind.
/horse rape joke derailment
|
A horse doesn't care if you have sex with it, he might even enjoy himself, it's not cruelty. Rather, I think that bestiality is an assault on the dignity of animals. I think you could say the same thing about zoos and circus animals too, and to a lesser extent about pets, testing animals and farm animals. In all those cases the animal performs a function for which it is exploited.
Given that we are perfectly okay with all those other things I fail to see why bestiality should be singled out as different. This is just moral panic, and I honestly wonder about the motives of the politicians that initiated this debate. Who were the people that went out of their way to complain about the minuscule number of incidents of bestiality which don't already fall under the scope of actual animal abuse and decided that this was a dangerous loophole and that legislative time should be spent on rectifying this?
|
On June 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
A horse doesn't care if you have sex with it, he might even enjoy himself, it's not cruelty. Rather, I think that bestiality is an assault on the dignity of animals. I think you could say the same thing about zoos and circus animals too, and to a lesser extent about pets, testing animals and farm animals. In all those cases the animal performs a function for which it is exploited.
Given that we are perfectly okay with all those other things I fail to see why bestiality should be singled out as different. This is just moral panic, and I honestly wonder about the motives of the politicians that initiated this debate. Who were the people that went out of their way to complain about the minuscule number of incidents of bestiality which don't already fall under the scope of actual animal abuse and decided that this was a dangerous loophole and that legislative time should be spent on rectifying this?
I don't think you can say that a horse doesn't care if you have sex with it. It probably does care in some way, good or bad.
I also don't see that the common argument, that we are "okey" with other cruelties that are more common and arguably worse would speak for bestality to be okey in any way.
I do agree though that it's a very weird debate to have today, given the much more seious problems facing us in almost the same field. Unfortunately it is our Minister of Agriculture, Eskil Erlandsson who initiated this debate in our parliament and who don't seem to speak a single word of wisdom in any important matter. (my opinion) And i have no idea about his motives. But he awkwardly mostly gives the impression that he trying to defend, or at least problematize bestiality (probably at the expense of tackling bigger problems)
|
On June 19 2013 03:56 KoRDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
A horse doesn't care if you have sex with it, he might even enjoy himself, it's not cruelty. Rather, I think that bestiality is an assault on the dignity of animals. I think you could say the same thing about zoos and circus animals too, and to a lesser extent about pets, testing animals and farm animals. In all those cases the animal performs a function for which it is exploited.
Given that we are perfectly okay with all those other things I fail to see why bestiality should be singled out as different. This is just moral panic, and I honestly wonder about the motives of the politicians that initiated this debate. Who were the people that went out of their way to complain about the minuscule number of incidents of bestiality which don't already fall under the scope of actual animal abuse and decided that this was a dangerous loophole and that legislative time should be spent on rectifying this? I don't think you can say that a horse doesn't care if you have sex with it. It probably does care in some way, good or bad. I also don't see that the common argument, that we are "okey" with other cruelties that are more common and arguably worse would speak for bestality to be okey in any way. I do agree though that it's a very weird debate to have today, given the much more seious problems facing us in almost the same field. Unfortunately it is our Minister of Agriculture, Eskil Erlandsson who initiated this debate in our parliament and who don't seem to speak a single word of wisdom in any important matter. (my opinion) And i have no idea about his motives. But he awkwardly mostly gives the impression that he trying to defend, or at least problematize bestiality (probably at the expense of tackling bigger problems)
That makes sense.
Politicians do it all the time, appease one aspect of a problem to show you care without tackling the other aspects of the problem because you're most likely bought out.
Kind of like how american conservatives want to be pro-life, but won't increase welfare to single mothers who end up with a kid due to lack of abortion as an option. So long as they say no to abortion they can say that they care about children without actually having to help out children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
