Wally Weaver: Years ago, I read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale." At the time, one of the most confusing concepts for me was the idea of the Aunts- the older women who indoctrinate the younger ones into misogynistic sex slavery. I thought, are there really women who would do that to other women?

I now have confirmation that yes, there are.

"You are the lucky ones."

The Numbers: Except your argument seems to be based around this rather novel idea of a 'base rape rate' and that the likliehood of rape is therefore a simply a factor of base rape rate x time spent together and ignores the importance that the prior relationship between rapist and victim can have in causing the rape.

Base rates aren't a novel concept. And indeed, if you're suggesting that there's something about acquaintences that make them more likely to rape even controlling for time, all you're really saying is that they'd have a higher base rate for rape than total strangers. Something which hasn't been demonstrated, to the best of my knowledge.

Genevieve Marie:

I've been going over this and the only way I can figure you came up with the conclusions you did is if you assumed my comment (Not gotten drunk and driven home with a male "acquaintance". Had a female friend drive her home. Call a cab. Wait until she could get home on her own. Carry mace) of 5 discreet different policies was in fact meant to be one set of rules with an "and" ins place of a ".".

Is that what you did?

/if so why? Some are clearly separate things that you couldn't do at the same time.

Sabyen91: watson.t.hamster: Biological Ali: watson.t.hamster

Okay, with those last couple posts I think we've now moved well beyond the point where I find it plausible that you're actually saying these things in earnest.

I'll admit it, you got me - though in fairness, that was because it took me a while to figure out your shtick. You might as well fess up now, since it looks like others are starting to get wise to it too.

My schtick: state pretty common sense things and face an onslaught of lies and misrepresentations? I guess, although the second half is on you.

No, it is to state stupid farking things. Backpedal...weave...dodge until you find some footing, some point that you hadn't originally made that sounds close to rational, say it was your point all along and then blame people for thinking you are a goddamned troll.

Find where I backpedalled. Find where I said anything inaccurate.

You know you're farking lying right?

You must.

The Numbers: Kome: I think that happens a lot because most of the time, the person putting forward those arguments aren't actually advocating a serious genuine examination into the causes of rape from the victim perspective this is Fark.

Even if you are not one of those, you got caught in a crossfire by appearing to be supporting those guys. My recommendation, and this is really just good advice in general in any discussion, be precise with your word choice and clear with your wording, and maybe even say the same thing in a few different ways while at the same time typing out some firm stance of where you are on the issue. It's a little extra work, but when I do it (which isn't nearly as often as I should, I admit) I get a lot better feedback and more constructive discussions going.

FTFY

Given the context of this thread, that's an interesting post. Lilplatinum has been subjected to some unfair treatment; instead of condemning those who have carried out this unfair treatment, you offer advice on what should be done differently to avoid being targeted.

thatsthejoke.jpg

watson.t.hamster: Kome: watson.t.hamster: Clearly focusing on just one side of the equation is the best solution.

When one side of the equation is the criminal and the other is the victim, yes, I think it makes perfect sense to focus on just the criminal side of the equation rather than the victim side.

How much do you think we should put into efforts to convince people not to be rich around people who are typically in gangs versus how much we should put into trying to prevent gangs from robbing people?

You do realize the police put out advisories and recommendations on how to reduce your chances of becoming a victim? Like all the time they do this.

Proportionally, how much of their budget goes towards that as opposed to targeting the criminal side of the equation?

Sabyen91:

Seriously, go back and research the claims attributed to me and compare them to statements I have actually made.

There's quite a bit of "it seems like you're saying" or taking a few words out of context and applying them to a different situation than the one I was referring to.

But no actual honesty to any of it if you look in to it.

watson.t.hamster: Sabyen91: watson.t.hamster: Biological Ali: watson.t.hamster

Okay, with those last couple posts I think we've now moved well beyond the point where I find it plausible that you're actually saying these things in earnest.

I'll admit it, you got me - though in fairness, that was because it took me a while to figure out your shtick. You might as well fess up now, since it looks like others are starting to get wise to it too.

My schtick: state pretty common sense things and face an onslaught of lies and misrepresentations? I guess, although the second half is on you.

No, it is to state stupid farking things. Backpedal...weave...dodge until you find some footing, some point that you hadn't originally made that sounds close to rational, say it was your point all along and then blame people for thinking you are a goddamned troll.

Find where I backpedalled. Find where I said anything inaccurate.

You know you're farking lying right?

You must.

I've read the entire thread, and throughout the thread, people laid out numerous quotes where you back peddled or lied. you ignored or deflected every single one. just stop. Be proud of your sexism at home alone and stop trying to tell us women are at fault for being raped.

Kome: Watson.t.hamster: Kome: watson.t.hamster: Clearly focusing on just one side of the equation is the best solution.

When one side of the equation is the criminal and the other is the victim, yes, I think it makes perfect sense to focus on just the criminal side of the equation rather than the victim side.

How much do you think we should put into efforts to convince people not to be rich around people who are typically in gangs versus how much we should put into trying to prevent gangs from robbing people?

You do realize the police put out advisories and recommendations on how to reduce your chances of becoming a victim? Like all the time they do this.

Proportionally, how much of their budget goes towards that as opposed to targeting the criminal side of the equation?

You're changing your argument.

First it was that they shouldn't do any of it, now it's that they should spend more on one versus the other.

Entirely different.

But since you have acknowledged that they *do* advice potential victims on how not to be victims in other areas do you accept that it would be possible to do it in this area?

Or is saying "remember to lock your car" the same as blaming someone for having their car stolen?

watson.t.hamster: Sabyen91: watson.t.hamster: Biological Ali: watson.t.hamster

Okay, with those last couple posts I think we've now moved well beyond the point where I find it plausible that you're actually saying these things in earnest.

I'll admit it, you got me - though in fairness, that was because it took me a while to figure out your shtick. You might as well fess up now, since it looks like others are starting to get wise to it too.

My schtick: state pretty common sense things and face an onslaught of lies and misrepresentations? I guess, although the second half is on you.

No, it is to state stupid farking things. Backpedal...weave...dodge until you find some footing, some point that you hadn't originally made that sounds close to rational, say it was your point all along and then blame people for thinking you are a goddamned troll.

Find where I backpedalled. Find where I said anything inaccurate.

You know you're farking lying right?

You must.

Pass, I am not going to wade through your troll feculence yet again, Phil.

watson.t.hamster: Kome: Watson.t.hamster: Kome: watson.t.hamster: Clearly focusing on just one side of the equation is the best solution.

When one side of the equation is the criminal and the other is the victim, yes, I think it makes perfect sense to focus on just the criminal side of the equation rather than the victim side.

How much do you think we should put into efforts to convince people not to be rich around people who are typically in gangs versus how much we should put into trying to prevent gangs from robbing people?

You do realize the police put out advisories and recommendations on how to reduce your chances of becoming a victim? Like all the time they do this.

Proportionally, how much of their budget goes towards that as opposed to targeting the criminal side of the equation?

You're changing your argument.

First it was that they shouldn't do any of it, now it's that they should spend more on one versus the other.

Entirely different.

But since you have acknowledged that they *do* advice potential victims on how not to be victims in other areas do you accept that it would be possible to do it in this area?

Or is saying "remember to lock your car" the same as blaming someone for having their car stolen?

If someone doesn't lock their car, they are in no way responsible for it being stolen. They shouldn't have to lock it because people shouldn't steal. End of story. If it happens, it is the fault of the criminal. How can you blame victims and not even realize it?

I cannot believe anybody would be retarded enough to defend this woman's position, yet here they are. You create a post with this magnitude of derptitude, and expect me to take you serious on any other position?



This is why we can't have nice things......

adamgreeney: You must.

I've read the entire thread, and throughout the thread, people laid out numerous quotes where you back peddled or lied. you ignored or deflected every single one. just stop. Be proud of your sexism at home alone and stop trying to tell us women are at fault for being raped.

Case in point.

This is a lie I have clearly refuted many times. And yet you must rely on such lies to maintain any sort of argument against me.

Oh STFU, she didn't advocate it, she said that if you put more women in these roles that the instances of sexual assault would go up. If anything she was criticizing the military for doing enough to prevent it. Your hatred of Fox New is blinding you or you're just being morons.

adamgreeney: If someone doesn't lock their car, they are in no way responsible for it being stolen. They shouldn't have to lock it because people shouldn't steal. End of story. If it happens, it is the fault of the criminal. How can you blame victims and not even realize it?

Sigh, this old canard. You are lying, and possibly retarded, to represent my statements in this way.

Also since people are told ways to avoid being victimized all the time by parents, police, teachers, etc are they all saying that the victims are to blame?

If you tell a kid not to get in a car with a stranger are you putting the blame for abductions on the children? Only a mentally deficient individual, possibly with the first name of adam, would make that claim. That's common sense. And of course there are a hundred other such examples. Only in rape cases does reporting statistically meaningful activities to avoid to reduce your chances cause such a stir.

watson.t.hamster: adamgreeney: You must.

I've read the entire thread, and throughout the thread, people laid out numerous quotes where you back peddled or lied. you ignored or deflected every single one. just stop. Be proud of your sexism at home alone and stop trying to tell us women are at fault for being raped.

Case in point.

This is a lie I have clearly refuted many times. And yet you must rely on such lies to maintain any sort of argument against me.

Saying that a women could have reduced her chances of being rape is saying she had a hand in it. How is that not blame? At least in part. No matter what her choices, its inexcusable. Women shouldn't have to make those choices because they shouldnt be raped.

What about that do you disagree with?

A Dark Evil Omen: watson.t.hamster: adamgreeney: You must.

I've read the entire thread, and throughout the thread, people laid out numerous quotes where you back peddled or lied. you ignored or deflected every single one. just stop. Be proud of your sexism at home alone and stop trying to tell us women are at fault for being raped.

Case in point.

This is a lie I have clearly refuted many times. And yet you must rely on such lies to maintain any sort of argument against me.

We're all against you. It couldn't possibly be because of anything you said. Nope, it's a conspiracy to make you continue to look like a jackass on the Internet.

It's like 4 people. All of whom are lying consistently to maintain this silly argument.

Find where I said women are at fault for being raped. Go ahead. If I have it should be easy enough to find and you can easily refute my claim that you are lying.

9beers: Oh STFU, she didn't advocate it, she said that if you put more women in these roles that the instances of sexual assault would go up. If anything she was criticizing the military for doing enough to prevent it.

You're late to the party with your debunked talking point:

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims' advocates, sexual response coordinators. ... So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

If anything, she's complaining that they're doing TOO MUCH for women.

FTA: Just to clarify, Trotta complained about government supporting women who have been "raped too much," a statement seeming to imply that there is an acceptable amount of rape one can or should endure in order to prevent more layers of bureaucracy from swooping in to help out.

adamgreeney: If someone doesn't lock their car, they are in no way responsible for it being stolen. They shouldn't have to lock it because people shouldn't steal. End of story. If it happens, it is the fault of the criminal. How can you blame victims and not even realize it?

Women don't leave their bodies unattended. Usually.

GhostFish: adamgreeney: If someone doesn't lock their car, they are in no way responsible for it being stolen. They shouldn't have to lock it because people shouldn't steal. End of story. If it happens, it is the fault of the criminal. How can you blame victims and not even realize it?

Women don't leave their bodies unattended. Usually.

Ms. Cleo would like a word with you.

On a serious note, I would say if they are drunk and passed out or drugged, it could be considered leaving them unattended.

adamgreeney: Saying that a women could have reduced her chances of being rape is saying she had a hand in it. How is that not blame? At least in part. No matter what her choices, its inexcusable. Women shouldn't have to make those choices because they shouldnt be raped.

What about that do you disagree with?

It's getting really old. If you have "read the entire thread" as you claim (unlikely) you will see where I have addressed this, ad infinitum.

Get a new routine.

9beers: Oh STFU, she didn't advocate it, she said that if you put more women in these roles that the instances of sexual assault would go up. If anything she was criticizing the military for doing enough to prevent it. Your hatred of Fox New is blinding you or you're just being morons.

Oh, and here comes the aggressively stupid troll.

watson.t.hamster: Find where I said women are at fault for being raped. Go ahead. If I have it should be easy enough to find and you can easily refute my claim that you are lying.

All throughout this thread, you've basically been saying "I'm not saying that those women were at fault for being raped, I'm just saying that they should've know better".

So basically you are saying they have some fault in getting themselves into that situation. Don't lie about it, because that's the gist of it.

You can't have it both ways. By saying that the women should've known better, you're tacitly giving them some fault for putting themselves in the situation to be raped.

Biological Ali: The Numbers: Except your argument seems to be based around this rather novel idea of a 'base rape rate' and that the likliehood of rape is therefore a simply a factor of base rape rate x time spent together and ignores the importance that the prior relationship between rapist and victim can have in causing the rape.

Base rates aren't a novel concept. And indeed, if you're suggesting that there's something about acquaintences that make them more likely to rape even controlling for time, all you're really saying is that they'd have a higher base rate for rape than total strangers. Something which hasn't been demonstrated, to the best of my knowledge.

Then go read the research of Mary Koss and others. Alternatively, feel free to back up your assertions with some evidence.

A Dark Evil Omen: I already did and you hallucinatorily claimed that it proved the exact opposite. How can anyone prove anything to you? You're either a constitutionally dishonest shiathead or you're schizophrenic. Personally, I'm voting shiathead.

So again, you are lying and I never said any of the things you have claimed.

Just say that next time.

If you have to consistently lie to make your point maybe it isn't worth making?

I've been very consistent and haven't said anything inaccurate or objectionable. In order to be outraged you have to lie. This is sad.

watson.t.hamster: adamgreeney: Saying that a women could have reduced her chances of being rape is saying she had a hand in it. How is that not blame? At least in part. No matter what her choices, its inexcusable. Women shouldn't have to make those choices because they shouldnt be raped.

What about that do you disagree with?

It's getting really old. If you have "read the entire thread" as you claim (unlikely) you will see where I have addressed this, ad infinitum.

Get a new routine.

Maybe you think you have, but obviously you're doing a piss poor job explaining yourself if so many people don't get what you're saying. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since I am an idiot. I probably missed your point. So I'm giving you a chance to explain it to all of us in a clearer way.

A Dark Evil Omen: Sabyen91: 9beers: Oh STFU, she didn't advocate it, she said that if you put more women in these roles that the instances of sexual assault would go up. If anything she was criticizing the military for doing enough to prevent it. Your hatred of Fox New is blinding you or you're just being morons.

Oh, and here comes the aggressively stupid troll.

I'd be angry and aggressive too if my life was so empty that all I had to do on Christmas was create troll alternative on Farm.

Somebody said to him "Happy Holidays". That is a killing word(s).

Mrtraveler01: watson.t.hamster: Find where I said women are at fault for being raped. Go ahead. If I have it should be easy enough to find and you can easily refute my claim that you are lying.

All throughout this thread, you've basically been saying "I'm not saying that those women were at fault for being raped, I'm just saying that they should've know better".

And there it is. "you've basically, you must mean, doesn't that imply that . . ".

These are not statements I have made. Attributing them to me is lying. Especially when I have refuted each one individually as it came up (to a point, then I gave up when it became obvious you guys don't care about reality).

So basically you are saying they have some fault in getting themselves into that situation. Don't lie about it, because that's the gist of it.

Sigh.


You can't have it both ways. By saying that the women should've known better, you're tacitly giving them some fault for putting themselves in the situation to be raped.

I can see now it's pointless. No matter what I say you will continue to misrepresent me. I shouldn't have fallen for these trolling attempts. At first they were almost like real responses but it's obvious that you all entered in to this dishonestly with no intention of forming an honest debate.

The Numbers: Biological Ali: The Numbers: Except your argument seems to be based around this rather novel idea of a 'base rape rate' and that the likliehood of rape is therefore a simply a factor of base rape rate x time spent together and ignores the importance that the prior relationship between rapist and victim can have in causing the rape.

Base rates aren't a novel concept. And indeed, if you're suggesting that there's something about acquaintences that make them more likely to rape even controlling for time, all you're really saying is that they'd have a higher base rate for rape than total strangers. Something which hasn't been demonstrated, to the best of my knowledge.

Then go read the research of Mary Koss and others. Alternatively, feel free to back up your assertions with some evidence.

My only assertion was that the single piece of data you've actually cited (most rapes are carried out by acquaintences rather than strangers) does not back up the assertion that you made - that a woman would be less likely to be raped if she were to spend time with strangers rather than people she knew. As such, unless you can dig up some data that actually supports that, your argument is essentially the equivalent of "You're more likely to die inside your home than anywhere else, so you'll be safer if you just stay at a friend's house instead."

A Dark Evil Omen: I'd be angry and aggressive too if my life was so empty that all I had to do on Christmas was create troll alternative on Farm.

Well, you're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

adamgreeney: Maybe you think you have, but obviously you're doing a piss poor job explaining yourself if so many people don't get what you're saying. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since I am an idiot. I probably missed your point. So I'm giving you a chance to explain it to all of us in a clearer way.

Sigh. A handful of people knowingly misrepresented me and the rest who were too lazy to look in to it simply responded based on their lies about me rather than my actual statements.

I'm sure it's pointless but here goes one more time.

1) the woman in the article did not make the claim attributed to her. She never "advocate(d) raping of female members of the military". (I suppose I should have assumed misrepresentation would be common here since this thread started with a big one).

2) there are some things women (and I suppose men in some cases but less likely) can do to minimize their chances of rape and pointing this out is not defacto supporting rape.

3) likewise a certain amount of rapes are "to be expected". That doesn't mean condoned but if you put enough men together with enough women you can reasonably expect some incidence of rape (which is what she said in the article).

4) for every other single crime it is possible to mention that there are certain behaviors which put you at a greater risk than others (not that they cause the crime, but statistically they make it more likely) and avoiding these if at all possible is probably wise (this was separate from simply being in the military).

5) as I've said godknows how many times this doesn't mean the rapist isn't to blame and the victim isn't 100% the victim.

6) you will claim I said the rapist isn't to blame and it's all the victims fault.

A Dark Evil Omen: GhostFish: T. Dawg: I wonder how rape apologists' arguments would apply to other situations. Blaming the victim would seem to be so contrary to the Party of Personal Responsibility.

Not necessarily. Blaming the victim, at least in part, is a very common rationalization. Hypothetically, it stems from a desire to believe that we live in a just and ordered universe. We don't want to believe that we live in a chaotic and uncaring universe, and so we rationalize that somehow the victim must have deserved what happened to them or foolishly ignored the warning signs along their path.

The "Party of Personal Responsibility" is also overtly more religious. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were more inclined to rationalize just why it is bad things seem to happen to people for no immediately obvious reason.

Just World fallacy: At some level, the cause or catalyst of most of the great evils in the world.

Yeah, my post had a great deal of eyerolling behind it. I know the whole reason behind the failed logic of the right. Understand? No. But I know of it. After all I grew up in the area that keeps electing Michele Bachmann :P

As one of the many who sure as hell did not ask for it, I have to say that the turning tide of people calling out to stop blaming the victim is encouraging, but when things like this pop up my brain goes tilt.

9beers: A Dark Evil Omen: I'd be angry and aggressive too if my life was so empty that all I had to do on Christmas was create troll alternative on Farm.

Well, you're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

LOL that's the best you could do to his burn? It would have been better to just ignore it and disappear from the thread.

If a person's ignorance or naivete may have facilitated their victimization, it's only reasonable to address that as a means to reduce the possibility of further victimization. But the victim shouldn't be faulted for being innocent. Blame lays solely on the person that took advantage of the victim.

watson.t.hamster: 2) there are some things women (and I suppose men in some cases but less likely) can do to minimize their chances of rape and pointing this out is not defacto supporting rape.

No, but you're implying that the victim has some fault if she does get raped because she didn't "minimize her chances" enough.

watson.t.hamster: 4) for every other single crime it is possible to mention that there are certain behaviors which put you at a greater risk than others (not that they cause the crime, but statistically they make it more likely) and avoiding these if at all possible is probably wise (this was separate from simply being in the military).

And this in not victim blaming either?

moralpanic: 9beers: A Dark Evil Omen: I'd be angry and aggressive too if my life was so empty that all I had to do on Christmas was create troll alternative on Farm.

Well, you're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

LOL that's the best you could do to his burn? It would have been better to just ignore it and disappear from the thread.

His burn? How old are you, 14?

9beers: moralpanic: 9beers: A Dark Evil Omen: I'd be angry and aggressive too if my life was so empty that all I had to do on Christmas was create troll alternative on Farm.

Well, you're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

LOL that's the best you could do to his burn? It would have been better to just ignore it and disappear from the thread.

His burn? How old are you, 14?

Aww umad?

Gyrfalcon: Settle down, everyone.

I am not about to take sides with the rodent, because I am all for the instant death of all hamsters; but his tortured argument is one which fools often make when they think they are being reasonable about why women are "responsible" for not getting raped. I run into this all the time.

OF COURSE women should take "sensible precautions" to AVOID rape (not "prevent"); but they're not what buffoons like him seem to think. And they have less to do with not going out drinking or being careful who you get into a car with, because by then it's way too late. They have to do with adjusting your mind set months or years before you ever get into trouble.

It does NOT mean living in a state of perpetual paranoia, just in a state of awareness. Not all men are potential rapists; in fact, most men would never harm a woman, and certainly not by forcible rape. Once you know that, you can protect yourself against the ones who are. And you can do so without giving up all the fun stuff you like to do: You can go out, you can drink, if that's your preference, you can live alone, you can walk around late at night (assuming you live in an area where you can do that anyway); hell, you can even date and invite people home for dinner. And you can join the military or be a cop.

It DOES, however, mean you change the way you think about things, and one of them is that you as a woman have to stop being a nice sweet friendly woman and demand the same respect and dignity from others that you give to them. You don't ASK, or timidly request, you insist, and if you don't get it, you don't cower away and sit in the corner or cry and go to your supervisor. You do have to let people know that you're prepared to back yourself up 110% and alone if necessary--because that's what men do, you see.

Now of course, that won't protect you against the 1% of rapists who are going to leap at you from behind the bushes and hold a gun to your head; and then you have to have your mind made u ...

So . . .wait you're saying women should be raped and it's all their fault if they do and the rapist is entirely innocent?

That's pretty farked up.

OK, I just watched the ending of the video and saw what I missed the first time around. This chick is farking crazy and has an obvious agenda against women in the military. Don't blame Fox though, the dude points out what a moron she is.

And how on earth did we miss this part?

FTA: To his credit, Fox host Eric Shawn tried to talk Trotta down a bit. "You certainly want the people fighting the war to be protected from anything that could be illegal," he said. But Trotta wouldn't have it. "Nice try Eric," she said, "This whole question of women in the military has not been aired properly, and it's the great sleeping giant."

How the fark can anyone defend that? And how the fark is it still a question?

What a retched old coont.