Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Canisaur]

That email is about using alcohol and smalltalk to lure women.

Women who are at a frat party.  I would hope they know what to expect about the quality of gentlemen they'll encounter.  It's not like the guy tells them to slip drugs in their drinks while they're in the bathroom.  If the girl doesn't like how the guy is acting she can just leave.

I'm not saying this email should replace Sean Connery's guide to intimidating women into submission with your beard and gentlemanly accent, but it doesn't condone rape at any point (besides the stupid closing line).

[smirk]

That email is about using alcohol and smalltalk to lure women.

Women who are at a frat party.  I would hope they know what to expect about the quality of gentlemen they'll encounter.  It's not like the guy tells them to slip drugs in their drinks while they're in the bathroom.  If the girl doesn't like how the guy is acting she can just leave.

I'm not saying this email should replace Sean Connery's guide to intimidating women into submission with your beard and gentlemanly accent, but it doesn't condone rape at any point (besides the stupid closing line).

Understanding the situation you're going into is a good general rule, but that smacks of putting all the responsibility on the women to me. Even without roofies, alcohol is still a very judgement-impairing drug. And damn, but these guys are intent on using it like a battering ram:

IF THEY ARE HAMMERED AT ANY POINT BEFORE MIDNIGHT, JUST SKIP THE CHIT CHAT AND GO DANCE.

Midnight or after, if you have been talking for awhile and they’ve had a couple drinks, ask if they want to dance. If you see an untalked to group or a solo girl, go up to her and ask if she wants anything to drink. If she says yes, get her a drink and then ask if she wants to dance.
...
If for some reason they aren’t down for a cheek kiss, just dance through it or say you are going to get another drink and see if they want one. And then repeat from the beginning.
...
IF ANYTHING EVER FAILS, GO GET MORE ALCOHOL.

Alcohol and heavy peer pressure. Not illegal, but sleazy as hell.


EDIT: Graknorke: urghh.... I...... uuuuurrrrrghhhhh.

[Neonivek]

Gay boy gets murdered by classmate, people try to justify his killing.
Fucking hell America.

America?

What planet do you come from and can I possibly join?

[kaian-a-coel]

Not anywhere close to the above, but: Ravers under my windows, it's 10pm and I have schoole to attend tomorrow morning.

[GlyphGryph]

Wikipedia agrees with Glyph, for whatever that's worth.

Multiple choice is a form of assessment in which respondents are asked to select the best possible answer (or answers) out of the choices from a list... This contrasts with multiple response items in which more than one answer may be keyed as correct... However, tests may also award partial credit for unanswered questions or penalize students for incorrect answers, to discourage guessing.

Bolded for emphasis.

I think you are misunderstanding what this is saying (which is understandable, because it is confusing), but I am pretty sure this is referring to the fact that you can select multiple answers on a multiple choice test by selecting the choice that says "both (a) and (b) are correct". You are still only allowed to select one choice, but that choice may represent multiple answers. This is not uncommon. Regardless, take any major test described as multiple choice in the USA (or most other English-speaking countries) and if you try to select more than one choice you WILL be marked wrong. There is no reason to believe this test diverged from that standard.

The name for the thing you are describing is, as has been mentioned, Multiple Response, not Multiple Choice.

[Graknorke]

-snip-

I know that carrying this on any longer is stupid at this point, but nobody ever actually specified that the question was multiple-choice. It just asked you to select choices, no specification of how many answers were allowed or what kind of question it was.

[Neonivek]

They made a murder victim the cause of his own murder. I've never seen that before

Oddly enough I do believe somewhat in the "It is the victim's fault", though this is FAR FAR not the case in this situation.

Though I find it odd that "Blaming the victim" is always said in a ironic fashion as if it is "obviously wrong" when there are many situations I can think of where the victims were clearly the instruments off their own troubles.

For example there was this guy who saw heating pools (for test reasons) that were behind a fence with signs saying to keep out. He climbs the fence and there are warning signs that warn him that the pools are incredibly hot. Then he jumps inside one of the heating pools thinking it is like a hot tub and gets scalded. He is the victim but I don't blame the company for his stupidity (In the court case though, he was considered 75% at fault).

I also understand there are situations where I cannot even imagine blaming the victim.

For example "she lead me on" in the case of... well... more serious situations. No, it doesn't matter even if she was leading you on... she takes no fault. Certainly she shouldn't be leading guys, assuming it is true, on and it makes her a jerk, but being a jerk isn't an excuse.

[scrdest]

They made a murder victim the cause of his own murder. I've never seen that before

Oddly enough I do believe somewhat in the "It is the victim's fault", though this is FAR FAR not the case in this situation.

Though I find it odd that "Blaming the victim" is always said in a ironic fashion as if it is "obviously wrong" when there are many situations I can think of where the victims were clearly the instruments off their own troubles.

For example there was this guy who saw heating pools (for test reasons) that were behind a fence with signs saying to keep out. He climbs the fence and there are warning signs that warn him that the pools are incredibly hot. Then he jumps inside one of the heating pools thinking it is like a hot tub and gets scalded. He is the victim but I don't blame the company for his stupidity (In the court case though, he was considered 75% at fault).

I also understand there are situations where I cannot even imagine blaming the victim.

For example "she lead me on" in the case of... well... more serious situations. No, it doesn't matter even if she was leading you on... she takes no fault. Certainly she shouldn't be leading guys, assuming it is true, on and it makes her a jerk, but being a jerk isn't an excuse.

That's not really a good example, there's a difference in subtext in 'victim' between both cases. 'Victim' as in a general recipent of some harm, and 'victim' as in the target of a perpetrator. In your example, the guy is pretty much a victim of himself.

[Neonivek]

the guy is pretty much a victim of himself

No, that line of thinking can only be accepted if one accepts that he was at fault. You skipped a step in logical thinking.

If you accept that he was "not at fault" then he becomes a victim of a company not taking the measures to ensure he wouldn't hurt himself. Not as a self-inflicted victim.

In a similar way to someone pulling an electrified switch. Yes they pulled the switch on their own volition... but would you consider that self-inflicted? Would you consider it self-inflicted if the electrical box had warning signs and the person was told it was electrified?

So in order to be self-inflicted you must first distribute blame.

---

Heck lets say that kid WAS a bully and he abused and humiliated the murderer everyday until he felt lousy about himself... and instead of committing suicide he kills the kid because he cannot take it anymore. How much at fault is the victim?

Heck the interesting aspect is that if the kid DID commit suicide I already know how people would react in that hypothetical (In that the victim is blameless and the bully is at fault).

It is these logical differences that I am the most interested in. They are to me two very similar situations and the only difference between them is the conclusion. So why does killing someone who would in the second situation "deserve to die" not count?

Mind you... This would get into a heated debate. For the most part I try not to accept reasoning on face value and try to understand it. Which makes me seem like a HUGE jerk when I am like "Ok, why is that discrimination?" and people are like "Isn't it obvious?" and I am like "Maybe, but is it obvious?"

That and just to be clear... this is UNRELATED to the article... The Article is not depicting either of these situations. PLEASE don't brain fart and confuse this hypothetical to the article... Also YES I do need to state this, you would be surprised!

The point of this post and the earlier one is my personal oddity with the statement "blame the victim" and how it is used. In that, by all logic, there are many situations where you can.

[Descan]

Blaming the victim is reprehensible when it's a crime towards them personally (even if it's a moment of passion crime).

[Graknorke]

I am now confused. Who said that he wasn't at fault? He was directly responsible for the reason he died, which was jumping into those pools. Unless you're implying that Lawrence actually shot himself then I don't see how the two compare.

[Neonivek]

I am now confused. Who said that he wasn't at fault?

The lawyer said in the article.

Though once again, what I am saying is a musing on one sentence said in the article. It isn't a conversation on the article itself. Which is somewhat of a read, though I cannot watch the videos and I don't want to.

Though the article is clearly not neutral and I actually prefer articles written in neutral tones when it comes to the news. (If I want a "Crooks are obviously terrible people and everyone who defends them is equally evil" I can watch law dramas...)

Blaming the victim is reprehensible when it's a crime towards them personally (even if it's a moment of passion crime).

I don't know... Let me give an extreme example: Battered Wife Syndrome

Though I guess it could be said that "You cannot blame the victim unless the person who did it is the bigger victim"

Then again as far as the law is concerned battered wife syndrome is not that... it is a law that basically says that a "Woman who has been abused is not in the mental state of mind to realize she has a way out" and to my knowledge doesn't excuse you from the crime. It is a law that basically says that a battered wife can be "compromised". It is also why Crimes of Passion tend to carry less of a sentence.

Yet to anyone talking about that situation I think most people would blame the victim... that it is the husbands (Not wife's because double standard most of the time) fault for being so extremely abusive.

[Descan]

I didn't want to say "Unless they deserved it", because then someone can turn that around and say "And that gay kid deserved it for being so faggy!"

:/

[Graknorke]

I didn't want to say "Unless they deserved it", because then someone can turn that around and say "And that gay kid deserved it for being so faggy!"

:/

Nobody deserves being killed.

[misko27]

I didn't want to say "Unless they deserved it", because then someone can turn that around and say "And that gay kid deserved it for being so faggy!"

:/

Nobody deserves being killed.

I'd debate that. There are some nasty people out there.