|
On June 20 2013 23:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc. edit: Saying those words in "that voice" or in "that manner", and I know what you're talking about here, sure that could imply that you are blaming them. Alternatively you could just interpret that the person is chastising them in a sort of you-didn't-take-the-precautions-you-could-have way, which although insensitive would be correct. That's why I think it's better to communicate clearly and not object to something because "if said in a certain voice it could be interpreted in multiple ways and one of them is that you're blaming the victim". If something is unambiguously victim blaming then fair enough, ridicule it for what it is, but leave everything else alone. A.) Advice such as "lock your doors" and what not are advice given because its a common practice and, more specifically, it's a practice you yourself employ. Telling a woman not to walk around without an escort is the same kind of Victorian BS they've been told since the 1800's. Telling women how to dress despite the majority of rape cases being done by close friends and lovers is also BS--it would be much more helpful to tell them not to have friends, not to have relationships, and not to trust people in any way since statistically that would prevent rape more than what they fucking wear. How would you know how not to get raped? Are you raped often? Have gotten attacked often? Women get cat called and harassed daily, constantly. They get leered at daily, constantly. Some get grabbed, have their ass slapped, etc... Daily, constantly. The you really think the looks they get when walking down a sidewalk at night is any different than the looks they get walking down a sidewalk in daytime? Do you think that they somehow don't know that bad things can happen at night? That somehow it is your fount of wisdom that finally revealed to them this knowledge? Women already have this knowledge the same way you already have this knowledge. Unless you've already been raped before you have no special information that isn't already privy to everyone. And that's assuming "walking home at night" is what gets you raped when in all likelihood hanging out with a friend/lover is more likely to get you raped statistically.
I disagree with you. Avoiding being out late at night is exactly the same as locking your doors, I do both. The same arguments for doing so apply to both so you've just contradicted yourself.
If you can't see why you're more likely to get raped/robbed late at night alone than during the day with friends then i'm flabbergasted.
|
On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. You wouldn't punish a rapist less severely because the woman was walking alone late at night rather than alone in the middle of the day, that would be victim blaming. That would be saying "you are partially responsible, so we punish him less". The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc.
Walking home late at night is irrelevant because the main example that I've been talking about for pages and pages is asking about what she is wearing. Like I said, it's all about context. The question of "What was she wearing?" almost always implies victim-blaming because of 1) its historical use, 2) the tone it is said with, and 3) the lack of evidence linking the types of clothing worn with your chance of getting raped.
So yea, simply stating that locking your doors will make you less likely to be robbed or that not walking home alone late at night will make you less likely to be raped (which is contentious since the majority of women that are raped are raped by people they know). However, with the example in question, this is irrelevant, and the very question "What was she wearing?" is an act of victim-blaming.
|
You didn't really apologise, you said I made a mistake which resulted in your confusion, then "apologised" for your confusion even though you literally just said it was my fault.
Wow, what a perfect example! So you're saying that even though I apologized, I implied that it was you that was in error! So you're arguing the connotation and implications of what I said was completely insincere. This is actually a great demonstration of how victim blaming works. You feel insulted that you are to blame for the violation that someone else committed!
Though, I was actually being sincere. I was simply explaining my mistake, but I acknowledged it was my mistake, not yours. Still very interesting.
|
On June 21 2013 00:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote + You didn't really apologise, you said I made a mistake which resulted in your confusion, then "apologised" for your confusion even though you literally just said it was my fault. Wow, what a perfect example! So you're saying that even though I apologized, I implied that it was you that was in error! So you're arguing the connotation and implications of what I said was completely insincere. This is actually a great demonstration of how victim blaming works. You feel insulted that you are to blame for the violation that someone else committed! Though, I was actually being sincere. I was simply explaining my mistake, but I acknowledged it was my mistake, not yours. Still very interesting.
haha no
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim.
That's what you said. I made the statement. Therefore you attributed the mistake to me, not you. Nice try though. ok really g2g now
|
On June 21 2013 00:12 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 23:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc. edit: Saying those words in "that voice" or in "that manner", and I know what you're talking about here, sure that could imply that you are blaming them. Alternatively you could just interpret that the person is chastising them in a sort of you-didn't-take-the-precautions-you-could-have way, which although insensitive would be correct. That's why I think it's better to communicate clearly and not object to something because "if said in a certain voice it could be interpreted in multiple ways and one of them is that you're blaming the victim". If something is unambiguously victim blaming then fair enough, ridicule it for what it is, but leave everything else alone. A.) Advice such as "lock your doors" and what not are advice given because its a common practice and, more specifically, it's a practice you yourself employ. Telling a woman not to walk around without an escort is the same kind of Victorian BS they've been told since the 1800's. Telling women how to dress despite the majority of rape cases being done by close friends and lovers is also BS--it would be much more helpful to tell them not to have friends, not to have relationships, and not to trust people in any way since statistically that would prevent rape more than what they fucking wear. How would you know how not to get raped? Are you raped often? Have gotten attacked often? Women get cat called and harassed daily, constantly. They get leered at daily, constantly. Some get grabbed, have their ass slapped, etc... Daily, constantly. The you really think the looks they get when walking down a sidewalk at night is any different than the looks they get walking down a sidewalk in daytime? Do you think that they somehow don't know that bad things can happen at night? That somehow it is your fount of wisdom that finally revealed to them this knowledge? Women already have this knowledge the same way you already have this knowledge. Unless you've already been raped before you have no special information that isn't already privy to everyone. And that's assuming "walking home at night" is what gets you raped when in all likelihood hanging out with a friend/lover is more likely to get you raped statistically. woah there cowboy, i'm going out now maybe i'll edit this with a better response later. summary: I disagree with you. Avoid being out late at night is exactly the same as lock your doors, I do both. same arguments apply to both, you're contradicting yourself heavily in this post. also, if you can't see why you're more likely to get raped/robbed late at night alone than during the day with friends then i'm flabbergasted stratos ill respond to you too later sorry i rly g2g thanks for responses ttyl
Most rapes are done by friends or lovers. Yes, statistically speaking, you're less likely to be raped walking home at night than hanging out with a friend--even a close one. Why? Because most women are raped by people they know.
And yet, despite that statistic, people are making this assumption that what a girl wears or that she doesn't have an escort is the reason they get raped. It is shifting the blame away from rapists and towards the victims.
|
Reason, in that example, you are the victim and I am blaming you. Notice how unfair it is.
|
This isn't as complicated as people think it is.
1. Any legal opposition to abortion must be relating to the definition of personhood and the liberties granted to all persons.
2. Depending on when you legally define a fetus/baby as a person, at some point in a fetus/baby's development it is illegal to kill/harm them because they have the same legal liberties as an adult.
3. You can not legally justify violating the constitutional life/liberty of a fetus/baby (if at/past the state where it is legally defined as a person) simply because the fetus/baby was criminally conceived.
I'd like to know what is preventing the majority of rape victims from using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy after rape (assuming there was no kidnapping/long time holding involved).
Incest is another issue altogether. If it is between two consensual adults and it is illegal then the adults can be charged with the crime. The fetus/baby, if at/past the stage of personhood (whenever it is legally defined) has a constitutional right to life/liberty.
FWIW
|
On June 21 2013 00:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 00:12 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc. edit: Saying those words in "that voice" or in "that manner", and I know what you're talking about here, sure that could imply that you are blaming them. Alternatively you could just interpret that the person is chastising them in a sort of you-didn't-take-the-precautions-you-could-have way, which although insensitive would be correct. That's why I think it's better to communicate clearly and not object to something because "if said in a certain voice it could be interpreted in multiple ways and one of them is that you're blaming the victim". If something is unambiguously victim blaming then fair enough, ridicule it for what it is, but leave everything else alone. A.) Advice such as "lock your doors" and what not are advice given because its a common practice and, more specifically, it's a practice you yourself employ. Telling a woman not to walk around without an escort is the same kind of Victorian BS they've been told since the 1800's. Telling women how to dress despite the majority of rape cases being done by close friends and lovers is also BS--it would be much more helpful to tell them not to have friends, not to have relationships, and not to trust people in any way since statistically that would prevent rape more than what they fucking wear. How would you know how not to get raped? Are you raped often? Have gotten attacked often? Women get cat called and harassed daily, constantly. They get leered at daily, constantly. Some get grabbed, have their ass slapped, etc... Daily, constantly. The you really think the looks they get when walking down a sidewalk at night is any different than the looks they get walking down a sidewalk in daytime? Do you think that they somehow don't know that bad things can happen at night? That somehow it is your fount of wisdom that finally revealed to them this knowledge? Women already have this knowledge the same way you already have this knowledge. Unless you've already been raped before you have no special information that isn't already privy to everyone. And that's assuming "walking home at night" is what gets you raped when in all likelihood hanging out with a friend/lover is more likely to get you raped statistically. woah there cowboy, i'm going out now maybe i'll edit this with a better response later. summary: I disagree with you. Avoid being out late at night is exactly the same as lock your doors, I do both. same arguments apply to both, you're contradicting yourself heavily in this post. also, if you can't see why you're more likely to get raped/robbed late at night alone than during the day with friends then i'm flabbergasted stratos ill respond to you too later sorry i rly g2g thanks for responses ttyl Most rapes are done by friends or lovers. Yes, statistically speaking, you're less likely to be raped walking home at night than hanging out with a friend--even a close one. Why? Because most women are raped by people they know. And yet, despite that statistic, people are making this assumption that what a girl wears or that she doesn't have an escort is the reason they get raped. It is shifting the blame away from rapists and towards the victims.
That is some pants-on-heads ass-backwards statistics. Learn to use Bayes' rule.
You are switching cause and effect around soooo badly. What you're forgetting is that there are millions and millions of occasions when women who hang out with friends/lovers and are NOT raped. The conditional probability that if a woman was raped, it was more likely to be a friend/lover does NOT imply that having a friend/lover makes you more likely to be raped.
I don't actually have the numbers, but I am fairly certain that hanging out with a friend/lover is a neglible risk factor for being raped, whereas walking home alone in the dark is a fairly serious one.
EDIT: despite rape occurring less often to women walking home alone in the dark, than to women hanging out with friends/lovers. Simply because the "population" of occurrences of women hanging out with a friend/lover is some orders of magnitude larger than the "population" of women walking home alone in the dark.
|
On June 21 2013 00:50 MarinePrince wrote:
This isn't as complicated as people think it is.
1. Any legal opposition to abortion must be relating to the definition of personhood and the liberties granted to all persons.
2. Depending on when you legally define a fetus/baby as a person, at some point in a fetus/baby's development it is illegal to kill/harm them because they have the same legal liberties as an adult.
3. You can not legally justify violating the constitutional life/liberty of a fetus/baby (if at/past the state where it is legally defined as a person) simply because the fetus/baby was criminally conceived.
I'd like to know what is preventing the majority of rape victims from using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy after rape (assuming there was no kidnapping/long time holding involved).
Incest is another issue altogether. If it is between two consensual adults and it is illegal then the adults can be charged with the crime. The fetus/baby, if at/past the stage of personhood (whenever it is legally defined) has a constitutional right to life/liberty.
FWIW
For rape victims,
Self hatred and shock make them hide/pretend nothing happened. They already blame themselves all the incident, especially since most of them are raped by a friend of theirs. They feel like they must have done something wrong and when they try to talk to people about they get asked "what were you wearing" they feel reinforced, that maybe they lead him on. And so they don't say anything, and a rapist gets to walk free.
Time passes as they keep pretending nothing happened. Suddenly they're pregnant--and now they can't pretend anymore and have to go through the entire process of shock all over again.
|
On June 21 2013 00:50 MarinePrince wrote:
This isn't as complicated as people think it is.
1. Any legal opposition to abortion must be relating to the definition of personhood and the liberties granted to all persons.
2. Depending on when you legally define a fetus/baby as a person, at some point in a fetus/baby's development it is illegal to kill/harm them because they have the same legal liberties as an adult.
3. You can not legally justify violating the constitutional life/liberty of a fetus/baby (if at/past the state where it is legally defined as a person) simply because the fetus/baby was criminally conceived.
I'd like to know what is preventing the majority of rape victims from using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy after rape (assuming there was no kidnapping/long time holding involved).
Incest is another issue altogether. If it is between two consensual adults and it is illegal then the adults can be charged with the crime. The fetus/baby, if at/past the stage of personhood (whenever it is legally defined) has a constitutional right to life/liberty.
FWIW
That is incredibly complex, even if we only take the case of rape, because you are telling a woman that she is forced to carry a child (going through the incredible struggles and dangers of pregnancy, labor, and potentially raising a child) against her will. You are forcing a conscious, aware, autonomous adult to sacrifice her well-being for (at least through a certain amount of weeks) an unconscious, not fully functioning, non-aware, non-autonomous being, where the very essence (human yet or not?) of this being is in question.
|
On June 21 2013 01:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 00:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 21 2013 00:12 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc. edit: Saying those words in "that voice" or in "that manner", and I know what you're talking about here, sure that could imply that you are blaming them. Alternatively you could just interpret that the person is chastising them in a sort of you-didn't-take-the-precautions-you-could-have way, which although insensitive would be correct. That's why I think it's better to communicate clearly and not object to something because "if said in a certain voice it could be interpreted in multiple ways and one of them is that you're blaming the victim". If something is unambiguously victim blaming then fair enough, ridicule it for what it is, but leave everything else alone. A.) Advice such as "lock your doors" and what not are advice given because its a common practice and, more specifically, it's a practice you yourself employ. Telling a woman not to walk around without an escort is the same kind of Victorian BS they've been told since the 1800's. Telling women how to dress despite the majority of rape cases being done by close friends and lovers is also BS--it would be much more helpful to tell them not to have friends, not to have relationships, and not to trust people in any way since statistically that would prevent rape more than what they fucking wear. How would you know how not to get raped? Are you raped often? Have gotten attacked often? Women get cat called and harassed daily, constantly. They get leered at daily, constantly. Some get grabbed, have their ass slapped, etc... Daily, constantly. The you really think the looks they get when walking down a sidewalk at night is any different than the looks they get walking down a sidewalk in daytime? Do you think that they somehow don't know that bad things can happen at night? That somehow it is your fount of wisdom that finally revealed to them this knowledge? Women already have this knowledge the same way you already have this knowledge. Unless you've already been raped before you have no special information that isn't already privy to everyone. And that's assuming "walking home at night" is what gets you raped when in all likelihood hanging out with a friend/lover is more likely to get you raped statistically. woah there cowboy, i'm going out now maybe i'll edit this with a better response later. summary: I disagree with you. Avoid being out late at night is exactly the same as lock your doors, I do both. same arguments apply to both, you're contradicting yourself heavily in this post. also, if you can't see why you're more likely to get raped/robbed late at night alone than during the day with friends then i'm flabbergasted stratos ill respond to you too later sorry i rly g2g thanks for responses ttyl Most rapes are done by friends or lovers. Yes, statistically speaking, you're less likely to be raped walking home at night than hanging out with a friend--even a close one. Why? Because most women are raped by people they know. And yet, despite that statistic, people are making this assumption that what a girl wears or that she doesn't have an escort is the reason they get raped. It is shifting the blame away from rapists and towards the victims. That is some pants-on-heads ass-backwards statistics. Learn to use Bayes' rule. You are switching cause and effect around soooo badly. What you're forgetting is that there are millions and millions of occasions when women who hang out with friends/lovers and are NOT raped. The conditional probability that if a woman was raped, it was more likely to be a friend/lover does NOT imply that having a friend/lover makes you more likely to be raped. I don't actually have the numbers, but I am fairly certain that hanging out with a friend/lover is a neglible risk factor for being raped, whereas walking home alone in the dark is a fairly serious one. EDIT: despite rape occurring less often to women walking home alone in the dark, than to women hanging out with friends/lovers. Simply because the "population" of occurrences of women hanging out with a friend/lover is some orders of magnitude larger than the "population" of women walking home alone in the dark.
If you're going to correct him on statistics, you should probably point out that in both cases it is bullshit based on the Base Rate Fallacy.
Basically, the chances of either crime are so low that either advice is pragmatically useless.
|
On June 21 2013 01:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 00:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 21 2013 00:12 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc. edit: Saying those words in "that voice" or in "that manner", and I know what you're talking about here, sure that could imply that you are blaming them. Alternatively you could just interpret that the person is chastising them in a sort of you-didn't-take-the-precautions-you-could-have way, which although insensitive would be correct. That's why I think it's better to communicate clearly and not object to something because "if said in a certain voice it could be interpreted in multiple ways and one of them is that you're blaming the victim". If something is unambiguously victim blaming then fair enough, ridicule it for what it is, but leave everything else alone. A.) Advice such as "lock your doors" and what not are advice given because its a common practice and, more specifically, it's a practice you yourself employ. Telling a woman not to walk around without an escort is the same kind of Victorian BS they've been told since the 1800's. Telling women how to dress despite the majority of rape cases being done by close friends and lovers is also BS--it would be much more helpful to tell them not to have friends, not to have relationships, and not to trust people in any way since statistically that would prevent rape more than what they fucking wear. How would you know how not to get raped? Are you raped often? Have gotten attacked often? Women get cat called and harassed daily, constantly. They get leered at daily, constantly. Some get grabbed, have their ass slapped, etc... Daily, constantly. The you really think the looks they get when walking down a sidewalk at night is any different than the looks they get walking down a sidewalk in daytime? Do you think that they somehow don't know that bad things can happen at night? That somehow it is your fount of wisdom that finally revealed to them this knowledge? Women already have this knowledge the same way you already have this knowledge. Unless you've already been raped before you have no special information that isn't already privy to everyone. And that's assuming "walking home at night" is what gets you raped when in all likelihood hanging out with a friend/lover is more likely to get you raped statistically. woah there cowboy, i'm going out now maybe i'll edit this with a better response later. summary: I disagree with you. Avoid being out late at night is exactly the same as lock your doors, I do both. same arguments apply to both, you're contradicting yourself heavily in this post. also, if you can't see why you're more likely to get raped/robbed late at night alone than during the day with friends then i'm flabbergasted stratos ill respond to you too later sorry i rly g2g thanks for responses ttyl Most rapes are done by friends or lovers. Yes, statistically speaking, you're less likely to be raped walking home at night than hanging out with a friend--even a close one. Why? Because most women are raped by people they know. And yet, despite that statistic, people are making this assumption that what a girl wears or that she doesn't have an escort is the reason they get raped. It is shifting the blame away from rapists and towards the victims. That is some pants-on-heads ass-backwards statistics. Learn to use Bayes' rule. You are switching cause and effect around soooo badly. What you're forgetting is that there are millions and millions of occasions when women who hang out with friends/lovers and are NOT raped. The conditional probability that if a woman was raped, it was more likely to be a friend/lover does NOT imply that having a friend/lover makes you more likely to be raped. I don't actually have the numbers, but I am fairly certain that hanging out with a friend/lover is a neglible risk factor for being raped, whereas walking home alone in the dark is a fairly serious one. EDIT: despite rape occurring less often to women walking home alone in the dark, than to women hanging out with friends/lovers. Simply because the "population" of occurrences of women hanging out with a friend/lover is some orders of magnitude larger than the "population" of women walking home alone in the dark.
Simply going by what we know.
It "makes sense" that bad things (such as rape) should happen in some deep dark alley with some unknown stranger. But there's a reason most women are not raped in some deep dark alley by some unknown stranger. Because they're not stupid. Because they've been told about the boogey man since they were children. Since they used to be afraid of closets. Because our primal brain is naturally untrusting of darkness.
There's a reason it happens from a friend. Because women trust their friends. Because women let their guard down amongst friends. Because it "make's sense" that she can hang out one on one with such and such friend tonight, why shouldn't she?
And now that we're going to bring about this ridiculous horror movie trope of stupid women walking home alone in the dark, let's break it down shall we?
Why does a woman choose to go home the way she does?
Because women have to make the choice of either taking the long way home that's more lit, or the fast way home which may be less lit. Because women, like men, often take the paths that they use most often to get back home. Because even if women walk in groups in order to get home safely, at some point the last person is left who has to go home without the others because she had already walked them all to their homes already. Because she goes out all the time and this is the sidewalk she usually walks on when going home. Because the sidewalk is usually lit, but tonight the lights burnt out. Because she planned to take a cab but she dropped her money/wallet at the club. Because her friend's car died who was going to pick her up. Because she lives nearby. Etc...
There's a lot of reasons why a woman goes home by herself at night. The trope that only stupid women do it is something fed by horror movies and thrillers. The reason most rapes are done by friends is because women aren't stupid. They keep safe, stay away from danger the best they can, and do their best to navigate a world where half the population is larger and stronger than them. They get raped most often by friends because that's who they trust enough to let their guard down.
Women won't bring a seedy looking stranger who's been leering at her the whole night so they can chat alone in her apartment. She is willing to bring "Tom/John/Bill/etc..." to her room to chat about whatever, because that's her friend and he wouldn't hurt her.
So if you want a woman to be "safer" from rape--stick to statistics and tell her not to trust men in any way shape or form. Oh wait, that sounds stupid that she can't be herself just because we want to blame the rape on her actions. It's about as stupid as assuming a short skirt more likely to cause rape than hanging with a friend does.
|
|
|
It turns out that the person you spend the most time with is also the most likely person to commit an act of violence against you? That must be a surprising fact to all who lack critical thinking.
|
On June 21 2013 01:46 NovaTheFeared wrote:
It turns out that the person you spend the most time with is also the most likely person to commit an act of violence against you? That must be a surprising fact to all who lack critical thinking.
Er, not really. We meet strangers all the time. I would think that people would be so much more likely to be violent to people they don't know that it would push it in the other direction. That's not that implausible, even if incorrect.
Hindsight Bias?
|
On June 21 2013 01:46 NovaTheFeared wrote:
It turns out that the person you spend the most time with is also the most likely person to commit an act of violence against you? That must be a surprising fact to all who lack critical thinking.
Yes, 80% of rape victims around the world get raped for going home, not for walking down a dark alley or for wearing a short skirt.
Its like the problem with rape is the fact that men rape women and not that women enjoy being themselves.
|
Can we bring this back to the original topic of abortion?
I still haven't found a counter to the fact that you only need one legal guardian to give consent for the child and a father can't give consent for the mother.
So a mother giving consent for the child and herself can ask for any operation she wants.
|
On June 21 2013 02:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Can we bring this back to the original topic of abortion?
I still haven't found a counter to the fact that you only need one legal guardian to give consent for the child and a father can't give consent for the mother.
So a mother giving consent for the child and herself can ask for any operation she wants.
If the child were adjudged to possess personhood by the law, then no one may give legal consent to kill it, as parents cannot legally consent to have their child killed.
But I'm not entirely sure about the context of the question you're asking. Obviously, if abortion is legal, it should only be the mother's decision.
|
On June 21 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 02:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Can we bring this back to the original topic of abortion?
I still haven't found a counter to the fact that you only need one legal guardian to give consent for the child and a father can't give consent for the mother.
So a mother giving consent for the child and herself can ask for any operation she wants. If the child were adjudged to possess personhood by the law, then no one may give legal consent to kill it, as parents cannot legally consent to have their child killed. But I'm not entirely sure about the context of the question you're asking. Obviously, if abortion is legal, it should only be the mother's decision.
A woman is pregnant, do other people have the ability to dictate her medical decisions?
Does she lose those rights when she is raped?
Does she lose those rights if her lover's DNA is too similar?
|
On June 21 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:On June 21 2013 02:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Can we bring this back to the original topic of abortion?
I still haven't found a counter to the fact that you only need one legal guardian to give consent for the child and a father can't give consent for the mother.
So a mother giving consent for the child and herself can ask for any operation she wants. If the child were adjudged to possess personhood by the law, then no one may give legal consent to kill it, as parents cannot legally consent to have their child killed. But I'm not entirely sure about the context of the question you're asking. Obviously, if abortion is legal, it should only be the mother's decision. A woman is pregnant, do other people have the ability to dictate her medical decisions? Does she lose those rights when she is raped? Does she lose those rights if her lover's DNA is too similar?
Under the current laws, the answer to all of these is "no" until the fetus attains personhood/viability at ~20 weeks. I would argue that in the case of rape, abortion should pretty much always be permitted, regardless of what time in the pregnancy it is, although women who are raped should be made aware of being pregnant as early as possible to avoid late-term abortions, which are deplorable even if justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
