Notes on Reality

Wellwisher said:

What I would like to see would be a social polarization into male and female, instead into rich and poor, black and white, atheist and religious. This is old school and works the best, because even if polarized, male and female have a way of getting close to each other, like all the other polarizations can't. Men and women can argue, and be mars and venus, but they can also make up in be in love. Try that with atheists and religious.

Click to expand...

(1) This doesn't work. Ask Muslims about the unresolved issues troubling the sex segregation justified by assertions of Islamic law occurring in many communities. Indeed, there are somewhere between several and many Christian-identifying religious groups in this country, of small number and influence, that seem nothing more than rape cults, which depend in part on separate spheres for males and females, which are then recombined according to the will of the authority (males) and resultant obligatiations of the subjects (females). Given the number of times and places we can observe such ill outcomes,

(2) This sort of segregation still speaks nothing of equality under the law, and for a reason—it is not necessarily ignorant of nor apathetic toward the iniquity, but, rather, belligerently hostile in service to vested interest.

(3) Falling in love is a wonderful feeling indeed; our minds have diverse criteria, and the rewarding sensations are, indeed, heady. But our brains, when we are in love, function more in response to those issues as if we were, according to various descriptions of the observable electrochemistry and behavior, psychotic, delusional, or addicted. Simply put, falling in love, in terms of brain function, looks like mental illness.


And then there is this:

The current trend of women acting like men and men like women and/or men defining women and women defying men leads to the discontent associated with not being in balance with respect to one's natural nature.

Click to expand...

wellwisher said:

What I would like to see would be a social polarization into male and female, instead into rich and poor, black and white, atheist and religious. This is old school and works the best, because even if polarized, male and female have a way of getting close to each other, like all the other polarizations can't. Men and women can argue, and be mars and venus, but they can also make up in be in love. Try that with atheists and religious.

Based on this unique social polarization, the men would now learn to be men, from other men, while women would learn to be women, from other women. Women have never really defined what a women is, but rely on the men to set their traditions and fads. It is always equal rights which mean carbon copy.

I would also use the natural roles of male and female but extrapolate to these to the national social scales. For example, women are traditionally the nurturers thereby putting them in charge of child care, medicine, farming and food, etc, all the way to the highest levels of government. One job of the women is to make sure the national family is fed and healthy, like they would do for the own family. The male is the hunter and defender so he is in charge of research, innovation and military, sort of like it already is.

The current trend of women acting like men and men like women and/or men defining women and women defying men leads to the discontent associated with not being in balance with respect to one's natural nature.

Rape has a connection to feminism. Masculine men, such as conservatives that are accused of misogyny, tend to be harder against crime. Feminized men, like liberals tend to be softer and have compassion even for ax murderers. Pure men would solve the problem of rape, while feminized men tend to perpetuate the problem because they are too wishy washy with respect to black and white. The social polarization of men and women, with men in charge of men, in terms of punishment, would eliminate this problem much faster.

Click to expand...

Have you tried moving to Saudi Arabia? Or the ISIS controlled parts of the Middle East? Because those cultures sound exactly like what you are looking for.

Bells said:

Beg yours?

Click to expand...

That would be best, yes.

One of the most essential requirements in a discussion - and this extends to an internet discussion forum - is parity of influence. Blatant violations of that trust undercut confidence in the system. The result is this.

Once again, what is the point of your whine in this thread? This thread and this subject is not about you and has nothing to do with you.

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you miscomprehend my position or your own here, or whether it is genuine or just artistry. I assume your next move will be to assign political or moral views to me that I do not possess. The case is very simple, and it doesn't require the massively overblown issue you are attempting to make of it here: facetious generalisation is unwarranted, on the site and elsewhere. There is no need for your pugnacious and garrulous defense of someone else. Simply stick to your object of preventing violations of site rules via generalisation. I'll attempt to explain this in a manner you might be able to follow below:

What is bigoted about saying that the laws and culture of Ireland is Catholic?

Click to expand...

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the comments thus far.


This is one of the essential problems in such debates: you can't simply fire off whatever nonsense springs to forebrain without even a grazing pass over the facts. I appreciate that you would like the debate to be couched in such background... but it isn't.

I want you to show me exactly where I used this exact phrase to describe you.. I want you to link exactly where I said that you were "one of those kind of Catholics" in this thread. Because I can assure you, I never said that sentence that you are now attributing to me as a quote.

Click to expand...

Just a paraphrase, really: I notice that you do this a fair bit as a way of miscasting another person's comments and while I wouldn't go so far, there's nothing wrong with a faithful reproduction of your narrative.

Bells said:

I don't know you GeoffP. So how would I know what a pro-life person, such as yourself, would find such a case reprehensible? After how you argued that rape was really about sex and you argued against abortion in other threads and did so so vehemently, as far as I am concerned, in a case such as this one, you do appear to be the type to fully support the Church and Ireland's laws and what they did to this girl. That is how you come across.

Click to expand...

Since you're back on trying to describe me as a Catholic - which in the context I interpret as a kind of attack - my paraphrase follows quite nicely. Anyway, no more distractions.

We were discussing the laws and policies in Ireland that are, by any definition, sick, twisted and deeply misogynistic and yes, based on the religious doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

To conclude: then you should be capable and mature enough to discuss it in precisely that context, without wider affirmation of prejudice. Admittedly, given the loose way you use language, this is unlikely. Since you absolutely insist on making this discussion about yourself, I add that it is the height of hubris for you to accuse other contributors to SF - almost any other contributors - of lying.

Kittamaru said:

You seem confused on the correlation being made here...

Click to expand...

It's quite apparent, really. Is your scope based entirely on personality issues?

Simple - I've given up with the niceties and pandering, and will simply call things as I see them... so if you don't wish to be called an asshole, don't act like an asshole.

Myself? I know I'm an asshole...

Click to expand...

Well, that would certainly explain the above. Thanks for the clarification. (Strangely, I have decided on the same approach that you cite in the first sentence. Odd coincidence, no?)

GeoffP said:

It's quite apparent, really. Is your scope based entirely on personality issues?

Click to expand...

Not at all - my scope is based on the sum of my observations of your behavior on these forums... which has marked you as part of an incredibly annoying sub-class of the population I tenderly refer to as the "entitlement bitch". You want the outcome you desire, and have this odd tendency to think you are simply supposed to get what you want, regardless of rhyme or reason, and you will whine and complain about it endlessly until you are either satisfied or sufficiently ignored.

Your little crusade ceased being amusing a long time ago.

GeoffP said:

That would be best, yes.

One of the most essential requirements in a discussion - and this extends to an internet discussion forum - is parity of influence. Blatant violations of that trust undercut confidence in the system. The result is this.

Click to expand...

So your fishing for information about my private and personal life is the result, is it?

I have no idea why you miscomprehend my position or your own here, or whether it is genuine or just artistry. I assume your next move will be to assign political or moral views to me that I do not possess. The case is very simple, and it doesn't require the massively overblown issue you are attempting to make of it here: facetious generalisation is unwarranted, on the site and elsewhere. There is no need for your pugnacious and garrulous defense of someone else. Simply stick to your object of preventing violations of site rules via generalisation. I'll attempt to explain this in a manner you might be able to follow below:



This is a blatant misrepresentation of the comments thus far.

​

This is one of the essential problems in such debates: you can't simply fire off whatever nonsense springs to forebrain without even a grazing pass over the facts. I appreciate that you would like the debate to be couched in such background... but it isn't.

Click to expand...

No, my next move will be to warn you one last time to stop flaming this thread with your rubbish and your incessant and pathological need to find something to whine and argue about.

I've asked you numerous times now and you keep ignoring the request that you take your whines to a more appropriate forum.

If you are incapable of discussing the subject matter, then don't participate in the thread. If you have something you wish to complain about in the thread, then open a thread in a more appropriate forum and complain about it there. Stop clogging this thread with your whining that someone described Ireland's legal and political system and culture as Catholic. If you have evidence that it is not, then provide it or be quiet and stop trying to stifle discussion in this thread and divert attention away from the issues brought up in this thread with your personal agenda. Take it elsewhere.

Have I made myself clear enough for you now?

I don't give a crap about how you feel that the word Catholic was used or how you are personally interpreting it. You are the only person to have interpreted it this way. It has been used generally in the media and described as "Catholic" there as well. Are you concerned that I said that what was done to this teenage rape victim was sick and twisted as fuck? Tough luck. My desire to care for your mewling is zilch. So take your complaint about how we describe Ireland's legal and political landscape and the unethical results of such systems (strapping rape victims down to beds to keep them pregnant and letting a woman who was miscarrying die) elsewhere. If you don't think it's misogynistic, then by all means, say so. At the very least, you would be discussing the thread topic and not your perceived insults at the word "Catholic". Otherwise, you are merely cluttering this thread and trying to flame it off topic despite repeated requests that you cease and desist.

Just a paraphrase, really: I notice that you do this a fair bit as a way of miscasting another person's comments and while I wouldn't go so far, there's nothing wrong with a faithful reproduction of your narrative.

Click to expand...

Paraphrase? You're making things up and attributing it to me as a quote. Such dishonest behaviour is not unexpected from you. This is what you do. My request is that you do it elsewhere. You are not wanted here.

Since you're back on trying to describe me as a Catholic - which in the context I interpret as a kind of attack - my paraphrase follows quite nicely. Anyway, no more distractions.

Click to expand...

And as I noted, I don't know you. Since you are in here flapping your arm fat about the use of the word Catholic and taking it as a personal insult that the word Catholic was used, one can only assume that this is what you now are. Frankly, for all I know, you are just a single celled organism. I don't really care who or what you are, nor do I know or want to know. I can only go by how you conduct yourself on here. And I have asked you repeatedly to stop flaming this thread, you consistently refuse to. I have told you I don't know you, you keep carrying on as if I do know you.

This thread is not about you or your being insulted by the word "Catholic" to describe Ireland's legal and political landscape and culture which ultimately led to this horror show. If you feel so aggrieved about the use of the word Catholic to describe Ireland, then please, take it up with the administrators of this site and explain to them why you felt the need to flame and troll this thread despite repeated request that you stop, because you are so offended that someone described Ireland and its laws that led to a teenage rape victim being strapped down and a tube shoved down into her stomach to force feed her, as being twisted as fuck and another called it Catholic... And be sure to describe how you don't think the laws that led to it all is based on a country and culture that is decidedly Catholic. I wish you luck with that venture. Otherwise, get the hell out of this thread if you are incapable of discussing the subject matter without pushing your need to flame and troll.

To conclude: then you should be capable and mature enough to discuss it in precisely that context, without wider affirmation of prejudice. Admittedly, given the loose way you use language, this is unlikely. Since you absolutely insist on making this discussion about yourself, I add that it is the height of hubris for you to accuse other contributors to SF - almost any other contributors - of lying.

Click to expand...

"To conclude" you are the only person making up quotes and attributing it to me and you are the only person openly flaming and trolling this thread with no intention of actually discussing the thread's subject matter or behaving in an honest manner. And since you have been incapable of even discussing the subject matter and have instead tried to make it about you and your being insulted by the use of the word "Catholic, it is you who have been inherently dishonest. If you persist in trolling and flaming this thread despite repeated requests that you stop, then you will fall under the rules of this site.

Have I made myself clear, GeoffP?

I would suggest your next response discuss the subjects being discussed in this thread or don't respond at all. If I so much as get a whiff of you flaming and trolling it again, you will face moderation. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, I have tried to steer you towards discussing the thread and your response has been to try to delve into my personal and private life with sneering derision and continued flaming and trolling it to try to divert attention away from actually discussing the subject of this thread. This is absolutely unacceptable. You have been repeatedly asked to take your complaints to a more appropriate forum or to the administrators. You have failed to open a thread about your concerns and your complaints, and whether you have contacted the administrators is really up to you. But you have got to stop flaming this thread and trolling it. If you are incapable of starting a thread about your complaint, then ask us to and we can open one for you. But if you persist in driving this thread off topic, I will request that your posts and all connected to it be cesspooled and you will face moderation. Because you've been asked enough times and you have refused to adhere to those requests.

iceaura said:

It is also the Christian "Left" (nominal, meaning they tend to vote Democrat) - Catholics - demanding curbs on women's rights; that branch of misogynists favors fewer guns in the US.

Click to expand...

You are correct and I stand corrected.

That said, there are a lot of of the Christian left and a few on the Christian right (the not so religious) who do believe in a woman's right to choose. What they do not do, however is support laws that would force a rape victim to remain pregnant or a woman who is sick to risk her own life and force her to remain pregnant. Fewer guns though, yes, they do support it. And I would hope that a large portion of the population would support restricting access to guns to people with criminal records or a history of violence. However records show that there is still strong support from the gun lobby to keep such individuals armed and to not allow any restrictions to be placed on gun owners. The concern is that women are more likely to be the victims of gun violence if there is a gun in the home and more often than not, stand your ground rules in States where such laws exist do not apply evenly or fairly across the community. An African American woman who stood her ground with a legal and licensed firearm against an abusive partner was jailed for firing a warning shot, for example.

That isn't so. Women had voting rights in several pioneer communities and Territories of the eventual US from the mid 1700s if not before.

Women's suffrage in the US was a restoration of the vote, in many places. Meanwhile, the country that is usually listed as the first nation to grant the vote to women, New Zealand, was not only a century behind the voting women of pioneer US but also "gun toting" at the time. Still is: http://www.new-zealand-nz.net/new_zealand_gun_laws.html

The other country often mentioned as early in having women voters, Sweden, is also gun toting today (about a third of its households harbor a gun) even after a couple of decades of tightening restrictions (with a parallel increase in violent crime) and was famous for having armed citizens back in the early days of voting women (early 1700s).

Click to expand...

I had no idea that women voted in the 'wild West'..

Also, the culture and life in New Zealand then compared to now is vastly different and their culture is very different to that in the US. And their gun laws are restrictive, in that you can't just go out and buy weapons willy nilly. There are a series of checks and balances that you must go through before being able to buy guns and in some cases, even ammunition. Even if you buy it online, or order it online, a police officer has to sign it to verify you have a gun license. It isn't considered a right but a privilege and treated as such. Which is vastly different to the US.

Exactly. By polarizing men and women into two completely separate categories, and placing them back in their natural roles, the problem would be eliminated, as it was 100 years ago. Once you remove a women's right to lead her family and herself, then there is no rape. Her husband can do whatever he likes to her, since he is her leader, and decides what is best for her. The term "rape" would become meaningless; there would just be sex.

Click to expand...

A social polarization into male and female will allow women to define what women are, and it will also allow men to define what men are, based on natural foundations and their own instincts. Men have a different attitude against crime than women. Criminal behavior in modern times is more acceptable because of liberal policies (he-she) that give criminals rights and protections beyond their victims. Only criminals have the right to kill in a liberal world.

Men don't think this way. Men use a chain of command and unless ordered to do so, one is not allowed to war on their own. One can get shot for less than murder. The protection of criminals needed to be conditioned into the people, before injustice could be structured into the legal system.

Quota laws are criminal, in an absolute sense, in that they legally victimize those who did nothing, under the guise this victimization pays for the sins of others, even if individuals did nothing to deserve any of this by their own actions. It works the same way as the thought process of a rapist. The rapist may have an angry grudge against women (violent attitude) and therefore innocent women have to pay for the past, simply because they are woman.

It would be different if rapist could only go after the exact woman who wronged him but nobody else. Crime has a tangible cause and effect between criminal and victim and not an nebulous connection based on many degrees of irrational separation. The only tangible connection between criminal and victim in quota laws is the law and victims of the quotas, This is not seen when feeling is the deciding factor.

The quota system takes it one step further by giving the rewards to those who didn't even suffer in the past. This would be like a rapist saying I saw a woman abuse a man on TV. I am going to accept the compensation for him, by victimizing a random women who did nothing other than be a woman, too. That woman needs to feel guilty for the mistakes of the past, she did not even do, so it adds up for the criminal law.

There is template. The looters during demonstrations make use of this template of quotas by justifying stealing, because of racist generalities, that allow them to victimize innocent shop owners, because there is a fuzzy link between them and the generality that did them wrong. Everyone is supposed to feel compassion due to conditioning by he-she that replaces feeling for common sense. This is not good for the men but may be what women do and it would be up to them to figure if this is natural women. Men tend to do most of the crime such that a simple masculine adjustment could reduce crime.

wellwisher said:

A social polarization into male and female will allow women to define what women are, and it will also allow men to define what men are, based on natural foundations and their own instincts.

Click to expand...

You have yet to explain what makes a man, a "man" or a woman, a "woman". And you have not described why it is so necessary to apply such arbitrary rules for each sex. Who does it serve? Society? What if a woman wants to break outside of the box you are demanding she remain in if she wants to remain a 'real woman'? Men and women can define who they are without rigid little boxes that they must fit into or else. In your utopia, there is no freedom of thought, imagination or liberty. There is only what your sex allows you to have or claim for your sex. Such a society cannot thrive. It will collapse onto itself. We are not slaves.

Men have a different attitude against crime than women. Criminal behavior in modern times is more acceptable because of liberal policies (he-she) that give criminals rights and protections beyond their victims. Only criminals have the right to kill in a liberal world.

Click to expand...

This is an extraordinary claim.

Please support it with some evidence.

Men don't think this way. Men use a chain of command and unless ordered to do so, one is not allowed to war on their own. One can get shot for less than murder. The protection of criminals needed to be conditioned into the people, before injustice could be structured into the legal system.

Click to expand...

Ordered by whom? Placed there by whom?

Quota laws are criminal, in an absolute sense, in that they legally victimize those who did nothing, under the guise this victimization pays for the sins of others, even if individuals did nothing to deserve any of this by their own actions. It works the same way as the thought process of a rapist. The rapist may have an angry grudge against women (violent attitude) and therefore innocent women have to pay for the past, simply because they are woman.

Click to expand...

Well no. They allow people who are openly disadvantaged for a particular reason or other (ie shut out because of their colour, race, religion, sex, sexuality) to still be able to get through instead of being denied because they are not a particular colour, etc.

I fail to see how this is the same thought process of a rapist.

It would be different if rapist could only go after the exact woman who wronged him but nobody else.

Click to expand...

Because that would make rape more acceptable?

Crime has a tangible cause and effect between criminal and victim and not an nebulous connection based on many degrees of irrational separation. The only tangible connection between criminal and victim in quota laws is the law and victims of the quotas, This is not seen when feeling is the deciding factor.

Click to expand...

This does not even make sense.

The quota system takes it one step further by giving the rewards to those who didn't even suffer in the past.

Click to expand...

Are you going to say that minorities have not suffered in the past? Yet another extraordinary assertion. Please provide proof of this.

This would be like a rapist saying I saw a woman abuse a man on TV. I am going to accept the compensation for him, by victimizing a random women who did nothing other than be a woman, too. That woman needs to feel guilty for the mistakes of the past, she did not even do, so it adds up for the criminal law.

Click to expand...

You keep trying to connect rapists with what you appear to be describing as the 'quota system'. They two do not apply. And as for your comments about rape.. I am at a loss as to what thought processes led you to these types of bizarre conclusions.

There is template. The looters during demonstrations make use of this template of quotas by justifying stealing, because of racist generalities, that allow them to victimize innocent shop owners, because there is a fuzzy link between them and the generality that did them wrong. Everyone is supposed to feel compassion due to conditioning by he-she that replaces feeling for common sense. This is not good for the men but may be what women do and it would be up to them to figure if this is natural women. Men tend to do most of the crime such that a simple masculine adjustment could reduce crime.

Click to expand...

Huh?

The Obvious Appeal to Decency

Wellwisher said:

A social polarization into male and female will allow women to define what women are, and it will also allow men to define what men are, based on natural foundations and their own instincts.

Click to expand...

In what society, on which planet?

There is template. The looters during demonstrations make use of this template of quotas by justifying stealing, because of racist generalities, that allow them to victimize innocent shop owners, because there is a fuzzy link between them and the generality that did them wrong. Everyone is supposed to feel compassion due to conditioning by he-she that replaces feeling for common sense. This is not good for the men but may be what women do and it would be up to them to figure if this is natural women. Men tend to do most of the crime such that a simple masculine adjustment could reduce crime.

Click to expand...

I think part of the reason why your arguments make so little sense is that your posts read like the neurotic rupture of a broad-spectrum misanthrope stuck amid a delusional disorder as your self-love reels and twitches at the prospect of being merely equal to your fellow human beings, especially the ones with a pair of X chromosomes or skin that just isn't pale enough for your tastes.

Stop. Just stop disrupting discussions with these pointless, useless, topically questionable rants offered with absolutely no evidentiary support for the exceptionally inappropriate, astoundingly ignorant, morally violative, and evidentiarily insupportable excrement you insist on inflicting upon other people.

To be honest... I find Wellwisher's post to be quite offensive... and I'm a pasty ass white guy...

I think it is sad, to be honest. Because he must have been exposed to some nasty and twisted stuff to have grown up to have those beliefs.

Kittamaru said:

Not at all - my scope is based on the sum of my observations of your behavior on these forums... which has marked you as part of an incredibly annoying sub-class of the population I tenderly refer to as the "entitlement bitch". You want the outcome you desire, and have this odd tendency to think you are simply supposed to get what you want, regardless of rhyme or reason, and you will whine and complain about it endlessly until you are either satisfied or sufficiently ignored.

Your little crusade ceased being amusing a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd written you off earlier on much the same basis.

Bells said:

So your fishing for information about my private and personal life is the result, is it?

Click to expand...

I have not the foggiest idea to what you refer, and I think you're entering some very questionable territory here. Why do you think this is so?

No, my next move will be to warn you one last time to stop flaming this thread with your rubbish and your incessant and pathological need to find something to whine and argue about.

Click to expand...

It's really this simple: a member raised an objection in-thread to an overt case of undisciplined and really unmitigated bigotry. You, as an uninvolved third party, have chosen to object to this citation. It would have been far simpler just to grunt out a grudging tea culpa (although why you would be involved at all I have no idea) and move on. No one is detracting from your sociopolitical commentary, and neither are the procedural realities of the forum unimportant, whatever your pretension. Similarly, there's no need for the longwinded ignoratio elenchi, or for the new threats. Just accept it and move along. You're among the first of the staff to explain how imperfect you are. Very well. We are not the last to notice it. Done. Site rules can be found and a specific but older copy [url=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?34522-New-Forum-Rules]here. There are later versions, of course.

I don't give a crap about how you feel that the word Catholic was used or how you are personally interpreting it.

Click to expand...

This did not go unnoticed. However: it is socially banal to phrase a criticism in such a broad way, as we've seen elsewhere on the forum and which has been enforced previously. There is no reason to diverge from such a standard now - and a reasonable standard, at that - in order to assuage any lingering doubts you might have about your own direction: no one is puncturing that direction, for the obvious reason of the outrage committed against this girl. What is not acceptable is a broad labeling of a community of believers or unbelievers simply because it fits some presumably labile dynamic. That is not acceptable at SF. I hate to be the one to remind the thread users of this - or, if you like, the user committing the specific infraction - but as adults it is simply possible to direct such criticisms in a responsible way. In fact, on reconsideration, it really is part of the dynamic. Catholics are not Nazis, such that group attacks on them are somehow vindicated. There is no overriding social framework that universally endorses such attacks based on special conditions. They're typically thinking, moral people, whatever their extraordinary cases. In the wider view, I might suggest a kind of political rapprochement that could promote better understanding of their community without the need to colour people's view of Catholics generally.

Paraphrase? You're making things up and attributing it to me as a quote.

Click to expand...

Not at all: that captured your commentary very aptly. I hate to break into fisking, but you do persist in this break with procedure, falling back onto minutiae of unrelated arguments to bolster a position you appear to have taken either unwittingly or fallaciously. Simply put, I am not a Catholic and certainly not "that kind" of Catholic. Similarly, neither is 'Catholic' taken as a "personal insult", and neither am I in fact "carrying on as if I do know you", and neither was "Catholic" used to "to describe Ireland's legal and political landscape and culture". It was essentially a blank pejorative with a lead-in from you - which was not your fault, of course. I am simply and with the greatest tolerance pointing out that the summation of these minor misappropriations is not justification for the earlier bigoted statement: once that can be moved past, I have no objection to a frank discussion of the issue. You may continue to call the above flaming and distraction, but the earlier ad hominem attacks demanded redress, and so it is now. What was the point of raising them in the first place?

And the Band Plays On

Because Reality, While Depressing, Insists ....


It would seem the department is reacting as if there is little question the officer is guilty. Kristi Eaton of Associated press notes that at least seven victims have been identified, and also reports that Captain Dexter Nelson of the Oklahoma City Police Department announced that they are "retracting all of his contacts, as many as they can, especially traffic stops".


But here's the thing about the coincidence between cultural components and behavioral outcomes: Duh.


As I have noted before, I have certain concerns about "police culture". On behalf of the police in a recent, horrific botchery, I did concede that, "Some of the officers on that SWAT team never stood a chance; they did exactly as they were trained."

And that is what it is. You just threw a grenade in a baby's face, as that prior tragedy goes; okay, so you didn't know, but you didn't know because you didn't look, and that sort of preventable collateral damage is inherent in the training.

On the other end of the equation, even if you didn't know the guy was under arrest, charged with six sex offenses, and seemingly abandoned by the Blue Brotherhood? Even if you didn't know that, are we sure the guy who wants to do the sort of drug raids that occasionally bring us a baby with a grenade exploded in its face because it would be all crazy like football is someone we want on our police force? Speak nothing of Vice, I mean period.

One so inclined was presented with nearly idyllic opportunity in an empowering culture, and this was the predictable result. That is to say, certes it is too early to know where exactly the ... uh ... er ... "rape meme" entered this suspects system. Perhaps he's been doing this since his youth, and only now finally got caught because he went too far, pursuing the rush of raping with a badge. Maybe he had dreams of keeping harems of women waiting for his every luscious, pearly drop in order to stay out of prison, or something.

Or maybe a volatile mix of his general ambition, already shot through with themes of supremacy and domination, with privilege and opportunity finally got burned out of control.

The general components can drive all sorts of crime, from the petty mouthing off to officers arresting you for DUI to smash-and-grabbing to, well, yeah. UW under Neuheisel might have been a high-flying Pacific Conference team under Rick Neuheisel[sup]†[/sup], and Eastern Michigan University might be, "Whozat?" to many, but the ne'er-ranked EMU Eagles are still a Division I FBS team; their NFL roster history is impressive.

And the sainthood of mighty football exists well beyond EMU. As we've seen, it even infects high schools.

To the other, it's easy to pick on football. In this case, it is unclear, as the nature of each program is different, and we have no idea how it all specifically affected this suspect. The broader point, though, is that the combination of aggression, privilege, and opportunity play a tremendous role in how something like this can get so out of hand that we're considering seven victims and six charges already filed. Look, nature will provide, and that really should be enough. That is to say, humanity will always produce individuals capable of and willing to rape. But not every violation is covered by that maxim; indeed, statistically speaking, very few fall under those conditions. The rest is all on us, as societies, as a human endeavor.

Comparing this to the larger challenge facing society in the context of sexual violence, it is a long form of the affluenza mercy sentence. In the first place, the attitudes that build such outlooks that people can be mere things are unacceptable. I mean, sure, it's easy enough to chuckle when it's a guy from one of the top schools in the country so enjoying his privilege and maybe a bong rip or six that he can't figure out the problem with smashing a window in order to snag a couple doughnuts, but the problem is that it's still the same problem. Poor window. Oh, the doughnutity. It's true, we should probably worry about the more damaging manifestations. Still, though, this privilege has to go, and our society really does need to reassess its adoration of violence. And when you mix those together, and provide people with guns and plenty of opportunity to fuck shit up, some of them are actually going to do it.

By addressing the attitudes, we cannot eliminate the phenomenon entirely, but, rather, start trimming away some of the stupid stuff people choose because they're too stupid to figure out the problem with what they're about to do.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] In other words, an ethical disaster. Here's a fun quote from that time, about Jerramy Stevens—yes, that Jerramy Stevens—being arrested on rape charges: "They were mad that we had arrested him, because they had to deal with the media fallout. After all, he was going to be a superstar." They had the evidence. He was bragging about raping a virgin freshman. He said her name. He was carrying her underwear. But, hey, he was going to be a superstar.

Works Cited:

Eaton, Kristi. "Oklahoma Police Officer Accused In 6 Sexual Assaults". The Huffington Post. August 22, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. August 23, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ficer-assault_n_5700936.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

Armstrong, Ken and Nick Perry. "Convicted of assault and accused of rape, star player received raft of second chances". The Seattle Times. January 27, 2008. SeattleTimes.com. August 23, 2014. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20080127&slug=rbstevens270

Thank you for bringing it up. I was going to before I got sidetracked.

The Guardian conducted an investigation a few years ago, about the number of rapists in the police force and ultimately, the effect it has over all. They found a worrying trend in that it is not that uncommon. In many cases, they are targeting victims of crime and vulnerable women in need of protection, care and help.

Sadly, the trend is also being noticed in the US.

And it is absolutely despicable.

And it makes me wonder how many there are out there, and their victims who may feel too scared to speak out and report it. As the Guardian investigation found, one of the issues that allowed such behaviour to continue within the police force is the pervasive sexism within the force, which resulted in the many rape cases by police officers to go unchecked. In some instances, inappropriate behaviour by police officers was no reason to supervise these officers who went on to rape while on duty. Their victims are often threatened with violence or arrest and imprisonment and they become too afraid to report it, because of the public perception of the 'blue wall'. And in many cases, the officers accessed their victims by going through the police computers and simply looking them up. Sadly, as noted above, many of these victims were victims of crime, sometimes rape and domestic violence and in some instances were teenagers or even children.

One case in the US had a police officer raping a victim of domestic violence who was staying in a hotel after being forced to leave her home because of the violence. The officer had been sent there to protect her from her abuser. Instead, he entered her room while she slept and raped her.

bells said:

And I would hope that a large portion of the population would support restricting access to guns to people with criminal records or a history of violence. However records show that there is still strong support from the gun lobby to keep such individuals armed and to not allow any restrictions to be placed on gun owners.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what's going on. Almost every gun owner in the US favors - in principle - restrictions on gun ownership and employment by the violent and criminal. That famous and publicized minority faction of the "gun lobby" is viewed by them as as a kind of necessary evil, actually. What we see in the US is strong opposition to gun restrictions of any kind being imposed and controlled by people who have advanced threatening arguments based in defended delusion and offensive presumption, who appear to be basing their proposed gun restrictions on fundamentally dangerous grounds and fundamentally threatening viewpoints. Attempts to link gun ownership, the simple circumstance, with bad character and foolish views, support this reflexive opposition - and by now so many gun control advocates have dug such a deep hole in the middle of this that the near future holds little hope of reason bridging it.

If you do things like attempting to conflate gun ownership and misogyny, people are going to dig in their heels against any agenda you have. Reasonable people.

Vessels not worthy of human rights..



Sadly, not only did it happen then, it is happening now. For those who do not know, symphysiotomy is where a woman's pelvis is broken or sawed in two during childbirth. Outdated, dangerous and absolutely horrific, women in Ireland were often forced into the procedure, sometimes without any form of pain relief or anaesthetic, without their consent.. All with the bid of getting the baby out and all driven by religious ideology.


This is the atmosphere by which pro-choice campaigners have to fight for rape victims to be allowed to abort a pregnancy that stems from rape. This is the history of how women were viewed and continue to be viewed in Ireland. To date, this is still not allowed. And women who were forced to have symphysiotomies were offered Government help if they did not sue or pursue the matter of their abuse and what was done to them further. And it is why Ireland's Government and laws were accused by the UN of viewing women as being mere vessels, not even worthy of consideration for their basic human rights and all based on the religious ideology of the prevailing religion in the country, who recently openly argued that forcing a rape victim to remain as a vessel for 40 weeks was absolutely acceptable.


After all, vessels are mere objects, not worthy of consideration or human rights.

One can only hope the EU does apply sanctions to Ireland for their deplorable laws and policies and their absolute insults to the fundamental human rights of half their population.

---

In keeping with seeing women as mere vessels..


One can be thankful that this did not happen in Ireland. It's a scary day when the deep South of America, not known for its policies enshrining women's rights, is a better alternative than Ireland.

The term women's rights is a word game based on the manipulation of language. It does not mean rights, but it actually means benefits for one group that someone else pays for. Rights of one do not take away the rights of others, via laws and taxes. What is being pitched as rights is different from rights. This scam is made possible with language games that overlap sentiment with semi-logic and distortion filters.

If abortion and choice is a right and women want equal rights for all, why don't men have this right too. Equal rights would mean the father has as much choice as the women. Equal rights is a language game. When I was younger, education was divided into male and female paths with language the traditional path of women. Men were more about science and math which are not as subject to emotional manipulation and mind games. Science can't manipulate the same way using language.

For example, say you gossip about someone. This is not possible without language. The gossiper may appear to present facts, but with an inflection of the voice (she looks good in that dress (ha ha), or by leading the analysis with biased opinions (snoot), to alter the filter of the mind. This is how one data point can appear to become the rule and not the exception.

A real scientist or traditional man would use all the data and not make one data point the only important point on the curve, using a subjective filter to make it appear larger than all the rest. If you gossip about someone you do not like, one will not also present all their good points, too. This would allow one to form an objective opinion, and will never allow one to win the game of language manipulation.

Another part of this game is to use old words for new meanings, with the hope others will still use the old meaning and thereby merge two unrelated things. The word rights had a traditional meaning with the scam calling itself the same thing. Rights are things that we all share with one person's rights not limiting the rights of others.

I have the right to vote, with my vote not requiring you pay extra taxes and pay my taxi fair to the voting booth. That would not be equal rights. A women's right to choose abortion does not address the equal rights of the male to choose the fate of the unborn that has half his DNA. He has no right except to pay for th child based on her choice. The language game, redefines women's rights to mean that which gives extra benefits to women.

I am against women's rights, because that implies something different from equal rights for all. If it meant equal rights for all, the term women's right would be redundant and language would try to compact it. It is not compacted because the intent of the game is something else. It is treated by language as a separate definition.

The father DOES have a choice, wellwisher... his choices, if he doesn't want a kid:

A) Keep his little johnny in his pants
B) Wrap it before he taps it
C) Ask if she's on birth control
D) Insist on the use of a cervix condom/dome/spermicidal gel
E) Have a vasectomy
F) Any combination of the above

wellwisher said:

The term women's rights is a word game based on the manipulation of language. It does not mean rights, but it actually means benefits for one group that someone else pays for. Rights of one do not take away the rights of others, via laws and taxes. What is being pitched as rights is different from rights. This scam is made possible with language games that overlap sentiment with semi-logic and distortion filters.

If abortion and choice is a right and women want equal rights for all, why don't men have this right too. Equal rights would mean the father has as much choice as the women. Equal rights is a language game. When I was younger, education was divided into male and female paths with language the traditional path of women. Men were more about science and math which are not as subject to emotional manipulation and mind games. Science can't manipulate the same way using language.

For example, say you gossip about someone. This is not possible without language. The gossiper may appear to present facts, but with an inflection of the voice (she looks good in that dress (ha ha), or by leading the analysis with biased opinions (snoot), to alter the filter of the mind. This is how one data point can appear to become the rule and not the exception.

A real scientist or traditional man would use all the data and not make one data point the only important point on the curve, using a subjective filter to make it appear larger than all the rest. If you gossip about someone you do not like, one will not also present all their good points, too. This would allow one to form an objective opinion, and will never allow one to win the game of language manipulation.

Another part of this game is to use old words for new meanings, with the hope others will still use the old meaning and thereby merge two unrelated things. The word rights had a traditional meaning with the scam calling itself the same thing. Rights are things that we all share with one person's rights not limiting the rights of others.

I have the right to vote, with my vote not requiring you pay extra taxes and pay my taxi fair to the voting booth. That would not be equal rights. A women's right to choose abortion does not address the equal rights of the male to choose the fate of the unborn that has half his DNA. He has no right except to pay for th child based on her choice. The language game, redefines women's rights to mean that which gives extra benefits to women.

I am against women's rights, because that implies something different from equal rights for all. If it meant equal rights for all, the term women's right would be redundant and language would try to compact it. It is not compacted because the intent of the game is something else. It is treated by language as a separate definition.

Click to expand...

What a shame you are not a real scientist. Because real science realised long ago that designating women into set roles was not to the benefit of society. Especially a free society.

I think the reason you are against women's rights is because it denies you the chance to be masculine and 'the man'. And I suspect that is because you believe you can only be a man if you are dominant, if you stand above the females around you and demean and order them around to do your bidding. And I do think Billvon was correct in his earlier question to you. To men like you, a woman is an object, not a human being. As an object, she cannot have rights. Any woman that breaks outside the square little peg hole you have in place for them, where they know their place, their role and who are docile and subservient becomes an enemy, not a real woman.

And I suspect that is your problem with women's rights. It denies you your belief that you are dominant and important.

Ménage à Nasty

Bells said:

And I suspect that is your problem with women's rights. It denies you your belief that you are dominant and important.

Click to expand...

It also allows him a quasi-sexual kinship with other men.

I mean, to the one, anyone can stand on the street corner and rant like an Old Testament prophet. To the other, it is observable and documentable that rhetorical and philosophical harmony between two persons can nurture extraordinary trust.

And in a way, it's kind of like the seeming prudes who actually spend far to much time and effort thinking about other people's sex lives. My daughter's maternal grandfather is one of those cases; he presumes people stupid, with the result that he is constantly explaining his actions to people in terms of sexual propriety. It's kind of worrisome, to be honest, especially since this is a "Christian" who likes to brag of his piety for other men to notice; and in that context, it's hard to not wonder why he's inflicting his sexual propriety on everyone else at every opportunity.[sup]†[/sup]

For Wellwisher and his fellow misogynists, there is indeed a spiritual kinship that treads into the realm of shared intimate experience. It's not quite as blatant as a MMF ménage à trois, with the guys high-fiving over her back as they double-end her. But it is a shared experience within each person's realm of sexual intimacy.

And, yes, on this occasion circumstance actually licenses the jab: That sounds kinda gay.

And it sound that way because it is.

One of the most insightful data bites from the misogynists comes via Southern Poverty Law Center and its list of misogynistic hate sites. It is a list I would prefer Sciforums avoid, as our inclusion would be a dubious honor. Pickup artist Roosh Vörek explains:


And here we get to the heart of the matter. By Vörek's explanation:


And some might wonder why anyone pays attention to these goofballs, and the twofold answer is simple enough to comprehend:


One of the reasons we generally don't let these people on television is that the audience does not seem to want or need it expressed so explicitly. The ones who sympathize know what he means. Those who are horrified also know what he means because, hell, he keeps saying it. But the convention is that one need not say certain things outright. And the only loser in that is any notion of Justice or The Right Thing To Do. People in the range counting as being on "our side" of the debate don't want these people on the air, because those useless points are not only offensive in general, they are also specifically counterproductive. The sympathizers don't want it on the air because once they start saying it, they will lose further access to those outlets. And the news providers don't want it on the air because, while it will bring a tremendous but ephemeral ratings spike, the longer view suggests that decency will keep these people off the air, meaning the providers will have a harder time ginning up fake controversy disrupting the public discourse in order to raise more advert revenue. By not putting these attitudes front and center, we allow and even encourage them to grow and strengthen out of our view. And then they erupt, and someone gets really, really hurt, or really, really dead, and everyone starts shouting at one another, and the customs of the discourse mean that before we can make any progress we must first sit and listen to someone trying to prove that the real victim is a man, such as, say, Elliot Rodger. I really still can't believe not only the fact of people defending him, but the swooning romanticization in much of it. Elliot Rodger was a victim, once upon a time, but it wasn't women who hurt and exploited him.

Still, though, it makes for much better ratings if a news outlet pretends there is some reasonable justification by which Rodger or other deadly hatemongers become the real victims of their own crimes.

It would probably do people like Vörek and, perhaps, our neighbor, a great deal of personal good to give up the ghost, come out of the closet, and get a nancy boy who will wear his hair just so and let you fuck him however you want.

Because this bit with a communal intimate experience defined by failure and dysfunction is unhealthy, not only for the people caught up living the condition daily, but for everyone else in communicable proximity as well.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] The key here is to watch the child, and to know reasonably well what is going on in her life. Or, as such, given that we're talking about a tween ferociously striding through the chemical bath of adolescence, it is important to be able to perceive other cues that a parent would rather not spend time thinking about in order to filter out fearful speculation. To wit, one might wonder if someone has been unsettling my daughter as such based on certain behavioral changes pertaining to how she regards her body, but such an inquiry must first account for the state of her brain chemistry in general—which actually prescribes that these behavioral episodes will occur—and also specific events and processes that may be occurring in her own life that really aren't anyone else's business. To the one, I'm pretty sure I don't have to worry about this guy in particular on that point, but, to the other, it's also a really annoying and really unsettling habit and I'm starting to weary of explaining it to unfamiliar people who have just endured their first unnerving encounter with such behavior. That is to say, at some point I'm just going to have to put my foot down: "Look, dude, I know you're a decent guy who isn't going to hurt her like that, but I need you to stop spending so much time thinking about sexual intercourse, sexual deviance, sexual predation, and my daughter. And I need you to stop right fucking now."

Works Cited:

Southern Poverty Law Center. "Misogyny: The Sites". Intelligence Report. Spring, 2012; n.145. SPLCenter.org. August 26, 2014. http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...wse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites