Racism, Bigotry and Misogyny at TOL

[PureX]

They aren't bad at math, you are bad at logic and or reading comprehension or a horrible liar.

They stated the woman bears a consequence of her choices, not they she shares responsibility for the crime.

Are you retarded?

This is why I normally don't brother to converse with you. You're so wildly auto-defensive that you make no sense at all most of the time.

Good luck to you.

 

[ClimateSanity]

They aren't bad at math, you are bad at logic and or reading comprehension or a horrible liar.

They stated the woman bears a consequence of her choices, not they she shares responsibility for the crime.

Are you retarded?

To him, that's a distinction without a difference I'm.guessing.

 

[Rusha]

BINGO!

Some of the very same people that I strongly disagree with on the rape victim blaming, I strongly agree with on other issues.
And some of the very same people that I strongly agree with on the rape victim blaming, I strongly disagree with on other issues.

There is no club that I'm a member of that makes me agree and defend what is said simply because of who said it.

I still hold the same views I always have in regards to the DP, rape, child predators, hate crime legislation, abortion, etc.

What I won't do is consider any arguments of those who are pro-blame towards the victims of rape and pro-wife beating. It takes a special kind of evil to hold such positions, and I refuse to give them a pass.

 

[Angel4Truth]

This is why I normally don't brother to converse with you. You're so wildly auto-defensive that you make no sense at all most of the time.

Good luck to you.

You mean i chew up your pitiful logic and give it right back to you.

Thanks for the well wishes.

 

[ok doser]

angel presents purex with rationality, logic and reason

purex, unable to handle something to which he is unaccustomed, blows a gasket:

This is why I normally don't brother to converse with you. You're so wildly auto-defensive that you make no sense at all most of the time.

Good luck to you.

:darwinsm:

 

[Angel4Truth]

you leave your car door open and your engine running while you run into 711 for a donut

careless, right?

a thief comes along and steals your car - what are you now?

carless, right?

the thief is guilty of grand theft auto, same as if he'd jimmied the lock and hotwired your car

his crime - the crime of stealing your car - is 100% on him

you are guilty - not of car theft ('cause that would be really really dumb)

you are guilty of being a careless, carless fool

I still after 2 months dont get how some miss this simple logic and twist it so bad.

 

[ok doser]

I still after 2 months dont get how some miss this simple logic and twist it so bad.

they can't get past their gut, emotional response - mention rape and forget having a rational discussion

 

[WizardofOz]

Fault? No, not necessarily. The definition used in the original discussion was "earned by ones actions" and yes people can earn negative consequences to their actions, it doesn't mean they are justified, or that the perpetrator is less guilty of what THEY did, just that in some cases a victim can place themselves in harms way or act in such a manner that they themselves increase the likelihood of being a victim.

I wonder how many liberals for example would defend a black man saying it was understandable, if he shot someone who called him the n word and egged him on?

Was the perp justified in what they did? No.

However did the victim increase the likelihood of getting harmed because of what he did? Yep. (earned by actions)

We can earn both good and bad things for our own actions in many cases, and it doesnt mean, what happened was justified.

That keeps getting missed.

I have never witness a definition of "earned" that fits this though. doser offered an extremely archaic version of its root, which I believe was 'old German' but any modern definition required equity. If it was 'earned' it matched the behavior or effort.

Being raped because you dress or dance provocatively isn't an equitable expectation of said behavior just as being murdered is an equitable expectation for speaking like a racist.

 

[ok doser]

Annabanana, stirring up the pot.

Must be a day that ends with a 'y'.

anna, artie, zoo

meh :idunno:

it's the best they can mange, i guess

 

[PureX]

To him, that's a distinction without a difference I'm.guessing.

It is a distinction without a difference to anyone with any sense. As the outcome is the rape. Calling it a "consequence" for the woman and a "crime" for the rapist doesn't somehow magically divide the responsibility up into 150+% of the blame.

The truth is that some of you people hate the idea of a woman behaving in what you conceive of as a lewd manner so much that you're happy to see her raped for it. And there is a sickness in this that is both pathetic and frightening to most normal, healthy people. Which is why you're getting so much flack for it, and why you remain so willfully and absurdly defensive about it.

 

[ok doser]

I have never witness a definition of "earned" that fits this though. doser offered an extremely archaic version of its root, which I believe was 'old German' but any modern definition required equity. If it was 'earned' it matched the behavior or effort.

did you earn the heart attack that came with your stressful job?

was it equitable?

 

[ok doser]

The truth is that some of you people hate the idea of a woman behaving in what you conceive of as a lewd manner so much that you're happy to see her raped for it.

you've been sharing elo's great big bowl o' lead paint flakes, haven't you? :darwinsm:


wot

a

retard

 

[WizardofOz]

Sure. This entire discussion is about whether we should treat women as adults or children. You may not see it that way, but it's the truth as far as I'm concerned.
We don't live in a safe world, and no amount of modernization changes any of that. There was a time when women acknowledged this, but now there's some sort of ridiculous idea that we can change what has been with mankind since we were in mud huts.

Specifically, how are women being treated like children?

It's not on men to protect women in general society. Of course, being that men are most naturally the sentinels of society, women are included. But in no way does a female need to have extra protection- what they need is extra awareness of reality- this should be a fundamental responsibility of emancipated women.

A police officer is driving down the street on patrol. On one side of the street is a man beating another man and on the other is a man beating a woman. All other factors are equal.

Who should the officer try to assist first and why?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I have never witness a definition of "earned" that fits this though.

So you dont believe we can earn negative consequences, only positive ones for our own choices?

doser offered an extremely archaic version of its root, which I believe was 'old German' but any modern definition required equity. If it was 'earned' it matched the behavior or effort.

No, he didnt, kmoney is who provided this definition "earned by ones actions" and the discussion went with that definition.

Being raped because you dress or dance provocatively isn't an equitable expectation of said behavior just as being murdered is an equitable expectation for speaking like a racist.

Being that no such thing was presented (other than by those who inserted it and lied about others positions).

Other than crucible, no one said the consequences were justified - even - equtitable, or anything, just that the victim can suffer something, because of their own foolish actions, and no one said its the case in every case, there were very specific scenerios given that were ignored, then lying claims were made that some people believe and support things they dont.

Its pathetic and why i left for a while. Im sad to see its still happening.

 

[ok doser]

A police officer is driving down the street on patrol. On one side of the street is a man beating another man and on the other is a man beating a woman. All other factors are equal.

Who should the officer try to assist first and why?

is the woman his mother-in-law?

or hillary clinton? :banana:

 

[quip]

I still after 2 months dont get how some miss this simple logic and twist it so bad.

You're responsible to yourself for your (careless) circumstances leading to his decision to steal your car. So, how can you held be responsible for another person's freewilled action?

You're responsible for your actions; he's responsible for his. Don't conflate the two.

Simple really.

 

[Angel4Truth]

To him, that's a distinction without a difference I'm.guessing.

And thats been the problem with this entire discussion since back to november when they started.

There are distinctions that are being totally ignored and entire premises being made up.

 

[WizardofOz]

did you earn the heart attack that came with your stressful job?

was it equitable?

Who else could share the blame when someone has a heart attack?

 

[ok doser]

You're responsible for your actions; he's responsible for his.

:first:

Hooray!

 

[ok doser]

Who else could share the blame when someone has a heart attack?

so you earned the heart attack

was it equitable?