Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[TraneWreck]

Right. And this is about women pursuing relationships with men in an unwanted fashion.

You're free to get a divorce or break up with a man or not even date him, just don't be a ****.

Kinda cuts when you say it, doesn't it?

What?

Nothing you say "cuts" because it's always unintelligible.

 

[TraneWreck]

Ok I was wrong. One guy did say it. I'm still right about the second part and you're still a troll of the highest order.

I didn't say anyone, just those engaging in this infantile game of pretending that calling someone a "bitch" is the same as saying someone is a rapist.

One is a crime, the other is just a slur.

 

[Furcifer]

By the OP I assume you mean the linked article. I think the article was poorly written - it's all over the place. I don't find myself able to succinctly state what I was supposed to get out of it. Some of what she wrote comes across as wrong-headed.

She starts out writing it towards men. Specifically, men who have not met their partner through acquaintances and mutual friends and must look further afield. Thus, she's addressing men looking to meet strangers.

She specifically says that when she meets a stranger, she has to worry if he's going to rape her. She says, "This means that some men should never approach strange women in public." About 15% of rapes happen in public settings. The stranger group is the least likely outside of relatives to rape a woman. The number of strangers one encounters in a lifetime is large. Consider it to be 50 per year for 50 years of adulthood. That's 2,500, which is 100X the size of the group that is 3X more likely to rape her.

So, I have no qualms saying that I believe she has her priorities reversed. You can argue that she should have some concern about strangers and she should. But the fact is right after saying she has to worry about a stranger raping her she throws out the one in six number apparently not realizing that the overwhelming majority were rapes in that study were by intimate partners in private settings not involving a threat of violence or physical injury.

Her later arguments are built on unproven premises (men who ignore "no" in a non-sexual setting are more likely to do so in a sexual setting). Seems reasonable, but it's unsupported. From there she says that speaking to a woman that is "otherwise occupied" is not respecting boundaries. From this we go down the slippery slope of rape.

All in all, I found the article to be a piece of crap sitting on some fine china. Sure, there's some good stuff to see, but no way to do want to clean my plate to see it.

You, you...bastard..you're just not sensitive enough. This is woman hear her roar!

Oh wait, did I just make this about YOU and not what you wrote? My gosh, someone should make a rule against that.

 

[Furcifer]

What?
Nothing you say "cuts" because it's always unintelligible.

Aww, you hurted my feewlingz

And yet here you are, 3 days straight arguing my unintelligible gibberish.

I always wonder what motivates you to make such stupid statements? I bet in your mind you hear applause every time you troll a thread.

Admit it.


Thanks for dragging me to AAH once again.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Scandalous.

"Well first you'd have to prove you have something to rape"

Is this really where you want to take the discussion

Oh, I didn't - that's where the discussion arrived when you posted your "parody." But that's fine. You go right ahead, secure in the belief that your irresistible masculinity trumps anything...ignorant...that you may say or write. I'm sure that sometime you will prove that ignoring what women say and what they think and what they feel is studlier than anything and women will be throwing themselves at your feet...





...in a pig's ear. You wouldn't even listen to a math teacher telling you, very politely, why your "statistics" were in error. That wouldn't have been because she was a woman, would it?

Oh, no, no, no. What was I thinking? I'm sure you're one of those people who doesn't have a prejudiced cell in his body.

 

[Furcifer]

I didn't say anyone, just those engaging in this infantile game of pretending that calling someone a "bitch" is the same as saying someone is a rapist.

One is a crime, the other is just a slur.

Let me explain something to you counselor.
If the man isn't a rapist, and you are calling him one, it is a slur. It's worse than a slur.

Funny how a little slur seems to generate a lot of sympathy, and yet the heinous crime of rape and calling men rapists, not so much.

 

[TraneWreck]

Let me explain something to you counselor.
If the man isn't a rapist, and you are calling him one, it is a slur. It's worse than a slur.

Funny how a little slur seems to generate a lot of sympathy, and yet the heinous crime of rape and calling men rapists, not so much.

Please, aren't you tired of this yet?

Why is the "Shrodinger" reference being made?

Not being a rapist, it bothers me very little that a random woman on public transit wouldn't want to chat with me because, not knowing me, I could potentially be a threat to her.

The fact that you care this much is telling.

 

[Furcifer]

Oh, I didn't - that's where the discussion arrived when you posted your "parody." But that's fine. You go right ahead, secure in the belief that your irresistible masculinity trumps anything...ignorant...that you may say or write. I'm sure that sometime you will prove that ignoring what women say and what they think and what they feel is studlier than anything and women will be throwing themselves at your feet...

Is it strawman or strawwoman? I get confused. Where did I say you should ignore women? Or that my "irresistible masculinity" trumps everything? You just think that don't you

...in a pig's ear. You wouldn't even listen to a math teacher telling you, very politely, why your "statistics" were in error. That wouldn't have been because she was a woman, would it?

Oh, no, no, no. What was I thinking? I'm sure you're one of those people who doesn't have a prejudiced cell in his body.

First, I didn't know PY was a woman. I thought "it" was a man, and from Canada. I was wrong.

Second, she was wrong. She admitted as such. The conditional statement still assumes a direct correlation. You can't make it any other way. Her statement of fact is "1 in 6 men are rapists" IF each rapist commits 10 rapes THEN 1 in 60 men are rapists.

Now try this: 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, IF each rapist commits 10 rapes THEN....

Makes no sense. It doesn't follow logically.

 

[bookitty]

Let me explain something to you counselor.
If the man isn't a rapist, and you are calling him one, it is a slur. It's worse than a slur.

Funny how a little slur seems to generate a lot of sympathy, and yet the heinous crime of rape and calling men rapists, not so much.

Did you happen to notice that she never called a man a rapist in the article. In fact she goes out of her way to say:

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women

and

Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that.

In cases where she says rapist, it is potential rapist which, for some odd reason, seems impossible for you to understand. You would prefer that women never think of any man as a potential rapist because you find it rude.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Where did I say you should ignore women?

You didn't have to. You have demonstrated your attitude clearly. In fact, it has been a long time since I have had the displeasure of communicating with someone so dismissive of women.

I had hoped that there was no one of your stamp still around under the age of 75. Seems I was wrong. Oh, well, life is full of disappointments.

 

[Furcifer]

Why is the "Shrodinger" reference being made?

Not being a rapist, it bothers me very little that a random woman on public transit wouldn't want to chat with me because, not knowing me, I could potentially be a threat to her.

The fact that you care this much is telling.

Because you can put "Schrodinger" in front of anything and you can call people whatever you want. "I don't know but I think it's possible you're a...." I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying I'm going to treat you like one.

Funny, I was just thinking a rapist on the internet would try to drill home the point he wasn't a rapist. Only a predator would feel the need to claim he wasn't a predator. The fact that you do is very telling.

 

[Furcifer]

Did you happen to notice that she never called a man a rapist in the article.

You[She] didn't have to. You[she] have demonstrated your[her] attitude clearly.

Editing mine

 

[TraneWreck]

Because you can put "Schrodinger" in front of anything and you can call people whatever you want. "I don't know but I think it's possible you're a...." I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying I'm going to treat you like one.

Funny, I was just thinking a rapist on the internet would try to drill home the point he wasn't a rapist. Only a predator would feel the need to claim he wasn't a predator. The fact that you do is very telling.

You really think she's calling you a rapist? What is wrong with you?

 

[bookitty]

Funny, I was just thinking a rapist on the internet would try to drill home the point he wasn't a rapist. Only a predator would feel the need to claim he wasn't a predator. The fact that you do is very telling.

There is the odd phenomena of men who go to sites that are geared toward women and haunt the comments sections of rape articles. They usually talk about how a woman deserved it, how all women are prostitutes because you have to buy them dinner, how sex is a commodity that women withhold for power so of course men have to rape because the world runs on power-plays, etc, etc. For this very reason, some of these sites have heavily moderated comments.

Anonymity brings out some ugly stuff in people.

 

[Furcifer]

You would prefer that women never think of any man as a potential rapist because you find it rude.

See, you miss the point. How many times do I have to tell you, it isn't about being called a rapist or not, it's a matter of it being warranted.

Her examples clearly don't demonstrate a need to consider men "rapists".

If her example was something like

"You see a girl at a frat party. She's been drinking a bit and one of her friends has disappeared upstairs with the Lacrosse team. You decide to approach her maybe call her a cab, see if she's alright. You have to understand what's going through her mind, she has to consider if you are a potential rapist. Don't be alarmed, the rate of sexual assault and rape for college age women is 4 time higher than any other age group. She's in a strange house and almost 50% of rapes occur within a home. Maybe you noticed her from Biology class and even had a coffee with her at the Strabucks on campus, in 76% of rapes the victim know the perpetrator."

You know that sort of thing. Talking to the target groups, the ones at high risk.

Not some guy on a bus with tattoos you don't like or doesn't realize you've got your headphones on full blast listening to Metallica.

She missed the mark. I'm sorry you feel the need to get the message out even if it's distorted and contains numerous fallacies. Or the fact you have to libel everyone that thinks this article is garbage. Self check time?

 

[Furcifer]

You really think she's calling you a rapist? What is wrong with you?

Just you, the 5 of us are just fine

 

[bookitty]

You know that sort of thing. Talking to the target groups, the ones at high risk.

Ya know, you never did answer that question. Do you think the article is advice to women on how to avoid rape?

 

[Furcifer]

There is the odd phenomena of men who go to sites that are geared toward women and haunt the comments sections of rape articles. They usually talk about how a woman deserved it, how all women are prostitutes because you have to buy them dinner, how sex is a commodity that women withhold for power so of course men have to rape because the world runs on power-plays, etc, etc. For this very reason, some of these sites have heavily moderated comments.

Anonymity brings out some ugly stuff in people.

Finally you admit your bias. Well done. Now can you get over your preconceived notions about men on the internet and discuss this article?

I mean try, seriously. It's crap, and there a several reasons why. Would you like to hear them, or do you want to continue your derail?

 

[Furcifer]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[TraneWreck]

Deleted.