You certainly are.
No I'm not. I'm showing you how your own argument necessarily leads to that conclusion, if a woman wishes to absolve herself of blame in the case of her own rape.
No one else is advocating "men" as a necessary hazard category in risk assessment
Animal certainly did, and you endorsed it.
Yes, I have already pointed out the humour of you being solely responsible for advocating a position you don't even agree with ..
?
I'm noticing a new behavior pattern here, at least in your interactions with me: When a point is raised that you cannot effectively counter, you resort to non-sequiturs.
I am showing you what your own position implies, not endorsing it. You know the difference.
But it is precisely your position since no one else - at least no one with a professional interest in the issue - is working with it as a hazard category
It's also your position, as well as Animal's. Do you not consider him to have a professional interest in the issue?
Which then begs the question, if it is so effective, how come it is only you talking about it (and not persons professionally involved)
How many times must we go around in these circles?
Doesn't matter if a victim runs away from a larger woman or even a space alien for that matter.
It's still effective.
No its not.
Its not even species specific
If you're going to extend the imperative for women to run away from larger men--as it is presented on the website--then you can easily extend the imperative to stay away from men to staying away from all people.
Once again, then the next question is why is it you who thinks this is the logical consequence and not any professional or even a great many assault survivors for that matter.
It's taken directly from a professional's website.
Granted.
However given that "men" as a category only exists in the imagination of persons advocating spurious arguments for the sake of saving face during online discussions, it operates in a dimension quite close to the non-existent.
No, it exists as a natural and logical category for any woman who wishes to absolve herself completely of responsibility in the case of her own rape, per your argument. The point is that you've stacked the deck in such a way that a rape victim cannot possibly be blameless without taking some extreme measure such as staying away from men. Is that incorrect? Can a woman be blameless in the event of her own rape?
if the only adjectives you could come up with are "large" and "amorous", its simply more evidence you don't read stuff
The imperative for her to shut up was based solely on the fact that he was a physically large man who was infatuated with her. Her angry reaction to his rumored behavior (masturbating in the restroom) was considered provocation by the website author. In other words, mouthy female + large amorous male = rape.
Ditto above
the article was about pro's and con's of a variety of approaches you doofus
No it wasn't, you misogynistic lackwit. The only approaches endorsed by the site were "Shut up" and "run away." Everything else--including martial self-defense techniques--was strongly discouraged.
which then brings us back to why you are the only idiot who offers such so-called solutions.
What is that you have that a professional doesn't .... apart from alack of relevant skills and background information on the subject?
How many times must it be said that I'm not offering or advocating such a position? I'm simply pointing out a necessary condition of your argument if a woman is to be absolved of blame.
and like I said, if you don't do those things, then you are not actually doing all that you can do to avoid an incident .... and as a further detail, your ability to correctly discern the appropriate situation to do and not do these things shows how you are fully capable of limiting such preventative measures (when you don't have the pending dilemma of saving face during online discussions of course )
Incomprehensible.
If I don't do what things?
well you did just make a claim about hunter-gatherer individuals being some sort of epitome of precautionary existence ...
Is this point truly lost on you, or is this another one of your little rouses perpetrated in the hope that no one notices the bloody corpse of your argument laying just over there?
Obviously, the use of hunter-gatherer imagery was to illustrate the most effective way to ensure one's own food is safe to eat. You then ridiculously claimed that hunter-gatherers agreed with your vague and seemingly arbitrary definition of "all one can do."
If that was the case, you wouldn't be blowing all this hot air about prevention being necessarily oppressive and wotnot
Yet another straw man.
Given that you have given countless references for persons blaming the victim for no other reason than they are implementing/advocating a preventative strategy, this so called salient difference is coming more as a convenient double standard
It's not merely advocating a preventative strategy. It's the myth that a woman can reduce her risk to "virtually zero" without taking extreme measures. The implication is that the woman brings about the rape through her own actions rather than the actions of the rapist. It's the double standard that is prevention advocacy for the victim while considering prevention advocacy for the perpetrator "absurd." It's the suggestion that the woman should be the one who stops drinking, not the man. It's the suggestion that the woman ultimately decides whether she's raped or not. In other words, you blame the woman.
Once again, you are talking about ideas that no one has brought to the discussion except you (which, again, is funny because apparently you don't agree with them)
Once again, you have brought this idea to the discussion. You simply don't have the balls to own up to it.
I am just playing the stupidity of your own so called brilliant idea ....
Which idea is that? And when did I "so-call" anything brilliant?
I mean you do understand how not driving a car is the only logical effective end of all road safety campaigns, yes?
Road safety campaigns put the onus for harm where it belongs. Anti-drunk driving campaigns, for example, target potential drunk drivers. Nowhere in their prevention advocacy do they suggest that sober drivers stay off the roads, let alone implicate them in the case of an accident caused by a drunk driver. What you're essentially saying is that people who drive at times and places where drunk drivers might be must share in the blame for any ensuing accidents.
feel free to reference this claim : warning ... it may involve you actually having to read stuff
To start, go here. Tell me where the hypothetical rapist is referred to as anything other than "he." He even prefaces the text by saying it's impossible to know who will rape you, implying that the only real "category" per se is "male."
actually I followed the link from an article titled "I won't live in fear" ... which tends to fly in the face of your ideas about preventative measures defaulting to fear and having logical consequences that obviously have no precedent outside of your fertile brain.
Which begs the question: If you endorse self-defense courses as a form of prevention, then why did you first endorse a website that explicitly opposes such a measure?
Sure
Notice how I didn't say they are responsible for not getting raped.
You don't have to. It's implied.
errr ... no
I believe I just said someone is responsible for indulging in drinking ...
You said they were responsible for "assessing the concomitant risk factors associated with the behavior," meaning they must take responsibility for putting themselves at risk to be raped. How does one logically then excuse them from this responsibility when they are raped?
I see you have a high regard for her personal safety
I do. I simply believe there are less extreme and reasonably effective measures that can be taken instead of "stop drinking."
Quite a fine selection of suitable preventative measures (none of which, for the record, involved using "men" as a hazard category btw ... since the bartender and bouncer would probably be male).
I agree. I've never advocated avoiding all men. I've done nothing but ridicule it as an unreasonably extreme measure.
But your inability to consistently follow through on ridiculous ideas you advocate aside, how is it that you think continuing to get shit-faced doesn't pose any pending hazard issues (since you have already indicated a bevy of other strategies brought to the fore for the obvious task of dealing with a hazard.)
I don't claim that it doesn't increase the risk. I've said quite the opposite. This is why I brought up the points about eating at restaurants and taking medicine; there is no reasonable way to eliminate all risk. If a person is going to live in today's western society, there are inherent risks. Blaming the victim--as you and your ilk do--for being raped when the only possible way to completely avoid it is by taking unreasonable measures, is not fair.
To put it bluntly, if there is no problem, why advocate complaining to the bouncer or going to a different place.
And if there is a problem, what on earth makes you think proceeding to get shit faced isn't going to complicate issues down the track?
There is potential that drinking will complicate matters, but the odds are fairly remote and the alternative you suggest is oppressive. Stop drinking just because some creep hits on you at a bar? In what world is that a reasonable solution?
If a right is not an essential thing expected to be extended to all people all the time (ie a "cornerstone"), you don't have a leverage point for protecting it.
IOW if getting shit faced is not an essential right, then you can't come back with the half-assed argument of an individual being oppressed due to others trying to change their behaviour that revolves around getting shit faced.
This doesn't do anything to explain how or why a right must be essential to be valid.
Could you honestly not make a case for the legitimacy of the right to consume alcohol? You can't think of any reason why that right should be maintained?
I don't.
I have said I don't.
I have linked sites that say they don't
I have cited references of people incorporating preventative strategies who say they don't.
I have challenged people like yourself to find any reference where I say anything other than "I don't"
Yet despite all this, you think I do.
You very clearly do. Your particular brand of "prevention advocacy" mandates the victim receive at least some of the blame. You say she is to be responsible for herself at all times, and failing to do that--or acting in such a way that increases risk--makes her culpable. This is by definition diametrically opposed to victim advocacy.
You on the other hand, have clearly demonstrated that you do.
No. I support prevention techniques. I think women who believe they are at risk should take self-defense classes, carry pepper spray, or whatever else makes them feel safer. I also don't think that women who choose not to adopt such techniques are somehow responsible when they are raped. Nor do I believe a woman can reasonably reduce her risk of being raped to "virtually zero," a spurious claim you've agreed with.
But you can't find any quotes where I or anyone else says that.
I've shown you numerous examples of your arguments that cannot lead to anything other than the woman being blamed. So have Bells, Tiassa, and iceura. And your cronies bilvon and wynn have said the same.
On the other hand, I can find numerous quotes where you cite adopting a preventative measure being akin to rape apology, misogyny, etc etc
Which is why I ask, why is it that you think risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy?
Again, it's not risk prevention that is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy, it's your brand of it that is.
and if you go to the next bit after that, beginning with "IOW ..." you can see exactly in what manner it becomes absurd
It doesn't change anything. You're still advocating that women do all the work, and if they don't, it's their own fault for the rape. Men, apparently, can do nothing to help prevent rape.
I wasn't aware that you did say that either ...
thats why I asked you :
Since you have no qualms about working with such a dichotomy however, perhaps you would like to explain why the notion of women abstaining from alcohol in order to surmount the issues of risk surrounding rape is absurd whereas men abstaining from alcohol for the same end isn't?
LG fails at reading comprehension yet again.
I only scoffed at it when it is made at the expense of something.
If you read the entire reference .. or even anything subsequent you would understand that.
At the expense of what?
and again, put the quote back in its context, and you have nothing.
The context changes nothing.
Your earlier ideas about the logical implications of prevention clearly suggest you do have issues with the double pronged approach of advocacy and prevention ... or at the very least, your inability to entertain "alcohol" as a hazard category establishes a precedent for your views being markedly distinct from those in the professional arena ...
Again, I have problems with the kind of prevention you advocate, and the implications you make with your reasoning, not prevention as a whole.
and once again, perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HED (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal liberty.
And once again, you must rely on the false dichotomy that a liberty must be essential to be valid.
"Irony is wasted on the stupid"
If you had any notion of it, perhaps that would be an apt quote. Sadly, most of the time you drop your repetitive "will the irony never end" OCD tick, you aren't pointing out anything ironic.
Your inability to find references from websites to support your ideas aside, the one that you concur to be sensible is apparently doing something that is not allowed in your books - establishing "alcohol" as a hazard category while making the great blunder of ignoring the so-called obvious one of "man".
Are we to assume that by your own admission, your ideas are not sensible?
We've reached the point of no return, I fear. Tiassa had the right of it when he said you were operating on pure ego defense, as you repeat the same tired and exposed claims over and over. Your game, as it typically is, is simply to outlast the opposition.
The problem is that I am not the one having difficulty explaining why my views are not incorporated into professional strategies to deal with the problem of rape.
You actually are, at least in the case of the second website you linked to. They did not advocate the same things you have, nor did they lay the blame at the feet of the victim as you have. The first site, however, agrees with you completely, though I'm not sure that's something you should brag about.