Print

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

[Darvi]

But wouldn't putting a letter opener into a letter be counter-productive?

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I just have a problem with someone calling me immoral, saying what I am should be illegal, and that society should shun me when they do things like this:

I don't care that you have a problem with that.

Well, actually I do, because it's completely justified that you'd hate that and feel a whole lot of antipathy toward him.

But we've probably all jumped on other people's backs in this thread for doing things a lot less bad than detailing how you want someone to die, and I don't think it makes it any better that you're personally offended by him or that he's an acceptable political target by virtue of being a ridiculously socially regressive person. That's just not cool.

[Truean]

Yeah, I just have a problem with someone calling me immoral, saying what I am should be illegal, and that society should shun me when they do things like this:

I don't care that you have a problem with that.

Well, actually I do, because it's completely justified that you'd hate that and feel a whole lot of antipathy toward him.

But we've probably all jumped on other people's backs in this thread for doing things a lot less bad than detailing how you want someone to die, and I don't think it makes it any better that you're personally offended by him or that he's an acceptable political target by virtue of being a ridiculously socially regressive person. That's just not cool.

What can I say? I'm a terrible, wrathful person, and listening to him detail how gays are a threat to the military, because close quarters with gays = rape, how this means we're helping terrorists because it will make it harder to recruit for the military (cause you know, who'd wanna serve with teh gays), how we're destroying America, eroding the family, killing morality, and promoting child molestation, gets me. The man makes laws, may lead the country soon, and wants it to be illegal to be gay.... He would if he could. I'm not really sure what the proper response to this level of slander being acceptable in a man who may very well lead this country by popular vote is.

Should I just respond  quietly, passively, and politely until he makes it illegal or unconstitutional to be gay and I lose more than I already have due to this...?
I'm probably wrong for it, but again, I'm honest about it.

[Andir]

I'm probably wrong for it, but again, I'm honest about it.

Then people (not only you) should consider that others may be honest as well and consider how they would feel if approached in the same manner.

I'm not saying religion is or is not the case, but there are people who honestly believe that there is some unknowable being that will punish them for not "teaching" their ways.

[G-Flex]

I'm probably wrong for it, but again, I'm honest about it.

"But I'm being sincere!" isn't exactly a free pass for bad behavior.

[Truean]

I'm probably wrong for it, but again, I'm honest about it.

"But I'm being sincere!" isn't exactly a free pass for bad behavior.

I'm honest, about my being wrong, not about how I believe.

I'm not asking for a pass, I'm admitting it's bad behavior. I'm honest about my being wrong for doing it, even if for the right reasons. Therein lies the difference. He's convinced he's "right" and "moral." I'm not, and I admit those facts. I've had lots of people try to get advice from me/have me as a role model here, and I've turned them all away because I'm not exactly good material for that. That's the kind of honesty we're entirely unused to.... Oppressive bastards like him have very concretely, demonstrably ruined my life and the human frailties within me are pissed and hurt and lashing out a bit. It's pretty much the only way I can deal with living a lie 24/7. I don't know or necessarily care if it's justified or not. I just want it to stop and it doesn't seem it ever will in my lifetime. It isn't sincerity of belief, but admission of doing wrong things.... Exactly the opposite of him.

[Tellemurius]

Yeah, I just have a problem with someone calling me immoral, saying what I am should be illegal, and that society should shun me when they do things like this:

I don't care that you have a problem with that.

Well, actually I do, because it's completely justified that you'd hate that and feel a whole lot of antipathy toward him.

But we've probably all jumped on other people's backs in this thread for doing things a lot less bad than detailing how you want someone to die, and I don't think it makes it any better that you're personally offended by him or that he's an acceptable political target by virtue of being a ridiculously socially regressive person. That's just not cool.

What can I say? I'm a terrible, wrathful person, and listening to him detail how gays are a threat to the military, because close quarters with gays = rape, how this means we're helping terrorists because it will make it harder to recruit for the military (cause you know, who'd wanna serve with teh gays), how we're destroying America, eroding the family, killing morality, and promoting child molestation, gets me. The man makes laws, may lead the country soon, and wants it to be illegal to be gay.... He would if he could. I'm not really sure what the proper response to this level of slander being acceptable in a man who may very well lead this country by popular vote is.

Should I just respond  quietly, passively, and politely until he makes it illegal or unconstitutional to be gay and I lose more than I already have due to this...?
I'm probably wrong for it, but again, I'm honest about it.

Ok i talk with some of my military buddies about this a while back. They really don't give a shit, as long they are a team helping each other and pointing that end of the barrel to the targets they wouldn't care if they were gay, lesbo, or bi. They are in the military to do a job and they made a commitment to the government, anything about their personal life doesn't effect service.

[kaijyuu]

"Lack of evidence = negative" is the assumption to make in pretty much all cases. That's how empirical reasoning and burden of proof work. Don't believe something (in this case, that someone is okay with having sex with you at a given moment) until evidence to that effect actually comes along.

People confuse "Lack of evidence = evidence of negative" with "Lack of evidence = proof of negative". I've found that people have difficulty in distinguishing the two, and they (unknowingly) strawman Inductive arguments into Deductive ones.

Lack of evidence is neither evidence nor proof. It's... lack of evidence. Nothing.

It's just that it's most often safest to assume "false" rather than "true" to any assertion, which is why it's the generally accepted assumption when lack of evidence is presented. (man that's a confusing way to put it)  IE, it doesn't mean assuming falsehood is any better grounded an assumption than the alternative, just one with less consequences if incorrect.

A good example of the "lack of evidence = negative evidence" fallacy I think is from the guy who codified continental drift. Here's some fun stuff from his wikipedia article.

The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis.

In 1943 George Gaylord Simpson wrote a vehement attack on the theory (as well as the rival theory of sunken land bridges) and put forward his own permanentist views.[8] Alexander du Toit wrote a rejoinder in the following year,[9] but G.G.Simpson's influence was so powerful that even in countries previously sympathetic towards continental drift, like Australia, Wegener's hypothesis fell out of favour.

This backlash was due to his inability to explain the mechanisms of continental drift, despite having a good chunk of evidence supporting it happens somehow. Yet skeptics not only disbelieved him (which is reasonable), they outright attacked him due to insufficient evidence (not reasonable).

Who's laughing now? (hint: no one, they're all dead)



No comment on current debate, other than I think vengeance to be an incredibly stupid concept and harmful to EVERYONE involved.

[GlyphGryph]

On the Santorum video
I'm sorry, all I got from that was when he said "Gay people live a gay life and then go on to be not gay, I don't think that happens for people with black skin", all I could think of was Michael Jackson.

Clearly, all those black people should have just bleached their skin until they fit in properly.

[Truean]

On the Santorum video
I'm sorry, all I got from that was when he said "Gay people live a gay life and then go on to be not gay, I don't think that happens for people with black skin", all I could think of was Michael Jackson.

Clearly, all those black people should have just bleached their skin until they fit in properly.

Yup, because, "if you don't fit into society," then its your fault.... So, he's basically going for, "Pray the gay away." Funny how we should "fix" the gays, but the bigots are just fine....

Yeah, I just have a problem with someone calling me immoral, saying what I am should be illegal, and that society should shun me when they do things like this:

I don't care that you have a problem with that.

Well, actually I do, because it's completely justified that you'd hate that and feel a whole lot of antipathy toward him.

But we've probably all jumped on other people's backs in this thread for doing things a lot less bad than detailing how you want someone to die, and I don't think it makes it any better that you're personally offended by him or that he's an acceptable political target by virtue of being a ridiculously socially regressive person. That's just not cool.

What can I say? I'm a terrible, wrathful person, and listening to him detail how gays are a threat to the military, because close quarters with gays = rape, how this means we're helping terrorists because it will make it harder to recruit for the military (cause you know, who'd wanna serve with teh gays), how we're destroying America, eroding the family, killing morality, and promoting child molestation, gets me. The man makes laws, may lead the country soon, and wants it to be illegal to be gay.... He would if he could. I'm not really sure what the proper response to this level of slander being acceptable in a man who may very well lead this country by popular vote is.

Should I just respond  quietly, passively, and politely until he makes it illegal or unconstitutional to be gay and I lose more than I already have due to this...?
I'm probably wrong for it, but again, I'm honest about it.

Ok i talk with some of my military buddies about this a while back. They really don't give a shit, as long they are a team helping each other and pointing that end of the barrel to the targets they wouldn't care if they were gay, lesbo, or bi. They are in the military to do a job and they made a commitment to the government, anything about their personal life doesn't effect service.

Exactly Tellemurius. Despite the facts, this man keeps saying it does effect service and society and that we should be banned from both.... That's the issue. Not only that, but he's making the gays a scapegoat/distraction from the economy, which is both the real issue and something he doesn't know how to fix. What can I say except I'm just beyond hurt at this and that fact that people love him for it.... He finished 2nd and that means he might be president.... Imagine how I feel about a blatantly homophobic president, who "isn't bigoted but moral" and what he'll do to what little rights I have.

[GlyphGryph]

Lets be honest - there is no way on Earth Santorum could become president. If there were, the "anything but Romney" bandwagon would have given him an easy win, instead if only pulled him even.

His candidacy would insure liberals turned out in droves to prevent him from being elected, and his support among the conservatives just really isn't good enough.

[Truean]

Lets be honest - there is no way on Earth Santorum could become president. If there were, the "anything but Romney" bandwagon would have given him an easy win, instead if only pulled him even.

His candidacy would insure liberals turned out in droves to prevent him from being elected, and his support among the conservatives just really isn't good enough.

I dunno what to think anymore, do you? I've honestly heard that about Romney, due to his similarities to Obama, namely his State's health care plan, which is largely Obamacare. Cain and Bachman are gone (thankfully) and Perry's seriously thinking about dropping out after bombing that badly (Please).

This leaves who exactly. Romney, Santorum, Ron Paul, and.... not a whole lot else actually. Ron Paul is, to me--for whatever that means--one of the better (R) candidates, but if his history is any indication.... I don't know if he ever really has a shot. He never has before. Thus if Romney falters who does that leave.... Santorum and... anyone else really? Gingrich?

As for Liberals showing up for Obama, I've heard (D) voters not quite happy with his polices so who knows if they'll just stay home or not....

[scriver]

Cute story about an apparently gender-variant kid.

This deserves moar response. This was a great story, made my day. I wish everybody had siblings like that.

Rape prevention campaign targeted towards men... your thoughts?

Ignoring most of the discussion so far, I think it's great it's finally being done. Playing to the machismo might be a smart move, even though it might reinforce male stereotypes as well as the thought that only "weak" women get raped. But it's a poster campaign, it has to be a blunt, clearly told message... Hard to go indepth with. I don't think it says implies that all men are potential rapists, though. Definitely not in the derogative "so all men are to blame" kind of way. It just tries to put some responsibility on men as well (and it's not that people don't know it's the rapists who are responsible for rapes, even if many are quick to blame the victim, but that people don't put that knowledge to their own actions). I think that's good. Like I think Glyph said, a female-on-male poster (and also a lesbian couple) would have been nice though, but that's asking for perfection... All in all, it's all right as it is. I'd certainly rather have this flawed campaign than none at all.

One campaign I'd like to see, though, would be one aimed at disarming the myth that only "bad" people rape (with a side of further disavowing "only good girls can be raped"?). We need to face that, while not every man is a rapist, most rapists are everymen. Our friends, family, and co-workers. What we have now is this strange, irrational duality where even though there is a "rape culture" (if I'm using the concept right) rape is still considered one of the worst things men can do. It's absolutely taboo, worse than even killing at times - a known rapist will get ostracised and hated by everyone. I think this is to blame for much of the victim blaming and shaming - people don't want to face that their friends and loved ones can be such "monsters", so they go into denial it beyond reason, turn it into a small thing that doesn't matter. I think that in order for the culture to change, people need to face that yeah, everyone can rape. It doesn't take monster, it just takes unthoughtfulness and selfishness, or a sense of entitlement. Maybe if people would this, people would stop making excuses for the actual, and maybe then the rapists would start thinking of what they did, and rapists-to-be will think of what they are about to do. Or maybe people need to stop making excuses to face the truth. It's too early, I'm having trouble putting my feelings into words.

I guess it would be hard to fit it on a poster campaign as well. Not exactly easy to make into a short, clear and concise message. We need a discussion, I guess. Well, more discussion.

Also. Did anyone else notice how the male models in that campaign were all "get away from me, bitch, I'm posing for the camera"?

[Willfor]

Rape prevention campaign targeted towards men... your thoughts?

Ignoring most of the discussion so far, I think it's great it's finally being done.

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/juvenile/structure/omp.html

Since 1979 apparently... So can we please stop saying "finally"? Perhaps on a greater scale, yes, but this is not the herald of a completely unused idea that has never been tried before.

[Glowcat]

Lack of evidence is neither evidence nor proof. It's... lack of evidence. Nothing.

It's just that it's most often safest to assume "false" rather than "true" to any assertion, which is why it's the generally accepted assumption when lack of evidence is presented. (man that's a confusing way to put it)  IE, it doesn't mean assuming falsehood is any better grounded an assumption than the alternative, just one with less consequences if incorrect.

Okay, perhaps I should've said "Lack of evidence where it would be expected = evidence for the negative" to be entirely accurate. It is not a fallacy to say there doesn't appear to be an elephant in the room when an elephant can't be detected. Sure, it's technically possible that an elephant capable of evading all manners of detection exists in the room, but there is evidence directing the conclusion to "no". This is getting too off topic from matters Progressive Rage Irritation and Annoyance though. Turning on resistance to nit-picking compulsion now.