Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 28, 2013

[OTP - March] Scott wants money for spring training teams

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Tripon Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM | 2909 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, florida, ot, politics, spring training

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 25 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 > 
   2401. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 09:49 AM (#4395700)
So truthful public service ads can't be aimed at girls and women?

I have no idea where you come up with the idea that certain people lack "standing" to provide helpful advice to other people.
I don't think Andy gets it quite right, so I'll offer a bit of a correction:

This has been explained, but one of the effects of the discourse you're talking about is that it reduces the likelihood of rape victims coming forward, because of the subtext that they are partially at fault for the rapist's actions. The effects of these crimes are deeply psychological, and what we know from victims is that feeling like the attack was partially their fault reduces their willingness to report. And having a culture of victim-shaming, where dickheads on internet message boards feel compelled to declare victims stupid and irresponsible, is part of the ####### problem-- the "rape culture"* discussed earlier.

Devil explained all this above; apparently you neglected to read or to comprehend what she wrote.

But I'm sure you'll continue to insist that you know better than people who work with abuse victims for a living-- that the people who study this stuff are just avoiding the harsh truths you're bold enough to utter. So go on with your bad self and all.

*again, as a term, I find this wanting, but it is shorthand for a bigger conversation.
   2402. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4395716)
This has been explained, but one of the effects of the discourse you're talking about is that it reduces the likelihood of rape victims coming forward, because of the subtext that they are partially at fault for the rapist's actions. The effects of these crimes are deeply psychological, and what we know from victims is that feeling like the attack was partially their fault reduces their willingness to report. And having a culture of victim-shaming, where dickheads on internet message boards feel compelled to declare victims stupid and irresponsible, is part of the ####### problem-- the "rape culture"* discussed earlier.

That isn't at all what Andy said. What he said was that people didn't have "standing" to say things because of their race or gender. How, then, is the existence of things like women defense counsel in sexual crime cases explained?

It's a ludicrous idea on a number of levels and no amount of whining is going to cure that.
   2403. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4395718)
I was responding to your point about PSAs. I agree with Andy on the question of standing.* That you don't is predictable and frankly boring as hell.

*Not in a formal sense. But I'm not sure he meant it in a formal sense.
   2404. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4395719)
Tell you what: Go out to the first 10 women you see whose dress you might find too provocative in certain situations, and start telling them that for their own good, they should dress more modestly.

That wasn't really what we were talking about -- we were talking about getting so shitfaced that you lose control of yourself and your ability to function. Suggesting that people, including girls/women, don't do that is a good idea and pretty much anyone has "standing" to do so.

What you're really saying is that all advice about conduct and the like must be proffered by modern liberals or in keeping with the modern liberal script -- in which race and gender are paramount. If the message can't be separated from the messenger -- of course, it can be, but I'll play along -- there's a "white" message, a "black" message, a "female" message, etc., and that conception of an ineluctible tie between thoughts and race/gender is modern liberalism at its essence.


No such thing is true, which is why black people and women are entirely free to give me advice and "lecture" me.


And we've seen just how much good that's done here on BTF. You're certainly free to keep giving all the advice you want, but don't be surprised if few or none of your intended recipients are paying attention to your message.

Your only reaction to that is to change the subject and start questioning the motives of those who agreed with her.

That wasn't my reaction at all.


No, not at all.

The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4392285)
NEWSFLASH: Andy is prostrating himself to demonstrate his deep and unabiding agreement with the black, liberal woman. Stop the presses.

The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4392575)
Except Devil, to the vociferous applause of her personal Eydie Gorme, Andy, has already denominated much of the conversation and people participating in it part of the "rape culture" so it's hard to get too worked up over someone else joining in.


Once again you completely distort what I was saying, which had nothing to do with comparing the violence of rape to the non-violent invasion of a stop-and-frisk**, but with comparing the advice to be given to those who might want to avoid either (1) rape or (2) unprovoked confrontations with racially profiling policemen. The violations aren't the same, but the conversations that daughters and minorities have with parents who want their children to avoid misfortune often have much in common.

If the violations aren't the same -- and they aren't even close -- then the imperatives in preventing them aren't the same either.


True enough, but that changes the subject from the common substance of the messages to their relative importance. In both cases those conversations are taking place every day, and for the parent of a black or Hispanic child it might seem every bit as important. Not that you would ever begin to understand that.

Preventing rape is far more important -- and thus advice far more appropriate -- than preventing "racially profiling policemen," whatever that means.

I guess since you'll never be the victim of a racially profiling policeman, you'll never be able to figure out what that "means". But I'm sure that won't stop you from giving equally unsolicited advice to blacks and Hispanics about how to comport themselves in front of policemen.
   2405. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4395721)
If he's redeemable, then you don't want to lock him up with career criminals for 20 years.

The criminal justice/imprisonment economy is a giant screw-up system for which I have no real answer; and that's admitting I am a bit of a hard case when it comes to serious crimes.

With that acknowledgment, what would your plan be for a.) determining that if, and then b.) the follow-up for punishment/rehabilitation in either case?
   2406. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:10 AM (#4395722)
I completely reject your view on the mental capacity of 14 y.o.'s. They know robbing people and killing babies is wrong.


Agreed, unless they're otherwise impaired (which is a whole 'nother discussion, anyway). `At the same time, when does the line get crossed? Age 12? 10? 9?

Not bringing this up to be argumentative, but simply as a point of consideration. I don't think I can come up with a good answer myself.
   2407. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4395740)
And we've seen just how much good that's done here on BTF. You're certainly free to keep giving all the advice you want, but don't be surprised if few or none of your intended recipients are paying attention to your message.

Others have been delivering the "advice" far more than I, but that aside, the extent to which people reject advice is an entirely different issue than the legitimacy of proffering the advice.

Nor do I understand the continuous citing of Devil. As a black women, she has no conception of what white men experience or go through -- right? And thus no "standing" to advise or lecture anyone other than black women -- right? Or is the "standing" idea a strictly one-way street?

True enough, but that changes the subject from the common substance of the messages to their relative importance. In both cases those conversations are taking place every day, and for the parent of a black or Hispanic child it might seem every bit as important. Not that you would ever begin to understand that.

Yes, but that merely points out the obvious -- that people protect their children differently and with different messages than they protect society-at-large. Monethless, society -- both civil and government -- advise people about worthy and unworthy conduct perpetually and consistently.

I guess since you'll never be the victim of a racially profiling policeman, you'll never be able to figure out what that "means". But I'm sure that won't stop you from giving equally unsolicited advice to blacks and Hispanics about how to comport themselves in front of policemen.

I fully know what it means, I just have no idea what it "means" in the context of what we're talking about, other than the fact that being racially profiled isn't close to as bad as being raped. (And if certain ways of dress or conduct trigger a greater chance of being profiled, then the profiling isn't merely racial.)

You can comfortably dispense with the idea that I'm not able to empathize with people who are "different" than I. In a number of ways, I'm actually far better at it than you. As always, it remains the better course of conduct to address the ideas people are discussing on their merits, rather than forcing them into a pre-existing template. Do I have "standing" to make that suggestion?
   2408. The District Attorney Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4395745)
   2409. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4395747)
I can't stand the term 3D printing and hereby demand they come up with something that has a little more gravity and wonder.
   2410. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4395748)
No, you don't understand justice b/c you're stuck in a materialist, utilitarian mindset. Just has nothing to do with fixing the material harm caused, it's about balancing the metaphysical harm.


The metaphysical harm? What the hell does that even mean? Are you patching up the wormhole to heaven by throwing a 14 year old in prison for 20 years?
   2411. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4395754)
Are you patching up the wormhole to heaven by throwing a 14 year old in prison for 20 years?

That's horrific. We need wormholes opened, not closed. I'll be in complete support of this for the latter. (Although heaven is not really much of a destination. Nothing ever happens there.)
   2412. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4395756)

I can't stand the term 3D printing and hereby demand they come up with something that has a little more gravity and wonder.


Replication.
   2413. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4395760)
Tell you what: Go out to the first 10 women you see whose dress you might find too provocative in certain situations, and start telling them that for their own good, they should dress more modestly. See how far you get. See what they think about your standing to lecture them. You seem to have this curious idea that the message can always be separated from the messenger, but in the real world that's often not how it works.


Andy (*): Do you go up to random people and start telling them that for their own good, they should stop smoking? Or do you hope that public awareness campaigns can reach them?

Your arguments here long ago passed the border of the absurd. ((*) And you've changed the subject above, from drinking/passing out at high school parties to "provocative dress." The Steubenville thing was not about provocative dress. Please try to stay on point.)
   2414. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4395764)
All of you should stop smoking.
   2415. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4395766)
With that acknowledgment, what would your plan be for a.) determining that if, and then b.) the follow-up for punishment/rehabilitation in either case?


If the 14 year old did not do the shooting, if he was just along for the ride when the 17 year old shot a toddler in the head, I can't imagine he needs to be in prison for 20 years. Even if he went along for the ride with full knowledge of the plan to mug and rob someone, he didn't point the gun and pull the trigger.

If the 14 year old did the shooting, then he should almost certainly be evaluated for mental illness. If he's deemed, reasonably well, to be sociopathic then you can make a case for simply removing him from society entirely. Sociopaths are not rehabilatable to my knowledge. BUT, if you're going to deem a 14 year old sociopathic and beyond rehabilitation, you have to give him LIFE, not 20 years. Because, again, there's NOTHING gained from sending him in for 20 and then letting a 34 year old sociopath walk in 2033.
   2416. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4395767)
All of you should stop smoking.


If you are not a smoker, you have no standing to dispense that advice. We just learned that. Please try to keep up.
   2417. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4395768)
And we've seen just how much good that's done here on BTF. You're certainly free to keep giving all the advice you want, but don't be surprised if few or none of your intended recipients are paying attention to your message.


An inability to put yourself in the position of the other side is the mark of the dogmatic/doctrinaire/ideological mindset. That is not, nor should it be, although those with special agendas would like to be, the essence of the legal process. The legal process is there to make sure all sides are heard.

Would those boys in the Steubenville case have done what they did if she had not been drunk and incapacitated?

If you think so, then that’s a quantum leap that should be gone into as another discussion.

But if you think they would not have, then the idea that “rape” (at least the kind as defined loosely here and elsewhere) has no connection to the behavior of the victim simple doesn’t compute.

If so, if you concede they would not have, then the victim’s behavior has relevance, cause and effect materiality, just as it does with any other crime.

Now, understand: that in and of itself doesn’t exonerate the perpetrator—but there are defenses in law and we don’t know what will exonerate (or mitigate) the actions of an accused until we go into it. To decide you can go into something in a way because it might cast the accused in a bad light is not, and should not be, legally cognizable. Well, it is, to some degree, and that’s too bad.

That’s what bothers me—this shutting of the eyes as to the other side of the story, this simply not wanting to even hear the other side, which implies that there can be nothing that can exculpate or mitigate. That’s not law, which deals with actions only under narrowly prescribed situations. That’s a witch hunt mentality.

Moreover, it’s not intelligent discourse.
   2418. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4395788)
This has been explained, but one of the effects of the discourse you're talking about is that it reduces the likelihood of rape victims coming forward,


It reduces the likelihood of being a rape victim in the first place, which is a good thing. I presume you're not arguing that the Steubenville victim had just as much a chance of being raped had she been completely sober rather than passed-out drunk. (Are you??)

because of the subtext that they are partially at fault for the rapist's actions.


We could say the exact same thing about education about AIDS awareness, or education to prevent STDs in general. In many societal issues, behavior contributes to the problem. That doesn't mean we don't educate people that the behavior (e.g., lack of safe sex outside of a committed relationship) could lead to a problem. Should we not tell men and women to make sure they have safe sex because they might feel ashamed later that they ended up with an STD?
   2419. tshipman Posted: March 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4395806)
It reduces the likelihood of being a rape victim in the first place, which is a good thing. I presume you're not arguing that the Steubenville victim had just as much a chance of being raped had she been completely sober rather than passed-out drunk. (Are you??)


The problem with this statement is that you're acting as though this girl was the only potential victim. As long as there was any girl at that party who drank, there was likely to be a rape committed. While avoiding getting passed-out would have helped the individual victim, it wouldn't have prevented the crime.

That's part of the reason why this discourse is so spectacularly unhelpful.
   2420. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4395809)
Having to put up with two views to an event (at least two views, but let us not get too Roshomon ) is what makes the legal system frustrating and psychologically unsatisfying. The alternative is the tribal mindset. (See Jared Diamond's "Vengeance is Mine" or the Hatfields and McCoys.) But a vendetta system can be a never-ending cycle of destruction, even if it feels psychologically good.

The first recorded instance of law as it began to develop in the West is the trial of Orestes for killing his mother (who had killed her husband, who had sacrificed to the gods their child). A greater force, the gods in the personages of Athena (judge) and Apollo (defense counsel) and the Erinyes (prosecutors), impose a system where both sides are heard and a trier issues a verdict. It's kind of funny, but the trial of Orestes is about an outrage done to a woman (no question of the underlying act), a mother, which is what infuriates the Erinyes so much, and whether there is justification for it. The Erinyes position was pretty much like that of those on behalf of the girl here. Let us not talk about it; let's just string him up. Anything else strike at what it means to be a woman, a mother, and the pedestal we place her on--and we do so, for good reason. That does not absolutely dispose of the issue.



   2421. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4395810)
As long as there was any girl at that party who drank, there was likely to be a rape committed.

Huh? The narrative is that she drank so much that her ability to affirmatively verbalize and signal lack of consent was gone. Merely drinking wouldn't make that happen.

(And of course, as previously noted, she wasn't "raped," though she was adjudged the victim of a sexual crime.)
   2422. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4395814)
Nor do I understand the continuous citing of Devil.

Of course you don't. You dismissed everything she wrote without even addressing it.
As a black women, she has no conception of what white men experience or go through -- right?
It's awesome that you introduce the same arguments every 18 year-old white male does on their first day in a Cultural Studies class-- and then act like it's some sort of gotcha. Awesome.
(And if certain ways of dress or conduct trigger a greater chance of being profiled, then the profiling isn't merely racial.)

You actually just said that.
In a number of ways, I'm actually far better at it than you.
Of course you are! You're better at everything, precious!
==
It reduces the likelihood of being a rape victim in the first place, which is a good thing.
This is part of the problem-- you keep stating this as fact. The counternarrative of the "take back the night"/slutwalk crowd is to assert the female right to bodily autonomy regardless of her dress or level of inebriation. Saying the opposite of that-- that women forfeit their expectation of bodily autonomy based on their actions (yes Ray, dressing and drinking are both actions!)--undermines that message, by making it seem as if women's actions are the cause of men's sexual assaults on them.
I presume you're not arguing that the Steubenville victim had just as much a chance of being raped had she been completely sober rather than passed-out drunk. (Are you??)
Keep digging your hole, Ray. You're taking every chance you can to focus attention on the victim-- this is precisely the narrative that activists have been working to combat, and it's the one you insist on doubling down on. And it comes from a place of arrogance rather than of concern-- you just must know something that all those silly little anti-rape activists who deal with this stuff on a daily basis just aren't hip to. If only they'd solicited the advice of a male lawyer earlier, just think how many rapes could have been prevented!
Should we not tell men and women to make sure they have safe sex because they might feel ashamed later that they ended up with an STD?
Back to "the rapist as a force of nature" argument? That's a winner.

If there is a hostility toward female victims of male sexual assault-- if their victimization is met with "she shouldn't have been drunk in the first place" and "she should have known better"-- then you are creating conditions where less women will come forward as victims of sexual assault. And that will result in less rapists getting caught, which emboldens them to continue their behavior ("rape culture").
   2423. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4395815)
Andy (*): Do you go up to random people and start telling them that for their own good, they should stop smoking? Or do you hope that public awareness campaigns can reach them?

Unlike DP, I'm not against public awareness campaigns on many topics, including teen pregnancy, AIDS awareness, the link between cigarettes and early death, and a whole host of other subjects. I haven't said anything against these campaigns.

-----------------------------------------------

And we've seen just how much good that's done here on BTF. You're certainly free to keep giving all the advice you want, but don't be surprised if few or none of your intended recipients are paying attention to your message.

An inability to put yourself in the position of the other side is the mark of the dogmatic/doctrinaire/ideological mindset.


I have no idea what you're talking about here. Jesus, I could easily step into the "other side" of this discussion and if I changed my handle you wouldn't be able to tell I was faking it. I've been hearing and reading about the other side of political arguments for about the last 55 years, and I could likely do a better job of presenting the POV of some of these people than they're capable of doing themselves, at least to the point of not coming off as so completely clueless about how they come across.

   2424. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4395817)
Of course you don't. You dismissed everything she wrote without even addressing it.

I addressed several of the things she said, several times.
   2425. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4395818)
As a black women, she has no conception of what white men experience or go through -- right?


Exhibit A of the point I was making.

Nor do I understand the continuous citing of Devil. As a black women, she has no conception of what white men experience or go through -- right? And thus no "standing" to advise or lecture anyone other than black women -- right? Or is the "standing" idea a strictly one-way street?


And Exhibit B.

It's awesome that you introduce the same arguments every 18 year-old white male does on their first day in a Cultural Studies class-- and then act like it's some sort of gotcha. Awesome.

I could fill this entire page with the names of early to mid-1960's Duke undergraduates who were making the same sort of arguments that Ray and SBB are making now. --- "I don't complain if I can't eat in a black-owned restaurant. Why should it be any different the other way around?"

   2426. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4395819)
2423:

Do you think the other side should be heard--as to any law case, or just in general?

If so, why do you slam those who make the case for those boys?
   2427. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4395820)
2419:

Making it just a generic "rape" is what is not helpful--and not true. There was more to it and her actions were also particular to her.

The issue here, on this side, is not about re-trying and re-deciding the case. It is whether the other side of an issue gets to be heard.
   2428. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4395821)
I could fill this entire page with the names of early to mid-1960's Duke undergraduates who were making the same sort of arguments as Ray is now. "I don't complain if I can't eat in a black-owned restaurant. Why should it be any different the other way around?"

Great. Good for you.

Now what's the answer to them, other than some sort of racial or gender exceptionalism?

(And your restaurant meme isn't the argument -- the argument is that "standing" as you've posited it is a one-way street. Black women can lecture and hector non-black women; whites can't lecture and hector non-whites. From what source does Devil get her "standing"?)
   2429. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4395822)
The problem with this statement is that you're acting as though this girl was the only potential victim. As long as there was any girl at that party who drank, there was likely to be a rape committed.


On what evidence do you base this conclusion?
   2430. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4395824)
I could fill this entire page with the names of early to mid-1960's Duke undergraduates who were making the same sort of arguments as Ray is now. "I don't complain if I can't eat in a black-owned restaurant. Why should it be any different the other way around?"


Do they or don't they get to say that? Do we as society, and our institutions, get to factor that or don't we?
   2431. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4395825)
It's awesome that you introduce the same arguments every 18 year-old white male does on their first day in a Cultural Studies class-- and then act like it's some sort of gotcha. Awesome.


This is not a rebuttal.
   2432. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM (#4395826)
It is hard to express dispassionately how odious I think the underlying mindset is that would suppress speech and the giving of the other side as it applies to deciding a criminal action. And I can see that that mindset thinks this is a "defense of rape" and is equally despicable. Now what? See Orestes.
   2433. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM (#4395827)
I could fill this entire page with the names of early to mid-1960's Duke undergraduates who were making the same sort of arguments as Ray is now. "I don't complain if I can't eat in a black-owned restaurant. Why should it be any different the other way around?"

Do they or don't they get to say that?


Of course they do. What do you think I was doing, shooting them for saying it? Trying to get them kicked off campus? Morty, this was the Goldwater-loving Duke of the early-mid 60's, not the Berkeley or Harvard of 2013.

Do we as society, and our institutions, get to factor that or don't we?

"Factor it in?" By definition, we do. Let that voice override a more humane perspective on that particular issue? I would hope not.
   2434. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4395829)
Do you go up to random people and start telling them that for their own good, they should stop smoking?

Many years ago I worked at a big box, which had a large workforce and a large breakroom. One woman, who I otherwise did not know at all, smoked during lunch breaks. Then she got pregnant, and she kept smoking. I wanted to lecture the woman, but the goal was not to satisfy my self-righteousness so much as to get her to stop smoking. I've had plenty of conversations with smokers that made it pretty clear that it takes a lot more than knowledge to get them to stop. There has to be something more to the lecture, but I didn't know what, so I kept my mouth shut.

Anyway, the woman gave birth, and the kid died a month later. Again, I didn't know the woman, so her personal tragedy, while obviously great, didn't hit me particularly hard. My takeaway was to wonder if I had made the right decision to let her live with her decision. Twenty years later I still don't know.
   2435. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4395830)
2433:

How do you decide what's humane? And how do you decide that should trump the integrity and stability of society (note, I'm not saying it necessarily never should). Societies (whether families, local communities, greater communities) don't just exist to validate your sense of what's right and wrong.
   2436. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4395839)
2433:

How do you decide what's humane?


Individually, I can only decide that for myself. Individually, I can only try to influence collective opinion in that direction.

And how do you decide that should trump the integrity and stability of society (note, I'm not saying it necessarily never should). Societies (whether families, local communities, greater communities) don't just exist to validate your sense of what's right and wrong.

I'm well aware that my positions on various subjects aren't held by majorities in either Congress or the Supreme Court. To the extent that this bothers me in specific cases, I can try to make my voice heard to change those decisions, but in the meantime I can either choose to obey the law or violate it and accept the consequences.
   2437. BDC Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4395847)
I'll attempt a public-service thread hijack :) Has the Texas gold story gotten much play nationally? (For all I know it's already been broached in this very thread, but if so I missed it and apologize.)

A Texas state lawmaker has proposed a bill that would allow the state to store its own gold in a manner that deem any attempts of government confiscation to be “null and void,” James Rickards, senior managing director of Tangent Capital Partners and author of Currency Wars, told Yahoo.

The state's gold reserves are currently stored in New York under the watch of the Federal Reserve. But Gov. Rick Perry thinks Texas should be keeping watch over its own gold.


I find this fascinating. Quite apart from the gold fetish, the initiative reveals a deep-seated physical distrust of bank accounts. I mean, whatever you're investing in for whatever reason, you usually store it somewhere and get a receipt. But evidently the Texas Tea Party does not feel they really own something unless it's underneath their bed and they're lying on top with a gun under their pillow.

"The state's gold reserves" noted here are actually an investment holding of the University of Texas endowment; they're not, like, Sam Houston's family spoons or something.

   2438. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4395852)
The state's gold reserves are currently stored in New York under the watch of the Federal Reserve. But Gov. Rick Perry thinks Texas should be keeping watch over its own gold.


Curses! Just when the Kenyan was going to confiscate the entire Texas portion and ship it to the Women's Rape Crisis Center!
   2439. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4395859)
It's awesome that you introduce the same arguments every 18 year-old white male does on their first day in a Cultural Studies class-- and then act like it's some sort of gotcha. Awesome.

If I was less wise and insightful than an 18 year old, I probably wouldn't be so loudly proclaiming the fact but, hey, that's me.

If there is a hostility toward female victims of male sexual assault-- if their victimization is met with "she shouldn't have been drunk in the first place" and "she should have known better"-- then you are creating conditions where less women will come forward as victims of sexual assault. And that will result in less rapists getting caught, which emboldens them to continue their behavior ("rape culture").

Nothing about your extremist views would lead a serious and reasonable person to trust you to keep the term "hostility" within its actual meaning.
   2440. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4395875)
If I was less wise and insightful than an 18 year old, I probably wouldn't be so loudly proclaiming the fact but, hey, that's me.
Keep thinking you've scored a point here. It's cute-- as if 40 years of identity politics never happened, just because you're ignorant of them.
Nothing about your extremist views would lead a serious and reasonable person to trust you to keep the term "hostility" within its actual meaning.
This is where you would do well to listen to what victims have said, rather than just condescendingly telling them how to interpret your statements. Again, you're making claims from a standpoint of ignorance, on the assumption that you know better.
   2441. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4395879)
It's cute-- as if 40 years of identity politics never happened, just because you're ignorant of them.

Oh, don't worry -- I'm fully cognizant of the last 40 years of identity politics.(*)

This is where you would do well to listen to what victims have said, rather than just condescendingly telling them how to interpret your statements. Again, you're making claims from a standpoint of ignorance, on the assumption that you know better.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I do generally trust what victims say, but I wouldn't trust you to keep the term "hostility" defined within proper bounds. It was a dig on you, not on crime victims.

(*) Although I do confess that it's rather charming that someone could be so clueless as to believe that criticism of identity politics must mean that the critic isn't aware of identity politics. That's in all seriousness one of the most clueless things I've ever seen written by a literate individual -- truly Gumpian in its own way -- so thanks.
   2442. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4395883)
(*) Although I do confess that it's rather charming that someone could be so clueless as to believe that criticism of identity politics must mean that the critic isn't aware of identity politics. That's in all seriousness one of the most clueless things I've ever seen written by a literate individual, so thanks.
Huh. So your inability to comprehend the most basic contention of identity politics is a sign of what, then? I was being charitable by characterizing it as ignorance; I was wrong in that assessment.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I do generally trust what victims say, but I wouldn't trust you to keep the term "hostility" defined within proper bounds. It was a dig on you, not on crime victims.
Now you're just being unhinged for the sake of being unhinged. You claimed that discussing the role of the victim in the crime does not create a hostile environment for victims to report in. I'm saying that contradicts the claims of advocacy groups who work with victims.
   2443. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4395886)
Huh. So your inability to comprehend the most basic contention of identity politics is a sign of what, then?

I don't have an inability to comprehend it. I have an ability to comprehend it all too well and thus realize what an easy target it is.

Which is why most of what I've written on the political threads is a criticism of identity politics. I thought that came through loud and clear but perhaps going with "IDENTITY POLITICS SUCK!!!" and leaving it at that might have been the wiser course.
   2444. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4395890)
This is part of the problem-- you keep stating this as fact. The counternarrative of the "take back the night"/slutwalk crowd is to assert the female right to bodily autonomy regardless of her dress or level of inebriation. Saying the opposite of that-- that women forfeit their expectation of bodily autonomy based on their actions (yes Ray, dressing and drinking are both actions!)--undermines that message, by making it seem as if women's actions are the cause of men's sexual assaults on them.


I never said that women "forfeit their expectation of bodily autonomy," or anything like that. I said they should be given the information to make an informed decision, by which I mean they should be educated that getting completely drunk or passed out increases the risk that they may be sexually assaulted.

If there is a hostility toward female victims of male sexual assault-- if their victimization is met with "she shouldn't have been drunk in the first place" and "she should have known better"-- then you are creating conditions where less women will come forward as victims of sexual assault. And that will result in less rapists getting caught, which emboldens them to continue their behavior ("rape culture").


I think it's very unhelpful to actively keep hidden from young women what the realities of the world are, in an attempt to score cheap political points. This especially includes 16 year old girls who may not have ever been drunk before and who may not understand that being completely drunk or passed out in such a situation increases the risk that they will be sexually assaulted or raped. Education could really save a percentage of them from being sexually assaulted or raped. But you don't have it in you to agree with this, because you're hell bent on scoring political points with your friends on a discussion board. You're hell bent on smearing people who point out these common sense things.
   2445. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4395891)
I thought that came through loud and clear but perhaps going with "IDENTITY POLITICS SUCK!!!" and leaving it at that might have been the wiser course.
I like that you think one critique is substantively different from the other.
   2446. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4395893)
Education could really save a percentage of them from being sexually assaulted or raped.
This is an assertion masquerading as an empirical claim.
But you don't have it in you to agree with that, because you're hell bent on scoring political points with your friends on a discussion board.
Not at all. I'm trusting the opinions of people who study sexual abuse and sexual assault for a living. You're trusting...Ray's intuition. Which may be a good thing on subjects you have some experience with, but on this one-- your intuition may be wrong. You won't consider that possibility, because you must know better.
   2447. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4395900)
Not at all. I'm trusting the opinions of people who study sexual abuse and sexual assault for a living. You're trusting...Ray's intuition. Which may be a good thing on subjects you have some experience with, but on this one-- your intuition may be wrong. You won't consider that possibility, because you must know better.

Practically everyone on the board has experience with alcohol and being young and the combination of the two.

So do the "people who study sexual abuse and sexual assault for a living" think the prohibitions against 16 year olds drinking should be lifted? After all, the primary reason they're in place is because 16 year olds typically don't have the wisdom and maturity to handle getting drunk. So society is, albeit indirectly, already providing the advice to 16 year old girls/women you're so strenuously objecting to.(*) Are the age restrictions on drinking also "enabling" the "rape culture"?

(*) Society's advice -- don't drink at all if you're 16 -- is far stronger than Ray's -- don't get shitfaced blasted if you're 16.
   2448. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4395904)
Education could really save a percentage of them from being sexually assaulted or raped.


This is an assertion masquerading as an empirical claim.


I positied my claim in 2418. Bizarrely, and as best I can tell from your answer, you disagreed with it. My claim was:

It reduces the likelihood of being a rape victim in the first place, which is a good thing. I presume you're not arguing that the Steubenville victim had just as much a chance of being raped had she been completely sober rather than passed-out drunk. (Are you??)

So you really do think that had the Steubenville victim been cold sober she would have had just as much of a chance of being raped. Okay. Really, what good is your input on this issue at this point, when you push back against basic realities? The whole reason she couldn't fight back or resist was because she was basically passed out. I mean, isn't that one of the horror aspects of this, that they sexually assaulted a girl who was passed out?? So why (*) when you rightly express said horror do you then suddenly turn around and deny that her being passed out was a factor?

(*) Of course, I ask the question rhetorically, since I know why: You're too invested in a political narrative to be objective or provide useful comments.
   2449. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4395916)
Practically everyone on the board has experience with alcohol and being young and the combination of the two.
Yes, but none of us on this board are being told to learn a valuable lesson from the Stubenville incident, because we have different parts between our legs than the victim.
Are the age restrictions on drinking also "enabling" the "rape culture"?
No. But continuing to insist that we discuss a female's role in a rape is. This is not a difficult thing to wrap your head around, yet here we are.
==
So you really do think that had the Steubenville victim been cold sober she would have had just as much of a chance of being raped. Okay. Really, what good is your input on this issue at this point, when you push back against basic realities? The whole reason she couldn't fight back or resist was because she was basically passed out. I mean, isn't that the horror aspect of this, that they sexually assaulted a girl who was passed out?? So why (*) when you rightly express said horror do you then suddenly turn around and deny that her being passed out was a factor?
#1: If I drove home stone sober late last Saturday and was killed by a drunk driver who t-boned my car, pointing out that I should not have driven home last night is nothing more than a fine bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. Harping in a public forum about how stupid I was to drive home with so many drunk drivers on the road does nothing but take attention away from the responsible party's actions. #2: you're quite charitably assuming that these kids would not have assaulted her if she was not passed out. I'm not comfortable being that charitable toward rapists-- again, this makes the male action the fault of the female.
You're too invested in a political narrative to be objective or provide useful comments.
All narratives are political.
   2450. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4395920)
Yes, but practically none of us on this board are being told to learn a valuable lesson from the Stubenville incident, because we have different parts between our legs than the victims.

Plenty of people are being told to learn valuable lessons from the Steubenville incident -- including you. Haven't you been following?

But continuing to insist that we discuss a female's role in a rape is.

Straw factory sold out a thousand posts upthread.

#2: you're quite charitably assuming that these kids would not have assaulted her if she was not passed out. I'm not comfortable being that charitable toward rapists.

Extremism in the pursuit of bullshit is a vice.

All narratives are political.

Especially yours.
   2451. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4395924)
#1: If I drove home stone sober late last Saturday and was killed by a drunk driver who t-boned my car, pointing out that I should not have driven home last night is nothing more than a fine bit of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Come one now. Driving home is a positive action or at least neutral. It is a necessary thing for you to do.

Getting blacked-out drunk is a negative action way before sexual assault comes into the picture. It's bad for everybody, and nobody should do it in the first place. There's no need for blackout drinking in the world.
   2452. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4395930)
Getting blacked-out drunk is a negative action way before sexual assault comes into the picture. It's bad for everybody, and nobody should do it in the first place. There's no need for blackout drinking in the world


Yeah, apparently, to formerly dp, getting blackout drunk at a party is just the same as getting up in the morning! Why, had this girl not gotten up in the morning, she wouldn't have been raped!

He is in complete denial at best, and actively playing dumb at worst.
   2453. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4395932)
Two dudes on an internet discussion board are obviously trusted authorities on how to best prevent sexual assault. The half second of thought you've both given this obviously trumps the long-term strategizing activists have done in their decades of working with victims.
   2454. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4395942)
Perhaps that's because I'm not "strategizing" to make empty and useless or even dangerous political points, but, rather, I am making the simple, logical, unbiased observation that being blackout drunk at a party increases a girl's risk of being sexually assaulted.

That you can't bring yourself to agree with that simple point speaks volumes.
   2455. Greg K Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4395943)
There's no need for blackout drinking in the world

That's going a little far. Getting blackout drunk can be a natural, zesty enterprise. Just do it around people you trust.

Just like dropping acid.
   2456. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4395944)
A half second of thought is all it takes (well, for most of us anyway) to realize that if you're so shitfaced that you can't defend yourself in any way, you're more likely to become a crime victim, whether or not that crime is a sexual crime.

   2457. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4395945)

Getting blacked-out drunk is a negative action way before sexual assault comes into the picture. It's bad for everybody, and nobody should do it in the first place. There's no need for blackout drinking in the world.


But that's completely independent of any subsequent sexual assault. Getting blacked-out drunk isn't any more wrong if you do it at a party than if you do it alone at home.

The argument being made isn't that she made bad decisions -- it's that she made bad decisions and therefore she was raped, and so she is responsible for her rape.

It's not like a moral distaste for drunkeness is behind the argument here. If she hadn't blacked out, some other excuse for the assault would be found -- she was dressed in skimpy clothing, or she was flirting with the boys, or she was wearing too much makeup, or she wasn't a virgin and was therefore a known slut.

   2458. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4395946)
That you can't bring yourself to agree with that simple point speaks volumes.

Agreeing would ratify your "standing" to advise on that obvious fact and must therefore be resisted without end, even to the point of utter farce.
   2459. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4395951)
But that's completely independent of any subsequent sexual assault. Getting blacked-out drunk isn't any more wrong if you do it at a party than if you do it alone at home.

It isn't independent at all. She lost, the argument goes, her ability to express her lack of consent to the sexual advance. If she hadn't, she very well may not have been sexually assaulted. (And of course, she may have been anyway.)

Which isn't a "judgment" in the least, merely a straightforward observation.

It's not like a moral distaste for drunkeness is behind the argument here. If she hadn't blacked out, some other excuse for the assault would be found -- she was dressed in skimpy clothing, or she was flirting with the boys, or she was wearing too much makeup, or she wasn't a virgin and was therefore a known slut.

That's your imagination running wild, which is why you can't be trusted with terms like "hostility."



   2460. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4395954)
The argument being made isn't that she made bad decisions -- it's that she made bad decisions and therefore she was raped, and so she is responsible for her rape.


Uh, no. This "argument" is being made nowhere, except in your head. (And, apparently, in formerly dp's.) The actual argument is that she made bad decisions which increased her likelihood of being raped. Not that "therefore she was raped." Not that "so she is responsible for her rape."

You made all those parts up. If I accuse you of trolling or of being dishonest, will I get attacked by your friends for trotting out the trolling or dishonesty charge? Well, what else is it, when one misrepresents the arguments being made? It's either trolling/dishonesty or stupidity. I am being charitable to you by assuming the former.
   2461. The Good Face Posted: March 25, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4395964)
Yeah, apparently, to formerly dp, getting blackout drunk at a party is just the same as getting up in the morning! Why, had this girl not gotten up in the morning, she wouldn't have been raped!

He is in complete denial at best, and actively playing dumb at worst.


He's not playing.

Crime reduction 101 involves removing the low hanging fruit. Little things that make committing crimes more difficult or risky are often all that it takes to discourage all but the most determined criminals. The difference between a criminal and a law-abiding citizen is often as simple as a lock on a door. Being aware of one's surroundings and maintaining the capacity to say "No!" and seek help are one such lock.
   2462. tshipman Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4395970)
Just so I'm clear: is it Ray/SBB/whoever's position that if the victim had not gotten black out drunk, there would have been no rape?

So nothing else changes, just the one poor girl who was victimized. She didn't go to the party. Do those guys not commit rape that night? Do they not commit it ever?
   2463. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4395977)

Uh, no. This "argument" is being made nowhere, except in your head. (And, apparently, in formerly dp's.) The actual argument is that she made bad decisions which increased her likelihood of being raped. Not that "therefore she was raped." Not that "so she is responsible for her rape."


I find all of those to be equivalent. They focus responsibility on the victim, not the attackers. The only reason her drunkeness are brought up is to focus responsibility on the victim.


It's not like a moral distaste for drunkeness is behind the argument here. If she hadn't blacked out, some other excuse for the assault would be found -- she was dressed in skimpy clothing, or she was flirting with the boys, or she was wearing too much makeup, or she wasn't a virgin and was therefore a known slut.

That's your imagination running wild, which is why you can't be trusted with terms like "hostility."


It's not my imagination, it happens in virtually every rape case.
   2464. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4395979)
A half second of thought is all it takes (well, for most of us anyway) to realize that if you're so shitfaced that you can't defend yourself in any way, you're more likely to become a crime victim, whether or not that crime is a sexual crime.


This is so fundamentally true that it's hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with it. That's why a position that disagrees with it is rightly called an utter farce.

I've given up on formerly dp, but Lassus, do you agree or disgree with the above-quoted statement? SdeB, do you? Devil? Andy? Tshipman? Please stake out your positions on the above-quoted statement.
   2465. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4395982)
It's not my imagination, it happens in virtually every rape accusation.

It hasn't happened here.
   2466. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4395987)
Just so I'm clear: is it Ray/SBB/whoever's position that if the victim had not gotten black out drunk, there would have been no rape?

First sentence, 2459.

So nothing else changes, just the one poor girl who was victimized. She didn't go to the party. Do those guys not commit rape that night? Do they not commit it ever?

Huh? I don't presume crimes. Do you?
   2467. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4395988)
If I accuse you of trolling or of being dishonest, will I get attacked by your friends for trotting out the trolling or dishonesty charge? Well, what else is it, when one misrepresents the arguments being made? It's either trolling/dishonesty or stupidity. I am being charitable to you by assuming the former.

Tell that to Sugar Bear when he keeps insisting that I've compared the crime of rape to the practice of racial profiling in any substantive way. And tell it to yourself if you've also done so.

And BTW I've never said that anyone here was "defending rape", for the simple reason that no one here has. What people on your side here should be doing is speaking to your daughter(s) or getting behind public information campaigns that would bring your message(s) to a wider audience.
   2468. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4395989)
Just so I'm clear: is it Ray/SBB/whoever's position that if the victim had not gotten black out drunk, there would have been no rape?


No.

It is that if the victim hadn't gotten black-out drunk, she would have been in a position to say no or resist or defend herself or scream or call for help, and there then may have been no rape.

Only if one thinks none of these would have helped can one logically and seriously hold the position that being black-out drunk was a non-factor.

It's not like the guys put a knife to her throat in order to rape her. Nor (to my knowledge) did they have a history of rape or sexual assault. So I don't know why the notion that there may have otherwise been no rape is so deeply foreign for people to comprehend.

So nothing else changes, just the one poor girl who was victimized. She didn't go to the party. Do those guys not commit rape that night? Do they not commit it ever?


They may well not have committed rape that night. As to the future, I do not have a crystal ball. I do think that the fact that they did what they did shows that they may well have done something similar in the future, especially if similar circumstances had arisen.
   2469. tshipman Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4395992)
I've given up on formerly dp, but Lassus, do you agree or disgree with the above-quoted statement? SdeB, do you? Devil? Andy? Tshipman? Please stake out your positions on the above-quoted statement.


Again, I think the whole reason why people are disagreeing is that there's a difference in the discussion.

This reminds me of that joke about two guys running away from a bear ("I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you!").

Your advice is not great (since thousands of women get raped when they are fully sober), but it does marginally increase their likelihood of getting away from the bear--they're not the easiest target anymore. However, your advice is spectacularly poor when it comes to dealing with the bear.

It might or might not be accurate to say that if the girl in question had not been black out drunk, she would not have gotten raped. However, even if every girl at that party drank only one alcoholic beverage, there was still a significant risk of rape, based on the behavior of these young men. The key is not identifying behaviors that make one girl less likely to be raped. The key is to prevent the rape in the first place. Saying things like, "Well, young women shouldn't get black out drunk", enables the crime, because it posits that they share responsibility for the action.
   2470. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4395997)
A half second of thought is all it takes (well, for most of us anyway) to realize that if you're so shitfaced that you can't defend yourself in any way, you're more likely to become a crime victim, whether or not that crime is a sexual crime.


I've given up on formerly dp, but Lassus, do you agree or disagree with the above-quoted statement? SdeB, do you? Devil? Andy? Tshipman? Please stake out your positions on the above-quoted statement.

Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. [EDIT: coke to tshipman] Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
   2471. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4395998)
Uh, no. This "argument" is being made nowhere, except in your head. (And, apparently, in formerly dp's.) The actual argument is that she made bad decisions which increased her likelihood of being raped. Not that "therefore she was raped." Not that "so she is responsible for her rape."

I find all of those to be equivalent.


Well, then, we've isolated the problem: it's your reading comprehension.

"Therefore she was raped" means that once she gets blackout drunk, it was 100% that she would be raped. But nobody is saying that. We are saying it increased the likelihood that she would be raped.

"So she is responsible for her rape." No again. She is responsible for getting blackout drunk, which increased the likelihood that she would be raped. This does not mean that the rapists's blame is lessened one iota.

They focus responsibility on the victim, not the attackers. The only reason her drunkeness are brought up is to focus responsibility on the victim.


It's brought up during an honest and appraisal of the situation, that getting black-out drunk and thus putting herself in a helpless position in that setting increased the likelihood that she would be raped.

Come on, guys. This really isn't that hard.
   2472. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4395999)
And BTW I've never said that anyone here was "defending rape", for the simple reason that no one here has. What people on your side here should be doing is speaking to your daughter(s) or getting behind public information campaigns that would bring your message(s) to a wider audience.


Fair enough, Andy. So you agree, then, that our message is legitimate? I am not asking whether you agree with everything that has been said, but simply whether you agree with the narrow point that young women should be educated that getting blackout drunk in certain settings such as the Steubenville setting increases their chance of being sexually assaulted or raped.
   2473. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4396000)
Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. [EDIT: coke to tshipman] Do you agree or disagree with that statement?


I honestly can't answer, as I don't know what the statement means. I guess I missed a memo on the "Carrie Nations" bit, for starters.
   2474. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4396001)
This is so fundamentally true that it's hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with it. That's why a position that disagrees with it is rightly called an utter farce.

Ray, your logic is just painful to read.


I've given up on formerly dp, but Lassus, do you agree or disgree with the above-quoted statement?

I will be more than happy to tell my nephews in ten years or so that doing things such as what the Steubenville boys did is absolutely, positively wrong, full stop, and in no way excusable on any level; and that for such behavior they should - and will - be rightfully tossed in jail, and - if they care - be personally thought of as human beings not worth my time, if human beings at all.

I will be more than happy to tell my nieces in ten years or so that getting blacked-out walking drunk is a dangerous position to be in where bad things can happy to them on many different levels. I will also tell them that if they get blacked-out walking drunk and assaulted, they should not be embarrassed to come forward because such an assault is absolutely, positively inexcusable on every level regardless of what state of inebriation they were in.

Many here seem to find the first sentence of the latter to be the most important thing to focus on in the wake of a rape or assault. So much so that they count the former to be barely worth bringing up to any boys they might know of any age. I do not.


Fair enough, Andy. So you agree, then, that our message is legitimate?

I am not Andy, but no.



   2475. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4396006)
Fair enough, Andy. So you agree, then, that our message is legitimate? I am not asking whether you agree with everything that has been said, but simply whether you agree with the narrow point that young women should be educated that getting blackout drunk in certain settings such as the Steubenville setting increases their chance of being sexually assaulted or raped.

On that particular point, I've just indicated my agreement. Now just give us an answer to the corollary question I posed in #2470.
   2476. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4396007)
Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Depends what you mean. The term "consent" is defined in the law. Further educating men about that law can't be a bad idea. "Infinitely" more "progress" is fancifully optimistic.

Turning the concept of "consent" -- and sex generally -- over to people like formerly dp and the other extremists to deconstruct and reinvent in their own nutty image is an awful idea.

I doubt you can have one without the other, which I'd say about many of the goals of modern liberalism.
   2477. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4396008)
Fair enough, Andy. So you agree, then, that our message is legitimate? I am not asking whether you agree with everything that has been said, but simply whether you agree with the narrow point that young women should be educated that getting blackout drunk in certain settings such as the Steubenville setting increases their chance of being sexually assaulted or raped.

I consider that Andy's concession speech and will accept it gracefully and graciously. Why it took so long is among life's grandest mysteries.
   2478. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4396011)
Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. [EDIT: coke to tshipman] Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

I honestly can't answer, as I don't know what the statement means. I guess I missed a memo on the "Carrie Nations" bit, for starters.


Carrie Nation was perhaps history's most famous prohibitionist. Sorry for assuming that you knew that, and would therefore understand the question.

But to take Ms. Nation out of it, do you agree that changing men's notions about what constitutes "sexual consent" would do more to reduce the number of rapes than changing the drinking habits of women?
   2479. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4396014)
I will be more than happy to tell my nieces in ten years or so that getting blacked-out walking drunk is a dangerous position to be in where bad things can happy to them on many different levels. I will also tell them that if they get blacked-out walking drunk and assaulted, they should not be embarrassed to come forward because such an assault is absolutely, positively inexcusable on every level regardless of what state of inebriation they were in.


Where the "bad things" include sexual assault and rape, I presume. And there. Was that so hard?




   2480. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4396021)
I consider that Andy's concession speech and will accept it gracefully and graciously. Why it took so long is among life's grandest mysteries.

I'm not sure what I was "conceding" that was anything different than what I've said previously. I've never disagreed with the idea that using a few simple precautions might in some cases lessen a woman's chance of getting raped.

What I've disagreed with is the relative emphasis put on that part of the equation, to the neglect of transforming men's attitudes about "sexual consent". WRT that, I'd ask you to answer the question I just posed once again to Ray. [EDIT: I see you've responded.]

I've also questioned the practical effect of a bunch of men giving unsolicited advice to women they don't even know, who aren't likely to be paying any attention to them. But we've already been through that one enough.
   2481. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4396025)
but simply whether you agree with the narrow point that young women should be educated that getting blackout drunk in certain settings such as the Steubenville setting increases their chance of being sexually assaulted or raped.

The point has always been that in the wake of an assault, this solution is minor in importance, and that beating it like Homer beating a snake makes you sound like a rape apologist and keeps people who are raped - regardless of their state, drunk, sober, anything - from coming forward. The shame is always so vast that any amount of "well, you should have" keeps them quiet. "Well, maybe if I hadn't smiled at them they wouldn't have thought I liked them, I was sending a signal."

No amount of study of and speaking to rape victims means anything to you at all. It is your opinion, it is the meta of your bizarre values that is the Alpha and Omega.

And that's you as well, SBB.
   2482. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4396028)
What I've disagreed with is the relative emphasis put on that part of the equation, to the neglect of transforming men's attitudes about "sexual consent". WRT that, I'd ask you to answer the question I just posed once again to Ray.

I answered it in 2476.

I'd add that I'd be surprised if true "misunderstood consent" rape cases weren't dramatically outnumbered by rape cases in which consent isn't an issue at all, i.e, where lack of consent is obvious -- but that's an empirical question.
   2483. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:40 PM (#4396030)
Where the "bad things" include sexual assault and rape, I presume. And there. Was that so hard?

Your priorities are warped, but as stated in #2481, you simply don't care.
   2484. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4396031)
Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Depends what you mean. The term "consent" is defined in the law. Further educating men about that law can't be a bad idea. "Infinitely" more "progress" is fancifully optimistic.


The legal definition has nothing to do with this. If a man understands that "no means no," the law doesn't enter into it. It's when predatory sophists try to claim that "she really didn't mean no" that the trouble begins.
   2485. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4396038)
The legal definition has nothing to do with this.

Though I'd never accuse you of being an extremist, this is where you lose me entirely. How can the legal definition have "nothing to do" with rape -- a defined crime? If it's not "rape" legally, it's not "rape."
   2486. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4396039)
I'd add that I'd be surprised if true "misunderstood consent" rape cases weren't dramatically outnumbered by rape cases in which consent isn't an issue at all, i.e, where lack of consent is obvious -- but that's an empirical question.

An empirical question to which the answer is largely irrelevant, since both scenarios are obviously numerically large enough to warrant a strong response, especially since "misunderstood rape" incidents take place mostly within families or peer groups, and quite likely go largely unreported in far greater percentages than rapes by a stranger.
   2487. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4396042)
Carrie Nation was perhaps history's most famous prohibitionist.

And the namesake of one of the original roto teams, iirc. (/baseball)
   2488. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4396044)
The legal definition has nothing to do with this.

Though I'd never accuse you of being an extremist, this is where you lose me entirely. How can the legal definition have "nothing to do" with rape -- a defined crime? If it's not "rape" legally, it's not "rape."


If you think of rape as simply "unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration", then perhaps your confusion will go away. Or do you seriously think that the majority of actual cases of unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration wind up in court, and that the ones that don't shouldn't be addressed?
   2489. Greg K Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4396045)
I've always found the Implication scene in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to be great because it manages to be just realistic enough to be truly, truly dark. It's obviously taken to an extreme for the purposes of comedy, but it's not too hard to imagine Dennises out there making their rationalizations about how what they're doing is perfectly fine.
   2490. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4396047)
But to take Ms. Nation out of it, do you agree that changing men's notions about what constitutes "sexual consent" would do more to reduce the number of rapes than changing the drinking habits of women?


On this I would subscribe to SBB's #2476.
   2491. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4396050)
If you think of rape as simply "unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration", then perhaps your confusion will go away.

Why would I think of rape that way, as opposed to the way the law defines it?

Not to mention the fact that there are all sorts of sexual crimes having nothing to do with "sexual penetration" -- it is, e.g., a felony (at least in NY) to touch a woman's breast, whether or not clothed, without her consent -- how are we to "think of" them?

Or do you seriously think that the majority of actual cases of unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration wind up in court, and that the ones that don't shouldn't be addressed?

You're inventing things I "think" again. I guess it's an epidemic.
   2492. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4396057)
The point has always been that in the wake of an assault, this solution is minor in importance, and that beating it like Homer beating a snake makes you sound like a rape apologist


The point was repeated ("beaten") because it was continually being resisted or denied. The resistance came first, and is what necessitated the repetition.

Of course, if I were prone to conspiracy theories, maybe that's part of The Plan liberals have: resist on some simple, obvious point, and then when the point gets repeated brand the people making the simple, obvious point "rape apologists."
   2493. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4396061)
If you think of rape as simply "unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration", then perhaps your confusion will go away.

Why would I think of rape that way, as opposed to the way the law defines it?


Perhaps if it were to happen to you, it might clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Not to mention the fact that there are all sorts of sexual crimes having nothing to do with "sexual penetration" -- it is, e.g., a felony to touch a woman's breast, whether or not clothed, without her consent -- how are we to "think of" them?

However you like, but this isn't the matter under discussion.

Or do you seriously think that the majority of actual cases of unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration wind up in court, and that the ones that don't shouldn't be addressed?

You're inventing things I "think" again. I guess it's an epidemic.


Translation: You don't want to answer the question. Maybe I should assign you a lawyer to advise you of your 5th amendment rights.
   2494. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4396062)
Ray, do you care anything at all for what rape victims have said in regards to how they felt in the wake of a rape or assault and how your insistence to be answered - and little bit of jumping up and down - on your minor point of inebriation adds to the shame of being raped in ANY situation and then greater freedom for rapes to be occur, being known the shame is too great for reporting the same?

Or would you like to focus instead on you and SBB changing what women are allowed to consider consent?

It returns to your priorities, as referenced in #2483.


The resistance came first, and is what necessitated the repetition.

You've really got nothing. The resistance to our repeated point came before we repeated the point. Conspiracy theories?

   2495. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4396064)
If a man understands that "no means no," the law doesn't enter into it. It's when predatory sophists try to claim that "she really didn't mean no" that the trouble begins.


I agree with this.

What percentage of the cases do you think the woman consented, but then the next morning felt guilty and decided that she had been raped? A significant percentage of the time? An insignificant percentage?

As a rule men will never feel guilty the next morning about having sex the night before. (Unless they were cheating, which is not the issue under discussion here.)
   2496. formerly dp Posted: March 25, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4396065)
Saying things like, "Well, young women shouldn't get black out drunk", enables the crime, because it posits that they share responsibility for the action.
Precisely.
==
Turning the concept of "consent" -- and sex generally -- over to people like formerly dp and the other extremists to deconstruct and reinvent in their own nutty image is an awful idea.
Get over your damn self. Consent clearly wasn't given in the Stubenville rape-- if you think that there was any sort of ambiguity in this situation, if you think vomiting on oneself is somehow a mixed message which can sometimes indicate "fingerbang me", you are definitely in need of some education on the concept.

Again: there are people who study this stuff for a living-- they work with victims, and they work with offenders. I know I've revised a lot of my thinking on sexual abuse after talking with people who work with those in the latter category-- their behaviors are not intuitive, and, probably most depressingly, they abuse far, far more people than ever come forward, because they try to assault those who will feel the most shame from the attack, and be the least likely to report. It's rational behavior only from that perspective-- they are obeying a different rationality than you or I would ever entertain. Victim grief is also hard to parse "rationally" or "intuitively" because it involves complex and difficult-to-vocalize reactions to a traumatic event. Which is why reasoning from intuition on this subject gets you precisely nowhere except into the echochamber of your own mind. "Extremism" in this context means being humble enough to recognize that your intuition on a subject may, in fact, be wrong.
   2497. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 25, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4396072)
Get over your damn self. Consent clearly wasn't given in the Stubenville rape--


Steubenville. Note the spelling.
   2498. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4396074)
But to take Ms. Nation out of it, do you agree that changing men's notions about what constitutes "sexual consent" would do more to reduce the number of rapes than changing the drinking habits of women?

On this I would subscribe to SBB's #2476.


IOW you're treating it strictly as a legal question, which it wasn't intended to be. But I'll try again.

Do you think that educating men about the concept of "no means no" would do more to reduce the number of unsolicited and unwanted sexual assaults on women than the enforcement of a two-drink policy on women in mixed groups? Yes or no, with or without footnotes or further explanations.
   2499. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 25, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4396077)
Perhaps if it were to happen to you, it might clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Andy, honestly -- WTF are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the law is too strict with respect to "consent"? Make your point.

However you like, but this isn't the matter under discussion.

Yes, it is, because your proposed definition (I guess that's what it is) doesn't cover the crimes it needs to cover.

Translation: You don't want to answer the question.

Huh? I want all rapes prosecuted and convictions won. I want no non-rapes prosecuted and no convictions won. I don't want legal standards that aren't in the statute books applied to criminal prosecutions, for rape, other sexual crimes, or otherwise.(*)

Isn't that what you want?

(*) So if you're asking if, in a New York criminal case, I want the applicable law to be (1) New York law; or (2) The Andy Standard, sorry, I'm going with (1).


   2500. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4396080)
If a man understands that "no means no," the law doesn't enter into it. It's when predatory sophists try to claim that "she really didn't mean no" that the trouble begins.

I agree with this.

What percentage of the cases do you think the woman consented, but then the next morning felt guilty and decided that she had been raped? A significant percentage of the time? An insignificant percentage?


That's an empirical question that's probably beyond any percentage calculation, but my strong instinct would be to say that very few women who really wanted to have sex to begin with (meaning before sex actually occurred) are likely to claim "rape" the next day.
Page 25 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBaseball's most underrated Hall of Fame candidates. | SportsonEarth.com : Anthony Castrovince Article
(20 - 4:44pm, Nov 28)
Last: Booey

NewsblogMarlins seek lefty balance in lineup, on mound | MLB.com
(3 - 4:39pm, Nov 28)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(28 - 4:38pm, Nov 28)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(611 - 4:31pm, Nov 28)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogJon Lester has plenty of options in addition to Red Sox - Sports - The Boston Globe
(11 - 4:30pm, Nov 28)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5106 - 4:19pm, Nov 28)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1143 - 4:14pm, Nov 28)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(45 - 3:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: Dan

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(17 - 3:52pm, Nov 28)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1189 - 3:40pm, Nov 28)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-28-2014
(8 - 3:39pm, Nov 28)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(43 - 2:57pm, Nov 28)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(11 - 2:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: KJOK

Hall of MeritBrian Giles
(57 - 2:42pm, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(59 - 2:41pm, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

Page rendered in 0.8238 seconds
52 querie(s) executed