Colorado Democrat Under Fire For Suggesting Female College Students Fearing Rape Should Not Have Access To Concealed Guns
"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, that's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped."
[youtube:2r0i3ozg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60[/youtube:2r0i3ozg]
I wondered how the Democrats were going to save the Republicans from themselves and thus preserve the duopoly. It seems they're joining in the rape silliness. Girls, you you don't know what you feel. If you feel threatened, you might not actually feel that.
I'm not sure if concealed weapon permits are are not just replacing one problem with another.
[youtube:2a7bwsxj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unWBr88wytc[/youtube:2a7bwsxj]
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Colorado Democrat Under Fire For Suggesting Female College Students Fearing Rape Should Not Have Access To Concealed Guns
"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, that's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped."
[youtube:21mnvpho]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60[/youtube:21mnvpho]
I wondered how the Democrats were going to save the Republicans from themselves and thus preserve the duopoly. It seems they're joining in the rape silliness. Girls, you you don't know what you feel. If you feel threatened, you might not actually feel that.
And now you're joining in the silliness, pretending that "feeling threatened" is the same as "about to be raped", which is exactly what the man in the story was trying to point out wasn't the case.
You'd think an unconcealed weapon would be a better deterrent.
Quote from: "widdershins"And now you're joining in the silliness, pretending that "feeling threatened" is the same as "about to be raped", which is exactly what the man in the story was trying to point out wasn't the case.
I'm pretty sure that the feeling like you are going to raped is feeling threatened.
Feeling threatened is like feeling you are going to be raped.
Feeling you are threatened doesn't imply that you are going to be raped though.
That said I have not yet watched the video, and I'll do so later when I have the time.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Colorado Democrat Under Fire For Suggesting Female College Students Fearing Rape Should Not Have Access To Concealed Guns
"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, that's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped."
[youtube:246n3rwd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60[/youtube:246n3rwd]
I wondered how the Democrats were going to save the Republicans from themselves and thus preserve the duopoly. It seems they're joining in the rape silliness. Girls, you you don't know what you feel. If you feel threatened, you might not actually feel that.
Oh here we go again with "you can prevent a violent crime with another violent crime" bullshit. The fact is that women carrying concealed weapons are every bit as vunerable as those who don't to a surprize attack. Most rapes are committed by people whom the victims knows. Weapons won't deminish rapes. The repukes have had a war on women forever and they have up'd that war in the last tens years.
To prevent rape you need to do several things.
1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
2) Take every rape allegation SERIOUSLY.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
4) "NO" means "NO!" and everyone should know that and made to know that!
5) The culture has to change. Men need to quit objectifying women and see them as human beings. This primal urge nonsense is way out of control.
Quote3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
Maybe we should put them in a veil and only allow them to go out when accompanied by a male?
Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
So we shouldn't punish them but we should blame them?
"It's all your fault, just try not to let it happen again." sorta thing? No......just, no.
(//http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn113/CSC10000/i-like-where-this-thread-is-going-8.jpg)
I think his point is a fine one. Some women really do see rapists around every corner and behind every bush, and I don't want those women to have guns. Primarily because I don't want to be shot.
Her right to not be raped does not trump my right to not be shot for being perceived as a potential rapist.
Get a tazer. Get some mace. Giving women the power of life and death and allowing them to exercise it based on their imperfect perceptions of men is a mistake. No rapes will be prevented. The only thing that can come of this is some poor motherfucker walking behind a woman at night takes two to the chest because he "looked creepy".
Well, I think if carrying is allowed, women should be able to carry too.
If carrying is not allowed, then an exception ought not be carved out for women.
So far as I know, Colorado allows open carriage of weapons without a permit so long as the municipality doesn't bar it.
This whole thing is also about college students, generally places that are gun free. Should we really have a problem with someone suggesting the women on campus not be allowed concealed carry because they might get raped? Almost every woman I knew in college had pepper spray already anyway and that was years ago. Why add guns?
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Should we really have a problem with someone suggesting the women on campus not be allowed concealed carry because they might get raped?
Or for any reason? They keep saying rape because it's a hot button topic and elicits an emotional response. It's disrespectful to those who have been raped to use this tactic.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Should we really have a problem with someone suggesting the women on campus not be allowed concealed carry because they might get raped?
Or for any reason? They keep saying rape because it's a hot button topic and elicits an emotional response. It's disrespectful to those who have been raped to use this tactic.
Yeah, no different than the hubbub for concealed carry on campus after V Tech or any other mass shooting including Sandy Hook. Using emotional arguments for pushing for new laws generally leads to bad laws being written.
I don't see how a gun is going to be more help than a tazer anyway. If they're trying to rape you, they're not going to run screaming at you from 100 yards. They're going to be right there. So taze 'em.
The issue is the choice of words. He worded it very poorly, had he said something like "We don't need to make these situations worse because the possibilty of rape exists", then there probably would not have been an issue.
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"I don't see how a gun is going to be more help than a tazer anyway. If they're trying to rape you, they're not going to run screaming at you from 100 yards. They're going to be right there. So taze 'em.
And I don't think that's any more effective than pepper spray. A tazer is still "a gun" and requires an aimed single shot or the cattle prod type that are melee weapons needing direct contact. Pepper spray has range and you can basically find your target cause you hold the button down for a continuous spray. It's also lightweight, convenient, and most college women just have it attached to their keychain and/or dorm key fob. I doubt the average female college student is likely to be terribly skilled with weapons or have the time and desire to go to a range regularly. Giving more deadly weapons (even tazers have killed) to untrained people is not going to fix anything. KISS. The guy in the OP article is right. Campuses these days have call boxes scattered around campus so that you're never out of site of one, most women carry whistles and/or pepper spray, and most walk in groups at night, so all that's going to prevent random attacks as much as anything. Adding guns won't help.
Something tells me a big portion of rapes on a college campus are more of the date rape variety anyways. None of these matter much in that case.
Reading this makes me weep for the US. I don't know of anyone ever who carries anything here, even when a single female out at night. Either you guys have a culture built around fear, or your crime numbers are off the charts.
(But I think it's the former)
Quote from: "the_antithesis"You'd think an unconcealed weapon would be a better deterrent.
Only for the person carrying it. Concealed weapons raise the spectre that any victim might be armed.
Interestingly, both people who claim concealed carry laws will increase crime and those who claim it will reduce crime significantly seem to be wrong. There may be a very weak crime reduction effect, but if so it is too small or variable to be found consistently across studies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html)
Quote from: "Plu"Either you guys have a culture built around fear, or your crime numbers are off the charts.
We like our guns. They go good with our 10 gallon hats and spurs. We like to swagger around and say things like, "I got me an itchy trigger finger," or "This town ain't big enough for you and me, Partner," and we're all headed out to Arizona Territory, where the railroad is comin' through, and they shoot varmints.
I don't know if you're trying to be demeaning or sarcastic or whatever. Your post is kinda hard to interpret.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Colorado Democrat Under Fire For Suggesting Female College Students Fearing Rape Should Not Have Access To Concealed Guns
"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, that's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped."
[youtube:1d1mqeal]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60[/youtube:1d1mqeal]
I wondered how the Democrats were going to save the Republicans from themselves and thus preserve the duopoly. It seems they're joining in the rape silliness. Girls, you you don't know what you feel. If you feel threatened, you might not actually feel that.
ACKkkk! Great (sarcasm)
Stupid squared.
I...just.......I'm so......it's ....but....... I can't...........
I just don't have words.
Quote from: "Plu"I don't know if you're trying to be demeaning or sarcastic or whatever. Your post is kinda hard to interpret.
I'm just having fun. It was satire.
Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote from: "Plu"Reading this makes me weep for the US. I don't know of anyone ever who carries anything here, even when a single female out at night. Either you guys have a culture built around fear, or your crime numbers are off the charts.
(But I think it's the former)
I'm sorry, being new here I don't know where you are from. This would be helpful for me in this discussion.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "widdershins"And now you're joining in the silliness, pretending that "feeling threatened" is the same as "about to be raped", which is exactly what the man in the story was trying to point out wasn't the case.
I'm pretty sure that the feeling like you are going to raped is feeling threatened.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true. However, I wasn't talking about "feeling like you are going to be raped", I was talking about "about to be raped". One is a feeling, one is a reality. One does not justify killing a man, one does. There is a very big difference between "feeling threatened" and "being threatened". A "feeling" does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation, which, I believe, is the point that Jason, probably intentionally, ignored.
QuoteI'm sorry, being new here I don't know where you are from. This would be helpful for me in this discussion.
The Netherlands, so Western Europe.
Quote from: "Plu"Reading this makes me weep for the US. I don't know of anyone ever who carries anything here, even when a single female out at night. Either you guys have a culture built around fear, or your crime numbers are off the charts.
(But I think it's the former)
I think it's actually the politicians stoking fear in order to make themselves appear more useful. It's hard to look like you're "solving a problem" unless there are problems around.
And if they're not around, then it's hard to appear useful, or so our politicians seem to think.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "widdershins"And now you're joining in the silliness, pretending that "feeling threatened" is the same as "about to be raped", which is exactly what the man in the story was trying to point out wasn't the case.
I'm pretty sure that the feeling like you are going to raped is feeling threatened.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true. However, I wasn't talking about "feeling like you are going to be raped", I was talking about "about to be raped". One is a feeling, one is a reality. One does not justify killing a man, one does. There is a very big difference between "feeling threatened" and "being threatened". A "feeling" does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation, which, I believe, is the point that Jason, probably intentionally, ignored.
This is very true, which is why I say it is a bad choice of words by the representitive. I really think that all states should require an extensive class in gun safety before they issue CCW permits so nobody goes off half-cocked and starts to shoot because someone is walking in the same direction they are.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"You'd think an unconcealed weapon would be a better deterrent.
That's called "flashing."
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
So we shouldn't punish them but we should blame them?
"It's all your fault, just try not to let it happen again." sorta thing? No......just, no.
Did I say anything about blaming the victim. I don't think we should blame the victims at all. What I did say is that women and people in general should protect themselves by not setting themselves to be victims. If they don't, that doesn't mean we should "blame" them for being victims!
I gotta say most of the time I find myself leaning towards the right for various reasons when it comes to gun control. But as far as concealed carry goes I am actually a fan of tightening up concealed carry laws. So looks like I'm siding with the majority of everyone else here this time around.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
So we shouldn't punish them but we should blame them?
"It's all your fault, just try not to let it happen again." sorta thing? No......just, no.
Did I say anything about blaming the victim. I don't think we should blame the victims at all. What I did say is that women and people in general should protect themselves by not setting themselves to be victims. If they don't, that doesn't mean we should "blame" them for being victims!
How are they setting themselves up? By walking home? By hanging out with friends and believing they won't get slipped a roofie? You make it sound like these women are just being idiots nad walking through the middle of central park having never been there before.
Obviously I don't have all the answers, no one does. I don't want women to be restricted in any way but I think people should use common sense. You can't make people have common sense. I don't like the victims should ever be blamed, even if they wear a miniskirt walk home alone at 2:30AM through a dark alley. If they get raped then they can't be held accountable.
I just think people need a gun that won't do them any good to protect them from rape. In fact women that have guns that are targeted for rape will get raped and get that gun stolen and maybe even be killed with their own gun!
Quote from: "mykcob4"In fact women that have guns that are targeted for rape will get raped and get that gun stolen and maybe even be killed with their own gun!
And what is to keep them from getting a tazer or pepper stolen, getting raped, and killed by some other means?
The purpose of this thread was an epic fail to begin with. The purpose was to show us all that Democrats can say stupid things about rape too.
But there is no comparison between saying that women shouldn't carry guns and shoot people just because they "feel" they are going to be assaulted and saying that women have magical vaginas that stop rape sperm from entering the womb and if the vagina magic doesn't work and you do get pregnant from rape then you should be forced to carry the rape fetus to term.
No comparison at all, not even on the same planet or reality or plane of existence.
With the Democrat we have someone being overcautious, with the GOP's we have people living in a fairy tale. See the difference or do you need further explanation?
Quote from: "Plu"Reading this makes me weep for the US. I don't know of anyone ever who carries anything here, even when a single female out at night. Either you guys have a culture built around fear, or your crime numbers are off the charts.
(But I think it's the former)
We are definitely a fear-based culture. It's very sad. But violent crimes are also far too commonplace.
I was walking alone in a secluded area when I was 15 and was apprehended by a guy who jumped out of hiding and grabbed me, dragged me a ways down a RR track for seclusion and raped me.
A weapon would have been useless in my case. It is true that most rape victims know their attackers and that it doesn't usually play out like what happened to me, I am just relating my own experience. If I'd had a gun, I believe I'd be dead now.
We are a culture of violence, misogyny and subjugation. It seems to be getting worse and as a result of what happened to me as a teenager, I am constantly vigilant and in fear of being raped. It's probably protected me from having it happen again, but it's certainly not ideal. I was single until I was 40 because, while I dated, I was really afraid of men and had a hard time finding any I trusted. While walking through a less populated area in Madrid one summer a man approached me making kissy noises and tried to engage me in conversation. I freaked the fuck out, screamed and ran. The guy probably thought I was a lunatic. Or maybe he recognized me as an American.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
So we shouldn't punish them but we should blame them?
"It's all your fault, just try not to let it happen again." sorta thing? No......just, no.
Did I say anything about blaming the victim. I don't think we should blame the victims at all. What I did say is that women and people in general should protect themselves by not setting themselves to be victims. If they don't, that doesn't mean we should "blame" them for being victims!
You are blaming the victims in your third bullet point. Women need to be smarter about where we go? How about "Men need to not rape women"?
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
So we shouldn't punish them but we should blame them?
"It's all your fault, just try not to let it happen again." sorta thing? No......just, no.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
Maybe we should put them in a veil and only allow them to go out when accompanied by a male?
Jesus H Christ. Not this fuckin' argument again. Women need to make smarter decisions about what, where and when they go and do. In Fantasyland, anyone can go anywhere they want any time of the day and night, and with a cocked brow they will stop any attack because, you know...No Means No!!!
Unfortunately, Fantasyland does not exist anywhere but in the wishful imaginations of dreamers and the self-delusional. There will always be dangerous places. There will always be dangerous situations. There will always be dangerous people. The ONLY thing a woman can do to protect herself is to be conscious of where she is, who she is with, and the possible problems a particular circumstance may present. It's an unfortunate imposition on one's freedom for sure, but stumbling into a honky-tonk all alone at 2 am on a lonely road is probably not the smartest thing in the world a woman can do to ensure her own safety. That's a simple fact, not some male chauvinistic way of "blaming the victim".
So either women can be aware of their surroundings and take precautions or we can attempt to alter the human race so that nobody ever rapes anyone ever again.
Feminism is the pursuit of the latter solution.
Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
So we shouldn't punish them but we should blame them?
"It's all your fault, just try not to let it happen again." sorta thing? No......just, no.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
Maybe we should put them in a veil and only allow them to go out when accompanied by a male?
Jesus H Christ. Not this fuckin' argument again. Women need to make smarter decisions about what, where and when they go and do. In Fantasyland, anyone can go anywhere they want any time of the day and night, and with a cocked brow they will stop any attack because, you know...No Means No!!!
Yet nobody is saying anything about a "Fantasyland", we are merely pointing out the flaw in which he says it.
QuoteUnfortunately, Fantasyland does not exist anywhere but in the wishful imaginations of dreamers and the self-delusional. There will always be dangerous places. There will always be dangerous situations. There will always be dangerous people. The ONLY thing a woman can do to protect herself is to be conscious of where she is, who she is with, and the possible problems a particular circumstance may present. It's an unfortunate imposition on one's freedom for sure, but stumbling into a honky-tonk all alone at 2 am on a lonely road is probably not the smartest thing in the world a woman can do to ensure her own safety. That's a simple fact, not some male chauvinistic way of "blaming the victim".
Depends, if the honk-tonk isn't known to the woman and is in an unfamiliar area then yes, not the smartest place to go alone for anyone really. If she is familiar with it and knows the people there should be no reason for her to believe there are any issues. The way he made it sound as if women were constantly going to unfamiliar areas with unfamiliar people.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"You'd think an unconcealed weapon would be a better deterrent.
I disagree. Open carry just makes people who are unfamiliar with firearms uncomfortable around you. Out on the trail it's fine, but around town it seems a little rude.
On the other hand, liberal concealed carry laws can benefit everyone since the bad guys aren't sure if you're carrying or not, and for the same reason no one is offended.
QuoteUnfortunately, Fantasyland does not exist anywhere but in the wishful imaginations of dreamers and the self-delusional. There will always be dangerous places. There will always be dangerous situations. There will always be dangerous people. The ONLY thing a woman can do to protect herself is to be conscious of where she is, who she is with, and the possible problems a particular circumstance may present. It's an unfortunate imposition on one's freedom for sure, but stumbling into a honky-tonk all alone at 2 am on a lonely road is probably not the smartest thing in the world a woman can do to ensure her own safety. That's a simple fact, not some male chauvinistic way of "blaming the victim".
Actually, Fantasyland does exist. There are no places and times where I live where I'd not advice a lone female to go, unless I'd advice
nobody to go there. This whole "the woman is weak and everyone is out to rape her" culture doesn't exist here. There are safe places and dangerous places, but there aren't any places that are only dangerous for women.
That's the whole problem with this claim.
Everyone should be aware of their surroundings and not go to dangerous places alone, but it's ridiculous to claim that the requirement of being safe and walking around with another applies
only to women.
And if it does, that doesn't mean that places that have it better are "fantasyland", it means you're living in "shitholeland".
No guns.
On the women shouldn't put themselves in a bad situation; I agree, but neither should men.
That said, we are talking about female rape, so I don't see a need to say, "Women AND men..."... If we were talking about men getting mugged people would say, "Well, he could have avoided going to the shaddy part of town!", and no one would cry about blaming the victim or its sexist to only say men and that women can put themselves in bad situations as well.
Actually, men get raped as well. You just never hear about it. Social problem. Like rape itself.
Also, when you advice women to be extra careful and not men, you make it easier and easier for people to say "Well, she was asking for it. They did specifically say women shouldn't do that". If an area is safe for a single male, but not for a single female, there is something seriously fucked up going on that needs to be fixed.
I know men get raped, the point was we are talking about women being raped.
And considering women are "easy targets" (I know women who could kick most guys asses) to criminals along with the fact women are raped far more often then males, I would say dangerous areas ARE more dangerous for women than men.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Plu"Reading this makes me weep for the US. I don't know of anyone ever who carries anything here, even when a single female out at night. Either you guys have a culture built around fear, or your crime numbers are off the charts.
(But I think it's the former)
I think it's actually the politicians stoking fear in order to make themselves appear more useful. It's hard to look like you're "solving a problem" unless there are problems around.
And if they're not around, then it's hard to appear useful, or so our politicians seem to think.
Politicians profit from 'tough on crime' so there's always a need to make the crime rate out to be worse than it really is without any proof. The stats usually dont bear the claims, but it's partially how they get elected, scare the hell out of people with real AND perceived threats and if there are none then they create them with new and "improved" laws and then make the claim to make life 'safer' for us all. Nearly all politicians of all stripes do this. Republicans are the worse offenders..
What I'm getting from Joe Salazar in this video is that he feels that young women are too stupid, ignorant, or emotionally unstable to make decisions regarding their own welfare. He implies that they are unable to make good judgement calls and will shoot at anything that moves if they have a gun.
Aside from being offensive, it's just not true.
I live in Arizona, where just about anyone 21 or older, who can pass a simple background check, can go down to a gun store and walk out with a handgun in less than 30 minutes. Anyone who can own a handgun can legally carry it concealed most places, without a permit.
I know many young women who have done just that. I can't recall hearing of any who accidentally shot someone because they mistakenly thought they were going to be assaulted. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I might find one or two in the state, but it's certainly not a common occurrence.
Now, I think it's reasonable to assume that these same women won't lose their senses if they step on to a college campus. I think it's also reasonable to assume that many young women are already carrying concealed on campus, despite the law, and have not become frantic, helpless young women.
Legal or not, I simply can't agree with guns at schools and campuses. Call me bigotted towards guns all you want...
So this story took a turn to the surreal.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/c ... ?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
QuoteA Colorado school has caused a stir with an advisory that suggested women could urinate or vomit to deter a rape.
The list of 10 tips by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was billed as "last resort" options to deter a sexual assault.
"Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," read one tip.
"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone," read another.
By Tuesday night, the list was taken down and replaced by an explanation and an apology. But it was too late.
The backlash had hit the Internet, and a hashtag on Twitter was created.
Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin was one of many who criticized the eyebrow-raising list using the hashtag #UCCSTips.
"New #UCCSTips for women: If vomiting or urinating doesn't deter your attacker, try passing gas," Malkin tweeted.
"#UCCSTips or if all else fails, ask attacker to pull your finger!" Jason Griggs tweeted.
Some women on the Colorado campus said they were confused by the list.
"Tell your attacker you have a disease or menstruating? I don't understand how that will keep someone from attacking you," student Leah McFann told CNN affiliate KRDO.
Some on campus also wondered why the list did not emphasize more conventional ways of fighting back.
Tom Hutton, a spokesman for the university, said the list had been taken out of context.
"It was part of supplemental information intended for women who had completed a self-defense class on campus," Hutton told KRDO.
Hutton said the list was created in 2006 but may have resurfaced because the issue of rape on campus had been in the news recently in Colorado.
Last week, Colorado lawmakers debated legislation that would ban firearms in college campus buildings. The debate made headlines after Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar made controversial statements about ways to protect women on campuses.
"Because you just don't know who you are going to be shooting at," Salazar said last week. "If you feel like you're going to be raped or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble and when you may actually not be -- that you pop out that gun and you pop-pop a round at somebody. And you might have just made a mistake."
Salazar later apologized for the comment
Wow, that's... pretty stupid.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Politicians profit from 'tough on crime' so there's always a need to make the crime rate out to be worse than it really is without any proof. The stats usually dont bear the claims, but it's partially how they get elected, scare the hell out of people with real AND perceived threats and if there are none then they create them with new and "improved" laws and then make the claim to make life 'safer' for us all. Nearly all politicians of all stripes do this. Republicans are the worse offenders..
I agree with the most of your post, but I'd like to see support for the final claim you lay before I agree with it.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I think it's actually the politicians stoking fear in order to make themselves appear more useful. It's hard to look like you're "solving a problem" unless there are problems around.
And if they're not around, then it's hard to appear useful, or so our politicians seem to think.
Politicians profit from 'tough on crime' so there's always a need to make the crime rate out to be worse than it really is without any proof. The stats usually dont bear the claims, but it's partially how they get elected, scare the hell out of people with real AND perceived threats and if there are none then they create them with new and "improved" laws and then make the claim to make life 'safer' for us all. Nearly all politicians of all stripes do this. Republicans are the worse offenders..
Now that's kind a blanket absolute statement isn't it? Most of the legislation I have seen lately has been stoking fear on the Democratic side of the government.
Quote from: "Plu"Actually, Fantasyland does exist. There are no places and times where I live where I'd not advice a lone female to go, unless I'd advice nobody to go there. This whole "the woman is weak and everyone is out to rape her" culture doesn't exist here. There are safe places and dangerous places, but there aren't any places that are only dangerous for women.
That's the whole problem with this claim. Everyone should be aware of their surroundings and not go to dangerous places alone, but it's ridiculous to claim that the requirement of being safe and walking around with another applies only to women.
And if it does, that doesn't mean that places that have it better are "fantasyland", it means you're living in "shitholeland".
No. I'm living in realityland. Do you know why lions target weak and sick antelope? Because large, healthy antelope can gut a lion with one swipe of his horns. It's a simple case of physics and leverage. I'm a grown man and a damn fine pugilist. A guy who wants to jump me is going to have a fight on his hands. That doesn't mean he won't jump me, but its probably more investment than he wants to make. A woman who stands 5-2 and weighs 110 pounds is a much more inviting target, if for no other reason than he thinks he can overpower her much more easily and control the situation without risking harm to himself or drawing a crowd of witnesses.
The world is a MUCH more dangerous place for women than it is for men. If you don't believe that, you are either too young to know better or a damn fool. Spending a week reading the paper or watching the evening news should relieve you of that naive notion.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"So this story took a turn to the surreal.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/c ... ?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
QuoteA Colorado school has caused a stir with an advisory that suggested women could urinate or vomit to deter a rape.
The list of 10 tips by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was billed as "last resort" options to deter a sexual assault.
"Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," read one tip.
"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone," read another.
By Tuesday night, the list was taken down and replaced by an explanation and an apology. But it was too late.
The backlash had hit the Internet, and a hashtag on Twitter was created.
Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin was one of many who criticized the eyebrow-raising list using the hashtag #UCCSTips.
"New #UCCSTips for women: If vomiting or urinating doesn't deter your attacker, try passing gas," Malkin tweeted.
"#UCCSTips or if all else fails, ask attacker to pull your finger!" Jason Griggs tweeted.
Some women on the Colorado campus said they were confused by the list.
"Tell your attacker you have a disease or menstruating? I don't understand how that will keep someone from attacking you," student Leah McFann told CNN affiliate KRDO.
Some on campus also wondered why the list did not emphasize more conventional ways of fighting back.
Tom Hutton, a spokesman for the university, said the list had been taken out of context.
"It was part of supplemental information intended for women who had completed a self-defense class on campus," Hutton told KRDO.
Hutton said the list was created in 2006 but may have resurfaced because the issue of rape on campus had been in the news recently in Colorado.
Oddly, when I worked at a university in the early 1970s, one of those special speakers that follows the college circuits came through and filled an auditorium with a one night presentation on rape prevention. He didn't rule out anything, including kicking the attacker in the nuts, but most of his presentation revolved around the things in the list above, or variations of them. He was a dynamic speaker and got a lot of applause for that. My boss, a woman, was not greatly impressed, mostly because he had a ego about the size of the moon.
I wasn't sure what to think. Do those things in the list have a proven track record? I'm not saying they don't, but I haven't seen any actual data on this.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"So this story took a turn to the surreal.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/c ... ?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
QuoteA Colorado school has caused a stir with an advisory that suggested women could urinate or vomit to deter a rape.
The list of 10 tips by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was billed as "last resort" options to deter a sexual assault.
"Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," read one tip.
"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone," read another.
By Tuesday night, the list was taken down and replaced by an explanation and an apology. But it was too late.
The backlash had hit the Internet, and a hashtag on Twitter was created.
Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin was one of many who criticized the eyebrow-raising list using the hashtag #UCCSTips.
"New #UCCSTips for women: If vomiting or urinating doesn't deter your attacker, try passing gas," Malkin tweeted.
"#UCCSTips or if all else fails, ask attacker to pull your finger!" Jason Griggs tweeted.
Some women on the Colorado campus said they were confused by the list.
"Tell your attacker you have a disease or menstruating? I don't understand how that will keep someone from attacking you," student Leah McFann told CNN affiliate KRDO.
Some on campus also wondered why the list did not emphasize more conventional ways of fighting back.
Tom Hutton, a spokesman for the university, said the list had been taken out of context.
"It was part of supplemental information intended for women who had completed a self-defense class on campus," Hutton told KRDO.
Hutton said the list was created in 2006 but may have resurfaced because the issue of rape on campus had been in the news recently in Colorado.
Oddly, when I worked at a university in the early 1970s, one of those special speakers that follows the college circuits came through and filled an auditorium with a one night presentation on rape prevention. He didn't rule out anything, including kicking the attacker in the nuts, but most of his presentation revolved around the things in the list above, or variations of them. He was a dynamic speaker and got a lot of applause for that. My boss, a woman, was not greatly impressed, mostly because he had a ego about the size of the moon.
I wasn't sure what to think. Do those things in the list have a proven track record? I'm not saying they don't, but I haven't seen any actual data on this.
I don't know about that, but i have heard rapists claim women with short hair and carrying long umbrellas are less atractive to them. Apparently the like long hair as they can easily grab it, and things like canes and umbrellas can be used as long distance weapons. Not 100% sure about how true that is though.
QuoteNo. I'm living in realityland. Do you know why lions target weak and sick antelope? Because large, healthy antelope can gut a lion with one swipe of his horns. It's a simple case of physics and leverage. I'm a grown man and a damn fine pugilist. A guy who wants to jump me is going to have a fight on his hands. That doesn't mean he won't jump me, but its probably more investment than he wants to make. A woman who stands 5-2 and weighs 110 pounds is a much more inviting target, if for no other reason than he thinks he can overpower her much more easily and control the situation without risking harm to himself or drawing a crowd of witnesses.
The world is a MUCH more dangerous place for women than it is for men. If you don't believe that, you are either too young to know better or a damn fool. Spending a week reading the paper or watching the evening news should relieve you of that naive notion.
That's because those women are taught that they are weak and are buying it. I know a number of women who are 5'2" and 110 pounds who can kick my ass with ease, even though I'm a 6' 200 pound man. People who are weak shouldn't go out alone. Women aren't neccesarily weak, though. They're just taught to be weak by society because they say "don't go there" instead of "kick his ass if he tries anything".
And because if two young kids get in a fight, you're already assuming that both are males, because "girls don't do that kind of thing". Well no shit they grow up to be weak and in need of protection if you don't teach them to be strong.
But of course women should be delicate and small and need big, strong men to protect them. That kind of fucked up attitude is why women are afraid to go out alone. And it's bull, and everyone is feeding into it, and as long as they do, it'll stay.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "widdershins"And now you're joining in the silliness, pretending that "feeling threatened" is the same as "about to be raped", which is exactly what the man in the story was trying to point out wasn't the case.
I'm pretty sure that the feeling like you are going to raped is feeling threatened.
I wouldn't want to get shot because a woman felt threatened by me.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "widdershins"And now you're joining in the silliness, pretending that "feeling threatened" is the same as "about to be raped", which is exactly what the man in the story was trying to point out wasn't the case.
I'm pretty sure that the feeling like you are going to raped is feeling threatened.
I wouldn't want to get shot because a woman felt threatened by me.
You all seem to think that people draw and shoot. This isn't the Wild West where you can shoot whoever you want. The thing about a gun is that if I pull it and point it at you, you will shit yourself and run.
Quote from: "Alaric I"I don't know about that, but i have heard rapists claim women with short hair and carrying long umbrellas are less atractive to them. Apparently the like long hair as they can easily grab it, and things like canes and umbrellas can be used as long distance weapons. Not 100% sure about how true that is though.
In recalling that presentation of rape prevention some more, I think I recall the speaker advancing the notion of "keeping all options open and being creative in a rape situation", but this should rather go without saying. Well it should, but maybe it doesn't. Yes, if shitting yourself will end a rape attempt, Id say sure do it if you can.
In the years since that presentation, I've never been able to sort all of it out. The day after the guy spoke, I asked several women who attended what they thought. None of them embraced the content with vigor. I'm sure some did, but none that I asked. Mostly, I got a shrug of the shoulders. They all thought the guy was a good speaker, but had little to add about the content.
I think the guy could have made a presentation about a lot of things, but if you expect to make a living on the college speaking circuit, you have to come up with a topic of interest. After that you have to think of something to say. What you want is a good turnout. However, it was food for though, obviously, because in the years since, I've thought about it, but that's about it.
At any rate, to return to the topic of this thread, if Americans have a right to arm themselves, it follows women also have that right. So offering up suggestions like vomiting during the act of rape, in an effort to justify gun control, seems like a strange way to address the issue of gun control.
Quote from: "SGOS"At any rate, to return to the topic of this thread, if Americans have a right to arm themselves, it follows women also have that right. So offering up suggestions like vomiting during the act of rape, in an effort to justify gun control, seems like a strange way to address the issue of gun control.
Very much so. It just seems asinine to think that vomiting, pissing, or menstration would acctually work. Seems to me that if a guy wants pussy so bad as to take it without regard to others, would pissing yourself really do anything?
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "SGOS"At any rate, to return to the topic of this thread, if Americans have a right to arm themselves, it follows women also have that right. So offering up suggestions like vomiting during the act of rape, in an effort to justify gun control, seems like a strange way to address the issue of gun control.
Very much so. It just seems asinine to think that vomiting, pissing, or menstration would acctually work. Seems to me that if a guy wants pussy so bad as to take it without regard to others, would pissing yourself really do anything?
I suppose the rapist might be offended and withdraw, muttering something or other about how he was disgusted by the woman's actions, while pulling his pants up. :)
[youtube:14ujcbtr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klCemtBU1cg[/youtube:14ujcbtr]
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klCemtBU1cg)
And just to be sure, cut his dick off too. :rolleyes:
Bob Beckel: Women Don't Need Guns Because Rape on College Campuses Doesn't Happen (//http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/02/21/bob-beckel--women-dont-need-guns-because-rape-on-college-campuses--doesnt-happen-n1517350)
Bob Beckel, Democrat Strategist, trying hard to save the Republican Party from the pit it dug itself into.
[youtube:3lq2f2jf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wV5pMOgPaM[/youtube:3lq2f2jf]
Regardless of the rest of the arguments for or against guns or this particular politician's statement, I have a question.
Is there a problem with armed women going around shooting wildly because they're afraid of rapists? Seems like if this was happening, it'd be all over the news. Am I missing something here?
Quote from: "billhilly"Regardless of the rest of the arguments for or against guns or this particular politician's statement, I have a question.
Is there a problem with armed women going around shooting wildly because they're afraid of rapists? Seems like if this was happening, it'd be all over the news. Am I missing something here?
If you are we all are. Truth of the matter is that there are certain tests you have to pass to get a CCW everywhere I know of (I can't speak for places I haven't been). To pass these tests you have to go through some classes, and anyone who is worth a damn to teach these classes will teach you to draw on them first. The only time you should draw and instantly shoot is if they have a weapon and are attacking.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "billhilly"Regardless of the rest of the arguments for or against guns or this particular politician's statement, I have a question.
Is there a problem with armed women going around shooting wildly because they're afraid of rapists? Seems like if this was happening, it'd be all over the news. Am I missing something here?
If you are we all are. Truth of the matter is that there are certain tests you have to pass to get a CCW everywhere I know of (I can't speak for places I haven't been). To pass these tests you have to go through some classes, and anyone who is worth a damn to teach these classes will teach you to draw on them first. The only time you should draw and instantly shoot is if they have a weapon and are attacking.
"In Arizona, a person over age 21 may legally carry a concealed firearm or deadly weapon without a permit within the state, except for certain prohibited locations, and must disclose the fact to a law enforcement officer if questioned. Although no longer required, a CCW permit may still be obtained and has certain advantages, including reciprocity with many other states having CCW laws." //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arizona
Quite a few people still get their CCW permit anyway, myself included. Things haven't changed much. I don't think the criminal element payed much attention to CCW permits in the first place.
Alaska, Vermont, and I think Wyoming, have similar laws.
I know Nevada doesn't require a CCW permit. There are some places that don't but places like WA and CA require a test before your request is authorized. I'm fine with having to do this to obtain as CCW as you leave open for crazies do screw it up if you just leave it wide open.
See that's what I don't like about some of the concealed carry laws, is that in some states you have to do literally nothing to be allowed to carry. I have no issue if you want to carry a weapon, but I really think they need to require a good amount of training in order to do so. If you are carrying a gun in public, the assumption is that the reason you are carrying it is to use it if necessary in public (i.e. being attacked, stopping someone else from being attacked). And if that is the actual purpose of a concealed carry then the person carrying should absolutely know how to properly handle, aim, fire, and responsibly own a gun.
Nevada DOES require a CCW, which is Shall Issue, for carrying concealed. I live here and know the law. Open carry is perfectly legal here, and being open, no CCW required. CCW licenses require a class taken before issuing, and The Gun Store on Tropicana in Las Vegas offers such classes at no charge (but if you use their ammo they will charge for that). It's a really good deal.
When I was stationed in Georgia for school, I just applied, got my prints taken, marked that I was Active Duty, and it was waiting in my post office box mere days later. Sadly that CCW was not recognized by Florida, which was literally less than 5 miles away.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Nevada DOES require a CCW, which is Shall Issue, for carrying concealed. I live here and know the law. Open carry is perfectly legal here, and being open, no CCW required. CCW licenses require a class taken before issuing, and The Gun Store on Tropicana in Las Vegas offers such classes at no charge (but if you use their ammo they will charge for that). It's a really good deal.
When I was stationed in Georgia for school, I just applied, got my prints taken, marked that I was Active Duty, and it was waiting in my post office box mere days later. Sadly that CCW was not recognized by Florida, which was literally less than 5 miles away.
When did they start this? I know about 15 years ago I was in Nevada and one of the guys I was with had a CCW. He used be a cop there so he rolled, a cop in Reno stopped him, he informed him and it was all a non-issue. He told me you didn't need one there.
Quote from: "Alaric I"I know Nevada doesn't require a CCW permit. There are some places that don't but places like WA and CA require a test before your request is authorized. I'm fine with having to do this to obtain as CCW as you leave open for crazies do screw it up if you just leave it wide open.
California's a "may-issue" state, and unless you're rich or a politician -- or live in one of the northern rural counties -- the local PD/sheriff's department will
not issue you a CCW permit; and that is perfectly legal. They can decide whether or not to issue you a permit, even though they are technically legal.
I don't know when that started, Alaric, but I have lived here for 12 years now.
When you are encountered by a stranger who intends to rape you, you go into survival mode, and thinking is not the first thing one does in such a case. You are brought down to the very essence of survival instinct. There is no "Oh, gee, maybe I should shit myself. Maybe I should draw this weapon I have on my person". In such an attack, a gun will be much more likely to hurt you than it would be to help you. That is my opinion as a woman with firsthand experience. I tried to convey that in an earlier post but apparently failed.
I disagree that a weapon will make a woman safer and I think it's a bad idea.
Quote from: "Mermaid"When you are encountered by a stranger who intends to rape you, you go into survival mode, and thinking is not the first thing one does in such a case. You are brought down to the very essence of survival instinct. There is no "Oh, gee, maybe I should shit myself. Maybe I should draw this weapon I have on my person". In such an attack, a gun will be much more likely to hurt you than it would be to help you. That is my opinion as a woman with firsthand experience. I tried to convey that in an earlier post but apparently failed.
I disagree that a weapon will make a woman safer and I think it's a bad idea.
Yeah. The thing about self defense is there are numerous methods and all take a good deal of training to be able to use effectively. Purchasing a weapon tries to be a shortcut to this, but it's not. So it's as likely to be a detriment as a help in a crisis situation. The sad thing is this is because people are just lazy. Instead of training to learn to use a firearm effectively, they'll do the bare minimum necessary to get it and then that's all. It's just there to make them feel safer. We all know that what a person feels and what their reality is do not always coincide.
I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Alaric I"I know Nevada doesn't require a CCW permit. There are some places that don't but places like WA and CA require a test before your request is authorized. I'm fine with having to do this to obtain as CCW as you leave open for crazies do screw it up if you just leave it wide open.
California's a "may-issue" state, and unless you're rich or a politician -- or live in one of the northern rural counties -- the local PD/sheriff's department will not issue you a CCW permit; and that is perfectly legal. They can decide whether or not to issue you a permit, even though they are technically legal.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you have to test.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
A myth? I am speaking from personal experience as a woman who has been raped. I can tell you with certainty that I was not capable of cognition at that point. If I were, I would have been able to prevent being raped in the first place. That is what a lot of attackers count on: The element of surprise and consequent paralysis of their victim. One of my very first conscious thoughts after it was over was that I was grateful that I did not have a weapon because I would not have been capable of using it, nor of preventing it from being used on me. Maybe others would react differently, but please don't dismiss what I say as a myth. This is personal experience here. I am not just making shit up to further some anti-gun agenda.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
The more I let this post roll around in my head, the angrier I get.
What a fucked up and shitty way to wave a hand of dismissal at someone.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
You're assuming that those who purchase a weapon for protection do this. Which was my point.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
Sure. You were in the exact same situation as her and you should know better. Right?
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
Sure. You were in the exact same situation as her and you should know better. Right?
Well, I am a woman after all, and can't make important decisions for myself regarding my own body so why can I be counted on for reliable information? *giggle* *hair twist*
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
Sure. You were in the exact same situation as her and you should know better. Right?
Well, I am a woman after all, and can't make important decisions for myself regarding my own body so why can I be counted on for reliable information? *giggle* *hair twist*
Maybe next he will be schooling us all on menstruating and childbirth. He is the expert.
On principle I have to agree with Jason. The keyword is training. I said it earlier in this post somewhere that I would be fine with people being able to carry in public, but they should be properly trained on the usage of the gun because carrying in public means that you plan to use it in public if you or someone else is being attacked. Essentially, only those with proper training should be allowed to carry in public.
Quote from: "commonsense822"On principle I have to agree with Jason. The keyword is training. I said it earlier in this post somewhere that I would be fine with people being able to carry in public, but they should be properly trained on the usage of the gun because carrying in public means that you plan to use it in public if you or someone else is being attacked. Essentially, only those with proper training should be allowed to carry in public.
I totally agree, although i would add the caveat that they not only train on how to use the gun, but also how to react to different situations. It was stated earlier (I forget the username) that someone was a rape victim and froze in fear. Simply training on the use of the weapon will not change this. Train them in how to act during the situation and there shouldn't be an issue.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Alaric I"I know Nevada doesn't require a CCW permit. There are some places that don't but places like WA and CA require a test before your request is authorized. I'm fine with having to do this to obtain as CCW as you leave open for crazies do screw it up if you just leave it wide open.
California's a "may-issue" state, and unless you're rich or a politician -- or live in one of the northern rural counties -- the local PD/sheriff's department will not issue you a CCW permit; and that is perfectly legal. They can decide whether or not to issue you a permit, even though they are technically legal.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you have to test.
My point is that you may lay out money to be trained, and still find you application rejected on arbitrary grounds. In other words, not only does CA require a test (which I'm fine with, I think that's common-sensical) -- CA
also requires the local sheriff to be inclined to issue the permit, based only on his or her personal feelings about things. That, I think, is a bunch of bullshit.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"My point is that you may lay out money to be trained, and still find you application rejected on arbitrary grounds. In other words, not only does CA require a test (which I'm fine with, I think that's common-sensical) -- CA also requires the local sheriff to be inclined to issue the permit, based only on his or her personal feelings about things. That, I think, is a bunch of bullshit.
Ok, ya I see your point.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "commonsense822"On principle I have to agree with Jason. The keyword is training. I said it earlier in this post somewhere that I would be fine with people being able to carry in public, but they should be properly trained on the usage of the gun because carrying in public means that you plan to use it in public if you or someone else is being attacked. Essentially, only those with proper training should be allowed to carry in public.
I totally agree, although i would add the caveat that they not only train on how to use the gun, but also how to react to different situations. It was stated earlier (I forget the username) that someone was a rape victim and froze in fear. Simply training on the use of the weapon will not change this. Train them in how to act during the situation and there shouldn't be an issue.
That was me and I can tell you that there is no way to predict how you will react in a panic situation. I don't argue that defense training may help, but I don't think there's any way to know until you are met with that situation. I don't think it would help me to be honest, knowing what I know about how I reacted. I was a kid, only 15, but I don't think it would make a difference if it happened today at 50. I was surprised at the thoughts that struck me and I don't think that would change now. (the first being that I would absolutely take the life of the attacker to save my own, but who knows if I would have been able to break through the paralysis).
Quote from: "Mermaid"That was me and I can tell you that there is no way to predict how you will react in a panic situation.
Possibly, possibly not. It kind of depends on different situations. I could predict that if I was not trained and someone started popping shot at me I'd shit myself (perverbial) and run, as this is the natural reaction to things.
QuoteI don't argue that defense training may help, but I don't think there's any way to know until you are met with that situation. I don't think it would help me to be honest, knowing what I know about how I reacted. I was a kid, only 15, but I don't think it would make a difference if it happened today at 50. I was surprised at the thoughts that struck me and I don't think that would change now. (the first being that I would absolutely take the life of the attacker to save my own, but who knows if I would have been able to break through the paralysis).
This technique is proven over and over again. Most commonly with the military. Maybe you are one of those rare ones that would still freeze up in a situation, but muscle memory is a very powerful thing.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
Sure. You were in the exact same situation as her and you should know better. Right?
Well, according to the Democrats she is too emotional to make this sort of decision on her own.
I know, you're thinking "there's no way a man could know anything about it." Don't bet on it. You're being as sexist as any Democrat who thinks that you overly-emotional women can't handle a gun.
QuoteThis technique is proven over and over again. Most commonly with the military. Maybe you are one of those rare ones that would still freeze up in a situation, but muscle memory is a very powerful thing.
The military and police train for months. Muscle memory only works when you do something a lot of times.
Also, the freezing up is a consquence of being in a terrifying situation, that's not a part that's trained for. And most of the training focusses on starting from equal ground I think, not from one where you're already pinned to the ground and terrified and
then have to start pulling your gun, which is quite a bit different.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I disagree that people acting in survival mode are that much of a danger to themselves. That's largely an hoplophobe myth. If you take time to actually learn anything about the use of the weapon you will see that it is indeed a help in crisis situations.
Sure. You were in the exact same situation as her and you should know better. Right?
Well, according to the Democrats she is too emotional to make this sort of decision on her own.
I know, you're thinking "there's no way a man could know anything about it." Don't bet on it. You're being as sexist as any Democrat who thinks that you overly-emotional women can't handle a gun.
Dafuq did I just read?
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You're being as sexist as any Democrat who thinks that you overly-emotional women can't handle a gun.
I don't think that.
I think stupid people can't handle a gun.
I think a large percentage of people are stupid.
I think that women are people.
Therefore, a large percentage of women are stupid.
To be honest, whether or not it's a good idea for the unwashed masses to arm themselves is an issue beyond gender.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You're being as sexist as any Democrat who thinks that you overly-emotional women can't handle a gun.
I don't think that.
I think stupid people can't handle a gun.
I think a large percentage of people are stupid.
I think that women are people.
Therefore, a large percentage of women are stupid.
To be honest, whether or not it's a good idea for the unwashed masses to arm themselves is an issue beyond gender.
It has nothing to do with stupidity...that's an unnecessary simplification of things. It has to do with the stress level of a situation, and the individual's ability to deal with the sudden onset of fear and danger. Police and military train literally for years to handle firearms and to perform in tactical situations. There is still a surprising percentage of even those professionals who wash out due to their propensity to either 'freeze' on one side or go hog wild on the other and blow out an entire bandoleer in one squeeze on the other side. Stress, fear and sudden danger wreak havoc on the human mind. Not every person can 'yippeekaiee muthafucka' their way through a life and death struggle. Some perform admirably, some shoot everything in sight, and some freeze up and cower on the ground. That's not a question of stupidity. With all those variables, I'm not sure how comfortable I am standing in line at the grocery store surrounded by 100 people packing heat, nor am I comfortable with the prospect of being wrongly shot because I accidentally shared the same elevator with an armed woman who didn't like the slope of my jawline.
So basically, you're 100% opposed to civilians carrying weapons?
Quote from: "Plu"So basically, you're 100% opposed to civilians carrying weapons?
I don't mind owning weapons within reason, but I could certainly do without civilians carrying weapons, yes.
Aight, fair enough. I was scared for a minute that your final conclusion was going to be "so women shouldn't carry guns" but I'm glad it's not the case.
Quote from: "Plu"Aight, fair enough. I was scared for a minute that your final conclusion was going to be "so women shouldn't carry guns" but I'm glad it's not the case.
Well it kind of is, but men shouldn't carry guns either. Think of how much fun road rage, bar fights and disputes over favorite third-basemen are with fists and switchblades. Imagine how much hilarity would ensue if every idiot behind the wheel or on his fourth gin-fizz was armed with a loaded pistol.
I'm not one of those "gubmint is comin' to getcha!" whackos. We have more freedom now than at any point in the history of civilized humanity. Not desiring 300 million people to walk the streets armed to the teeth is not giving in to "big daddy gubmint". It is reducing the number of accidental and hot-headed fatalities caused by people who are barely qualified to operate a motor vehicle, let alone squeeze the trigger of an instrument whose only purpose is to dispense grievous injury and death.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteThis technique is proven over and over again. Most commonly with the military. Maybe you are one of those rare ones that would still freeze up in a situation, but muscle memory is a very powerful thing.
The military and police train for months. Muscle memory only works when you do something a lot of times.
Also, the freezing up is a consquence of being in a terrifying situation, that's not a part that's trained for. And most of the training focusses on starting from equal ground I think, not from one where you're already pinned to the ground and terrified and then have to start pulling your gun, which is quite a bit different.
Most of the military will only get a few weeks training at most. Mostly what will be trained on is weapon safety, Infantry I will give you will train longer for spedific incidents.
There is no equal ground, sure the military will already have their weapons at the ready, but they have to find cover, find the target, aquire the target, and then shoot the target. All this takes more time than drawing a gun and aquiring your target so you have a safe shot. If you train the way you should then you will have the muscle ememory, just from taking one course.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You're being as sexist as any Democrat who thinks that you overly-emotional women can't handle a gun.
I don't think that.
I think stupid people can't handle a gun.QuoteTotally agree
QuoteI think a large percentage of people are stupid.
Stupid as in common sense or is this just a way to boost your own ego?
QuoteTo be honest, whether or not it's a good idea for the unwashed masses to arm themselves is an issue beyond gender.
I agree. I truly think that everyone should be properly trained before they are allowed to buy a gun. This however is a grey area to the 2nd Amendment. Technically you aren't infringing on people rights to own a gun, you are just making sure that they know how to properly use one before they are allowed to take it home.
Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"Quote from: "Plu"Aight, fair enough. I was scared for a minute that your final conclusion was going to be "so women shouldn't carry guns" but I'm glad it's not the case.
Well it kind of is, but men shouldn't carry guns either. Think of how much fun road rage, bar fights and disputes over favorite third-basemen are with fists and switchblades. Imagine how much hilarity would ensue if every idiot behind the wheel or on his fourth gin-fizz was armed with a loaded pistol.
Most gun owners are law abiding citizens whom never have any issues with this whatsoever, so this argument doesn't really work.
QuoteI'm not one of those "gubmint is comin' to getcha!" whackos. We have more freedom now than at any point in the history of civilized humanity. Not desiring 300 million people to walk the streets armed to the teeth is not giving in to "big daddy gubmint". It is reducing the number of accidental and hot-headed fatalities caused by people who are barely qualified to operate a motor vehicle, let alone squeeze the trigger of an instrument whose only purpose is to dispense grievous injury and death.
I disagree, we have a better balance of safety to freedoms yes, but we do not have more freedoms. Well, some people do, such as African Americans whom have had to fight hard to end the stigma that the color of their skin does not make them a lower lifeform.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Most gun owners are law abiding citizens whom never have any issues with this whatsoever, so this argument doesn't really work.
And I would counter by saying that most incidents of road-rage homicides and bar fight homicides and 'we're number one!' homicides at stadiums involve those very same law abiding citizens who temporarily lost their shit and took another life solely due to the availability of the gun in their glove compartment or waistband, so the argument is valid.
QuoteI disagree, we have a better balance of safety to freedoms yes, but we do not have more freedoms. Well, some people do, such as African Americans whom have had to fight hard to end the stigma that the color of their skin does not make them a lower lifeform.
Again I counter that all citizens vote, all citizens hold jobs based on merit and skill level (theoretically), nobody is indentured to another person, children are not pulled from schools to work the mines, and courts of law exist to hopefully ensure justice. All of these things have never existed simultaneously in any other period in history. Speaking only for USA, this is the greatest time in history to live. It amazes me that people would have the audacity to equate our lives now to the slavery of ancient times.
Quote from: "Alaric I"I agree. I truly think that everyone should be properly trained before they are allowed to buy a gun. This however is a grey area to the 2nd Amendment. Technically you aren't infringing on people rights to own a gun, you are just making sure that they know how to properly use one before they are allowed to take it home.
Guns are like cars. You are using something that could potentially could end a life, and training should in some ways be necessary, but here is where I differ. You should have to be trained how to aim, fire, and use a gun if you plan on carrying it in public. If you plan on keeping it solely in your home, I don't give two fucks about training. You don't need a license, registration, insurance, or inspection if you keep your vehicle on your private property. The only time you need those are when you take your vehicle into the public arena. My sentiments are exactly the same with guns.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Alaric I"I agree. I truly think that everyone should be properly trained before they are allowed to buy a gun. This however is a grey area to the 2nd Amendment. Technically you aren't infringing on people rights to own a gun, you are just making sure that they know how to properly use one before they are allowed to take it home.
Guns are like cars. You are using something that could potentially could end a life, and training should in some ways be necessary, but here is where I differ. You should have to be trained how to aim, fire, and use a gun if you plan on carrying it in public. If you plan on keeping it solely in your home, I don't give two fucks about training. You don't need a license, registration, insurance, or inspection if you keep your vehicle on your private property. The only time you need those are when you take your vehicle into the public arena. My sentiments are exactly the same with guns.
I don't know, I'd still say get the training. How would you feel if you accidentally shot a family member?
I think that there's a small difference in that a vehicle is fairly hard to operate or cause accidents with on your private property, whereas a gun works just fine. You might call it your own property, but there's still going to be other people there (friends, family, workers, etc) that might be confronted with your weapon.
I don't think anyone should be in possession of tools they don't know how to operate, especially not the highly dangerous ones. But that should be common sense really, it's just that there's not a lot of it going around.
When a person has a gun, using it on someone else becomes an option. I think I have a problem with civilians walking around with concealed weapons for that reason. I am still evolving on this issue.
There are conflicting reports about gun deaths in people who carry them so it is hard to tell what is factual and what's opinion. It's just the way I lean.
And we do have a gun in the house.
I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
People are too emotional to use a gun.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Stupid as in common sense or is this just a way to boost your own ego?
Let me put it to you this way, I do not and should not own a gun, either.
Good job, incidentally.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"People are too emotional to use a gun.
Haha....but you are right.
ALL people.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Did she?
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Oh, stop being a big drama queen. This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
She never said any such thing, in this thread. YOU did, you put those words in her mouth.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Well, according to the Democrats she is too emotional to make this sort of decision on her own.
I know, you're thinking "there's no way a man could know anything about it." Don't bet on it. You're being as sexist as any Democrat who thinks that you overly-emotional women can't handle a gun.
Also, nice job lumping all democrats together because one said it. I agree the man is an ass for saying it, but I won't lump ALL of a group together, even republicans stance on rape. It was one persons stupid opinion, not the opinion of the entire part, as you are saying.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Did she?
No, she never did. He said it, then claimed she did.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Did she?
No, she never did. He said it, then claimed she did.
Funny how that works.
*shakes head*
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Funny how that works.
*shakes head*
I know. She did use the personal experience angel, but that was personal experience as someone who had been raped, which can indeed happen to men as well as women. But he's trying to twist that into "you
men couldn't understand", even though she never mentioned either of the sexes, just personal experience.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Funny how that works.
*shakes head*
I know. She did use the personal experience angel, but that was personal experience as someone who had been raped, which can indeed happen to men as well as women. But he's trying to twist that into "you men couldn't understand", even though she never mentioned either of the sexes, just personal experience.
Well I could type "You wouldn't understand rape unless it happened to you" - but doesn't indicate my being a woman as much as that statement would say: "Rape's hard to understand from an outside's point of view".... it's a pretty benign point and gender actually has little to do with it. I honestly believe that more often than not people confuse Rape as a gender issue when in truth, Rape, is a act of violence - a very serious crime. And Sex has little if NOTHING to do with rape.
Sometimes I honestly wonder why people cannot understand that RAPE is not a crime of sex. It's not about sex. Why people have trouble grasping the VIOLENT part is simply beyond me??
Rape is not a *girl* thing, nor an emotional thing, nor a sex thing.
Rape is a violent crime.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Well I could type "You wouldn't understand rape unless it happened to you" - but doesn't indicate my being a woman as much as that statement would say: "Rape's hard to understand from an outside's point of view".... it's a pretty benign point and gender actually has little to do with it. I honestly believe that more often than not people confuse Rape as a gender issue when in truth, Rape, is a act of violence - a very serious crime. And Sex has little if NOTHING to do with rape.
Sometimes I honestly wonder why people cannot understand that RAPE is not a crime of sex. It's not about sex. Why people have trouble grasping the VIOLENT part is simply beyond me??
Rape is not a *girl* thing, nor an emotional thing, nor a sex thing.
Rape is a violent crime.
People view it as a gender thing because men are less likel to report it. It is ver demasculating for a man to admit he was attacked and raped, women would rather have the man stopped than try to save face about the issue. So you are right, it is not a girl thing. I do however believe it is a sex thing. Yes you are correct that it is violent, but you can't limit it to just hte violence aspect. If it was just about the violence then why are is not just an assault? An assault would certainly apease this. There is more to be appeased than a mere assault can do, On top of that, date rape is one of the highest reported form of rape. Date rape removes the need for violence. I'm not saying it's any less atrocious, just that lower inhibitions caused by alocohol or drugs removes the need for violence.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Funny how that works.
*shakes head*
I know. She did use the personal experience angel, but that was personal experience as someone who had been raped, which can indeed happen to men as well as women. But he's trying to twist that into "you men couldn't understand", even though she never mentioned either of the sexes, just personal experience.
Well I could type "You wouldn't understand rape unless it happened to you" - but doesn't indicate my being a woman as much as that statement would say: "Rape's hard to understand from an outside's point of view".... it's a pretty benign point and gender actually has little to do with it. I honestly believe that more often than not people confuse Rape as a gender issue when in truth, Rape, is a act of violence - a very serious crime. And Sex has little if NOTHING to do with rape.
Sometimes I honestly wonder why people cannot understand that RAPE is not a crime of sex. It's not about sex. Why people have trouble grasping the VIOLENT part is simply beyond me??
Rape is not a *girl* thing, nor an emotional thing, nor a sex thing.
Rape is a violent crime.
Yes. It was pretty clear to me she was saying that it is hard to understand unless it has happened to you, which is true of just about everything really, not just rape. But concerning violent crimes against a person, it is even more true. I am fortunate and have not been raped, though I was attacked once. It was more of a date rape sort of forcing, so a knee to the groin and running away worked for me. I'm sure glad I did NOT have a gun in that situation as well. Even so, I cannot know what it is like to actually BE raped, even though I'm a woman who was once attacked.
Mermaid made her point, and it was clearly presented as an experience issue, not a gender issue.
And it is true, in panic situations, most people...panic. Meaning they stop thinking rationally, unless they have training. Even with intense military style training, some people still lose it. There are lots of vets here, my hubby is one as well, and I'm sure each one who was in combat knows there are always some people who need others around to keep it together. Alone, they just can't handle the stress of a kill or be killed situation without losing their composure.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Well I could type "You wouldn't understand rape unless it happened to you" - but doesn't indicate my being a woman as much as that statement would say: "Rape's hard to understand from an outside's point of view".... it's a pretty benign point and gender actually has little to do with it. I honestly believe that more often than not people confuse Rape as a gender issue when in truth, Rape, is a act of violence - a very serious crime. And Sex has little if NOTHING to do with rape.
Sometimes I honestly wonder why people cannot understand that RAPE is not a crime of sex. It's not about sex. Why people have trouble grasping the VIOLENT part is simply beyond me??
Rape is not a *girl* thing, nor an emotional thing, nor a sex thing.
Rape is a violent crime.
People view it as a gender thing because men are less likel to report it. It is ver demasculating for a man to admit he was attacked and raped, women would rather have the man stopped than try to save face about the issue. So you are right, it is not a girl thing. I do however believe it is a sex thing. Yes you are correct that it is violent, but you can't limit it to just hte violence aspect. If it was just about the violence then why are is not just an assault? An assault would certainly apease this. There is more to be appeased than a mere assault can do, On top of that, date rape is one of the highest reported form of rape. Date rape removes the need for violence. I'm not saying it's any less atrocious, just that lower inhibitions caused by alocohol or drugs removes the need for violence.
Date rape is perhaps a different category, but Sab is right that most rape, clinically, is NOT catagorized as sexual by psychologists. We now know that men who serial rape do so because nothing...NOTHING gives them more sense of control and power than that. Of course sex is still a component , but it to the person committing it, the number one aspect is power/control. Murder is often the same. Like date rape, murder of passion is different, but serial murder is not just about killing, it is about having the absolute power over the lives and deaths of others.
As for the part you bolded, I suppose there are more woman than men willing to report it (percentage wise), but the vast majority of rapes on women still go unreported. In more recent years, there has been an effort to make it less shameful for the victim of rape to come forward (less blame put on the victim, more support available, etc), so more woman do come forward than say, 60 years ago, but
most are still too ashamed to do so.
Edited to back up my statement: //http://www.rainn.org/statistics/
Estimated between 54% and 59% of rapes in the US go unreported.
Also, I had no idea, but about 10% of rapes are male. Although it says most of those are children or prisoners, that is still higher than I realized.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Yes. It was pretty clear to me she was saying that it is hard to understand unless it has happened to you, which is true of just about everything really, not just rape. But concerning violent crimes against a person, it is even more true. I am fortunate and have not been raped, though I was attacked once. It was more of a date rape sort of forcing, so a knee to the groin and running away worked for me. I'm sure glad I did NOT have a gun in that situation as well. Even so, I cannot know what it is like to actually BE raped, even though I'm a woman who was once attacked.
Mermaid made her point, and it was clearly presented as an experience issue, not a gender issue.
And it is true, in panic situations, most people...panic. Meaning they stop thinking rationally, unless they have training. Even with intense military style training, some people still lose it. There are lots of vets here, my hubby is one as well, and I'm sure each one who was in combat knows there are always some people who need others around to keep it together. Alone, they just can't handle the stress of a kill or be killed situation without losing their composure.
Perfectly said. 100%
The problem with carrying a gun for the threat of rape is it's a bad twist of fate messing with you:
You'd likely shoot the criminal attempting to rape you once you figure out Rape is what's about to happen. Yet, rape is determined AFTER the fact (vaginal ripping, etc, semen, evidence etc) So........... unless you ALLOW the rape - you can't prove rape.
How fucked is that?
So the only way to Keep Squeaky Clean as the Victim is to ALLOW yourself to be raped and THEN shoot the fucker
?????
what's wrong with this picture?
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"The problem with carrying a gun for the threat of rape is it's a bad twist of fate messing with you:
You'd likely shoot the criminal attempting to rape you once you figure out Rape is what's about to happen. Yet, rape is determined AFTER the fact (vaginal ripping, etc, semen, evidence etc) So........... unless you ALLOW the rape - you can't prove rape.
How fucked is that?
So the only way to Keep Squeaky Clean as the Victim is to ALLOW yourself to be raped and THEN shoot the fucker
?????
what's wrong with this picture?
That is a really good point.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"The problem with carrying a gun for the threat of rape is it's a bad twist of fate messing with you:
You'd likely shoot the criminal attempting to rape you once you figure out Rape is what's about to happen. Yet, rape is determined AFTER the fact (vaginal ripping, etc, semen, evidence etc) So........... unless you ALLOW the rape - you can't prove rape.
How fucked is that?
So the only way to Keep Squeaky Clean as the Victim is to ALLOW yourself to be raped and THEN shoot the fucker
?????
what's wrong with this picture?
That is a really good point.
Very good point! There are a number people who kill others and claim self defense, but then serve life in jail or whatnot because no crime had YET taken place, just the threat of the crime. This happens with abuse victims as well. The person threatened to kill you, and you shot him in his sleep? Well, that makes you a murderer, as your life was not in direct danger. Same With rape. He had a knife and was going to rape you? But you are mostly uninjured and he's dead...so again, you go to prison for murder.
This is a really good point on one of the many ways carrying a gun for self defense is a double edged sword (metaphorically.... :lol: ). In so many situations, it can cut both ways.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Aroura33"Yes. It was pretty clear to me she was saying that it is hard to understand unless it has happened to you, which is true of just about everything really, not just rape. But concerning violent crimes against a person, it is even more true. I am fortunate and have not been raped, though I was attacked once. It was more of a date rape sort of forcing, so a knee to the groin and running away worked for me. I'm sure glad I did NOT have a gun in that situation as well. Even so, I cannot know what it is like to actually BE raped, even though I'm a woman who was once attacked.
Mermaid made her point, and it was clearly presented as an experience issue, not a gender issue.
And it is true, in panic situations, most people...panic. Meaning they stop thinking rationally, unless they have training. Even with intense military style training, some people still lose it. There are lots of vets here, my hubby is one as well, and I'm sure each one who was in combat knows there are always some people who need others around to keep it together. Alone, they just can't handle the stress of a kill or be killed situation without losing their composure.
Perfectly said. 100%
The problem with carrying a gun for the threat of rape is it's a bad twist of fate messing with you:
You'd likely shoot the criminal attempting to rape you once you figure out Rape is what's about to happen. Yet, rape is determined AFTER the fact (vaginal ripping, etc, semen, evidence etc) So........... unless you ALLOW the rape - you can't prove rape.
How fucked is that?
So the only way to Keep Squeaky Clean as the Victim is to ALLOW yourself to be raped and THEN shoot the fucker
?????
what's wrong with this picture?
Fast forward to 2:00.
[youtube:k8z8uckh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRA5FBtbHHM[/youtube:k8z8uckh]
Proving RAPE is near impossible unless the act of rape is allowed and evidence collected after the fact.
//http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
//http://justicewomen.com/help_special_rape.html
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Proving RAPE is near impossible unless the act of rape is allowed and evidence collected after the fact.
//http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
//http://justicewomen.com/help_special_rape.html
I was just reading some on this, and yeah, it is sad. It appears that police are quick to dismiss claims of rape, even with evidence, if the victim does not respond the way the expect. We see this sort of stupid crap in all sorts of crimes, as if all humans are the same and should react exactly the same.
I love Eastwood, but most rapists are not naked running through an alley with a butcher knife. (Actually, not sure that has ever happened??? Movies, le sigh). They are a lot more subtle than that. Also, most rapists are known to their victims, which is not a well knows statistic, apparently even to police! So proving intent when your uncle or whatever is over to visit is going to be pretty goddamn impossible.
Quote from: "Alaric I"I don't know, I'd still say get the training. How would you feel if you accidentally shot a family member?
I would feel the same shitty way if I was to accidentally run a family member over on my private property. Does not mean the government should be requiring you to hold licenses for things on your own private property.
Quote from: "Plu"I think that there's a small difference in that a vehicle is fairly hard to operate or cause accidents with on your private property, whereas a gun works just fine. You might call it your own property, but there's still going to be other people there (friends, family, workers, etc) that might be confronted with your weapon.
I just want to point out that cars are one of the leading causes in property damage (which is why their is a specific section in your insurance relating to property damage) and kill a tiny bit more people than guns do. And yet cars require a lot more regulation than guns do in many ways. Secondly, a car is something you use on a daily basis, and while you
can use a gun on a daily basis, most people don't. They take it out on occasion to hunt, practice, or in rare moments for self defense. So if I got a gun that I kept mainly locked up in my house that I didn't get any training for, how is that less safe than an unregistered, uninsured, non-inspected vehicle being driven by an unlicensed driver on my private property (all completely legal)?
Quote from: "Plu"I don't think anyone should be in possession of tools they don't know how to operate, especially not the highly dangerous ones. But that should be common sense really, it's just that there's not a lot of it going around.
A very broad and dangerous assumption to make. The idea that the government has the responsibility to protect us from ourselves. And using that argument against guns is to hold a large double standard. Like I said, cars are a leading cause of property damage and there are a lot of shitty drivers but they are continued to allow to drive. People hurt themselves using other dangerous tools all the time with drills, saws, paint sprayers, industrial equipment, etc. Should I not be allowed to own a drill because I was never properly trained and therefore may injure myself or someone else in my house? Does the same apply to a circular saw? Should carpenters be licensed to carry drills and saws? It is a very slippery slope to go down when you start assuming that it is the government's role to protect you from yourself.
I have pointed out before that I do consider shitty drivers a major issue and would be wholly in favor of people losing their license permanently for failing to drive like a sane person, as well as considering any fatal accident where the driver was not strictly following all the rules murder instead of accidental death. Cars are basically dangerous tools and yet we tolerate people driving and texting and eating at the same time (because seriously, a fine means you're tolerating it).
That said, I also said "should not be in possession", not neccesarily "should be illegal". People should not use tools they don't know how to operate, and that should include guns. But somehow it slipped into your culture that anyone can use a gun, apparently, considering the number of people running around untrained.
It's not that you shouldn't be allowed to own a drill, it's that you should have enough brain cells to not turn on a powerdrill unless you know what you're doing. And yet, if there's anything the Darwin Awards website has shown me, it's that this is often not the case.
Quote from: "Aroura33"This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
So I wanted to pick this part out here. Making an opinion known that is different than the vocal majority is not trolling. Jason's point is very valid. I have seen multiple times the left leaning side picking out what members of the right have responded to on the subject of rape, and rightfully so. Akin and Murdoch's comments were bad things to say. And though you may agree with the policy that Rep. Joe Salazar is offering, the way he presented it is completely ridiculous. He literally said in that video that women may not know when they are feeling threatened or endangered. He used the "women don't know what's best for themselves" argument to support his position, just like a few of the other Republican Congress members have. I don't think this thread was made to troll, but to simply point out the hypocrisy of many liberals.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Also, nice job lumping all democrats together because one said it. I agree the man is an ass for saying it, but I won't lump ALL of a group together, even republicans stance on rape. It was one persons stupid opinion, not the opinion of the entire part, as you are saying.
And this is the hypocrisy I am speaking of. Republican candidates made their blunders on the issue of rape plenty of times, and the entire party was thrown into the "War on Women." I've definitely seen plenty of the posts here myself, where one party is completely lumped together because of the actions of one Congress member. And yes, this is a mostly left leaning group on this forum but I regularly see something hypocritical of the liberal ideology, and then a bunch of left leaning posters proceed to circle jerk around the topic.
Quote from: "Plu"I have pointed out before that I do consider shitty drivers a major issue and would be wholly in favor of people losing their license permanently for failing to drive like a sane person, as well as considering any fatal accident where the driver was not strictly following all the rules murder instead of accidental death. Cars are basically dangerous tools and yet we tolerate people driving and texting and eating at the same time (because seriously, a fine means you're tolerating it).
That said, I also said "should not be in possession", not neccesarily "should be illegal". People should not use tools they don't know how to operate, and that should include guns. But somehow it slipped into your culture that anyone can use a gun, apparently, considering the number of people running around untrained.
It's not that you shouldn't be allowed to own a drill, it's that you should have enough brain cells to not turn on a powerdrill unless you know what you're doing. And yet, if there's anything the Darwin Awards website has shown me, it's that this is often not the case.
Yes but should you be required to have training to operate a drill or circular saw, mainly because you may hurt yourself or someone in your home?
I am 100% behind necessary gun training for carrying in public. I will not budge on that. When you are in the public sphere accountability is needed. But as for in your personal home on your own private property. I do not think training should be required to simply keep a gun in your home.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Aroura33"This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
So I wanted to pick this part out here. Making an opinion known that is different than the vocal majority is not trolling. Jason's point is very valid. I have seen multiple times the left leaning side picking out what members of the right have responded to on the subject of rape, and rightfully so. Akin and Murdoch's comments were bad things to say. And though you may agree with the policy that Rep. Joe Salazar is offering, the way he presented it is completely ridiculous. He literally said in that video that women may not know when they are feeling threatened or endangered. He used the "women don't know what's best for themselves" argument to support his position, just like a few of the other Republican Congress members have. I don't think this thread was made to troll, but to simply point out the hypocrisy of many liberals.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Also, nice job lumping all democrats together because one said it. I agree the man is an ass for saying it, but I won't lump ALL of a group together, even republicans stance on rape. It was one persons stupid opinion, not the opinion of the entire part, as you are saying.
And this is the hypocrisy I am speaking of. Republican candidates made their blunders on the issue of rape plenty of times, and the entire party was thrown into the "War on Women." I've definitely seen plenty of the posts here myself, where one party is completely lumped together because of the actions of one Congress member. And yes, this is a mostly left leaning group on this forum but I regularly see something hypocritical of the liberal ideology, and then a bunch of left leaning posters proceed to circle jerk around the topic.
My comments and additions to this thread were Not circle jerk and neither were Aurora's. She's away just now but I'll defend her in her absence.
Calling our comments as 'circle jerk' when we made informed additions to a thread is appalling. Just because someone's viewpoint doesn't MATCH yours doesn't make them less valid and certainly not some fucking circle jerk.
What Aurora pointed out is that JASON put words into Mermaids mouth then had a field day with his own shit.
She and I had a discussion that followed. I suggest you READ the posts instead of up and getting your knickers in a twist and cherry pick a piece of lint off the WHOLE sweater to get steamed about.
QuoteYes but should you be required to have training to operate a drill or circular saw, mainly because you may hurt yourself or someone in your home?
It should not be a requirement. But it should ultimately be common to get educated before you use something (which it often isn't) and not knowing what you're doing and hurting someone should not be consideration for "well, it was an accident", it should be an increased penalty for being a fucking moron.
Quote from: "commonsense822"And this is the hypocrisy I am speaking of. Republican candidates made their blunders on the issue of rape plenty of times, and the entire party was thrown into the "War on Women." I've definitely seen plenty of the posts here myself, where one party is completely lumped together because of the actions of one Congress member. And yes, this is a mostly left leaning group on this forum but I regularly see something hypocritical of the liberal ideology, and then a bunch of left leaning posters proceed to circle jerk around the topic.
This is absolutely true.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Aroura33"This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
So I wanted to pick this part out here. Making an opinion known that is different than the vocal majority is not trolling. Jason's point is very valid. I have seen multiple times the left leaning side picking out what members of the right have responded to on the subject of rape, and rightfully so. Akin and Murdoch's comments were bad things to say. And though you may agree with the policy that Rep. Joe Salazar is offering, the way he presented it is completely ridiculous. He literally said in that video that women may not know when they are feeling threatened or endangered. He used the "women don't know what's best for themselves" argument to support his position, just like a few of the other Republican Congress members have. I don't think this thread was made to troll, but to simply point out the hypocrisy of many liberals.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Also, nice job lumping all democrats together because one said it. I agree the man is an ass for saying it, but I won't lump ALL of a group together, even republicans stance on rape. It was one persons stupid opinion, not the opinion of the entire part, as you are saying.
And this is the hypocrisy I am speaking of. Republican candidates made their blunders on the issue of rape plenty of times, and the entire party was thrown into the "War on Women." I've definitely seen plenty of the posts here myself, where one party is completely lumped together because of the actions of one Congress member. And yes, this is a mostly left leaning group on this forum but I regularly see something hypocritical of the liberal ideology, and then a bunch of left leaning posters proceed to circle jerk around the topic.
My comments and additions to this thread were Not circle jerk and neither were Aurora's. She's away just now but I'll defend her in her absence.
Calling our comments as 'circle jerk' when we made informed additions to a thread is appalling. Just because someone's viewpoint doesn't MATCH yours doesn't make them less valid and certainly not some fucking circle jerk.
What Aurora pointed out is that JASON put words into Mermaids mouth then had a field day with his own shit.
She and I had a discussion that followed. I suggest you READ the posts instead of up and getting your knickers in a twist and cherry pick a piece of lint off the WHOLE sweater to get steamed about.
My comment did not have anything to do with what Jason said to Mermaid, that can be a totally different discussion. My issue that I was taking up was a certain level of hypocrisy that was being used in this thread. And please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that that hypocrisy is only seen here and by the users here. It travels across ideological lines. Essentially this is what I see.
Republican makes fucked up comments about rape + protecting a fucked up policy = Liberals get extremely pissy about the comments made.
Democrat makes fucked up comments about rape + protecting a good policy = Liberals completely ignoring the shitty comments made.
I agree with the end result policy that Salazar proposed, but not for the fucked up reasons that he gave. I have made that clear in my previous posts on this thread. However, I won't ignore the fucked up shit he said either. That's the same kind of language Republicans have used in the liberals War on Women, yet liberals seem to easily gloss over that fact. It is disheartening.
And to be clear the first thing I posted was previously was "So I wanted to pick this part out here." Right after I quoted this directly:
Quote from: "Aroura33"This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
Mind I did not pick to quote the entirety of what Aroura said because I did not wish to respond to what was going on between you, Aroura, Mermaid, and Jason on the issue of rape, I was responding to what I was seeing as blatantly ignoring what someone said because you agree with their policy position.
Quote from: "commonsense822"My comment did not have anything to do with what Jason said to Mermaid, that can be a totally different discussion. My issue that I was taking up was a certain level of hypocrisy that was being used in this thread. And please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that that hypocrisy is only seen here and by the users here. It travels across ideological lines. Essentially this is what I see.
Republican makes fucked up comments about rape + protecting a fucked up policy = Liberals get extremely pissy about the comments made.
Democrat makes fucked up comments about rape + protecting a good policy = Liberals completely ignoring the shitty comments made.
I agree with the end result policy that Salazar proposed, but not for the fucked up reasons that he gave. I have made that clear in my previous posts on this thread. However, I won't ignore the fucked up shit he said either. That's the same kind of language Republicans have used in the liberals War on Women, yet liberals seem to easily gloss over that fact. It is disheartening.
And to be clear the first thing I posted was previously was "So I wanted to pick this part out here." Right after I quoted this directly:
Quote from: "Aroura33"This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
Mind I did not pick to quote the entirety of what Aroura said because I did not wish to respond to what was going on between you, Aroura, Mermaid, and Jason on the issue of rape, I was responding to what I was seeing as blatantly ignoring what someone said because you agree with their policy position.
Well that makes more sense. Thank you. Forgive my hot-headedness. I misunderstood what you were driving at.
It's all good. There are several different topics flying around in this one thread, plus it's a bit hard to convert text to speech mentally. Doesn't come off the same.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Aroura33"This entire thread is just you trolling this entire forum (most of whom you know are left leaning) for your own political reasons.
Mind I did not pick to quote the entirety of what Aroura said because I did not wish to respond to what was going on between you, Aroura, Mermaid, and Jason on the issue of rape, I was responding to what I was seeing as blatantly ignoring what someone said because you agree with their policy position.
Actually, I quite dislike a lot of Democratic policy, am NOT a democrat myself. and I would not (nor have I) defended what this particular democrat said, or more speicifically how he said it.
My point was that Jason takes absolute delight in grinding our noses in the ignorant and stupid bits of any left leaning politician, because he is (when it comes to politics) something of a self righteous prick. Now people here who know both he and I will know that I don't call names lightly, and that he does this sort of thing often, so really, I was just calling out Jason's motives for posting this thread. My point had little to do with the actual topic.
I agree that too often we lump all politicians together, but to say the war on women was something taken out of a few politicians is not right either. There were and still are laws being passed by dozens of right leaning politicians that are aimed specifically at crimping woman's rights. It's not like there is just 2 or 3.
Note: I don't hate Jason, or think he's ALWAYS a prick, just when it comes to political discussions. I sometimes agree with him on other topics.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth, I never fucking said that and I never WOULD fucking say that.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Fuck you. Asshole. Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth, I never fucking said that and I never WOULD fucking say that.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Fuck you. Asshole. Go fuck yourself.
Hold on mermaid. I understand your frustration but calm it down a bit.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth, I never fucking said that and I never WOULD fucking say that.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Fuck you. Asshole. Go fuck yourself.
Hold on mermaid. I understand your frustration but calm it down a bit.
Why should I calm down?
This person is apparently using what I wrote as my personal experience as some sort of springboard. I have no anti-gun or anti-man agenda. I thought I'd share my personal experience to make a contribution to the conversation that I find valuable. Instead I am dismissed, accused of having an agenda against guns (I don't) and being dismissive of men's opinions on the topic (I'm not, never have been never will be).
I thought I was being relatively magnanimous, sharing my story as it was relevant to the conversation. This was quite obviously a mistake and I will not be making it again.
I think I have a pretty good reason to be pissed off.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I screwed up a response. I originally responded to Bobby, and later added a reply to Mermaid. Then I forgot to note that I was responding to Mermaid.
She's playing the "you men couldn't possibly understand" card. She's saying that to defend a Democrat who says she's too emotional and irrational to use a gun.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth, I never fucking said that and I never WOULD fucking say that.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Fuck you. Asshole. Go fuck yourself.
Hold on mermaid. I understand your frustration but calm it down a bit.
Honestly, why should she? She shared a deep personal experience, and Jason twisted it to make it sound like she was saying something else entirely, something moronic. Worse than a strawman. If I were her, I'd be equally pissed.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Honestly, why should she? She shared a deep personal experience, and Jason twisted it to make it sound like she was saying something else entirely, something moronic. Worse than a strawman. If I were her, I'd be equally pissed.
And it is understandable for her to be, but if she is that frustrated with him she should take care of it via PM and not air it on the board like this.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Aroura33"Honestly, why should she? She shared a deep personal experience, and Jason twisted it to make it sound like she was saying something else entirely, something moronic. Worse than a strawman. If I were her, I'd be equally pissed.
And it is understandable for her to be, but if she is that frustrated with him she should take care of it via PM and not air it on the board like this.
I am being accused of something here in public. I have no desire to settle it in private.
Alrighty people. Let's just chill out for a sec and smoke a J.
[youtube:be0a61dx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE[/youtube:be0a61dx]
If I liked weed I would. I really do wish I liked it. :rollin:
Quote from: "Mermaid"If I liked weed I would. I really do wish I liked it. :rollin:
Would a bottle of Jack help?
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Mermaid"If I liked weed I would. I really do wish I liked it. :rollin:
Would a bottle of Jack help?
Guinness.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Mermaid"If I liked weed I would. I really do wish I liked it. :rollin:
Would a bottle of Jack help?
Guinness.
I'll be sure to pick some up when I go through Ireland.
Quote from: "commonsense822"So I wanted to pick this part out here. Making an opinion known that is different than the vocal majority is not trolling. Jason's point is very valid. I have seen multiple times the left leaning side picking out what members of the right have responded to on the subject of rape, and rightfully so. Akin and Murdoch's comments were bad things to say. And though you may agree with the policy that Rep. Joe Salazar is offering, the way he presented it is completely ridiculous. He literally said in that video that women may not know when they are feeling threatened or endangered. He used the "women don't know what's best for themselves" argument to support his position, just like a few of the other Republican Congress members have. I don't think this thread was made to troll, but to simply point out the hypocrisy of many liberals.
You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
But you probably cannot see the difference.
QuoteAnd this is the hypocrisy I am speaking of. Republican candidates made their blunders on the issue of rape plenty of times, and the entire party was thrown into the "War on Women." I've definitely seen plenty of the posts here myself, where one party is completely lumped together because of the actions of one Congress member. And yes, this is a mostly left leaning group on this forum but I regularly see something hypocritical of the liberal ideology, and then a bunch of left leaning posters proceed to circle jerk around the topic.
So what you are saying is that a few loudmouth Republicans make a stupid statement about rape and we shouldn't paint all of them with a broadbrush? Right?
Well isn't it the platform of the
ENTIRE Republican party to banned abortions period with no exceptions? I didn't see any exceptions to rape or incest in their 2012 platform. Did you?
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
While I agree with you about the vile nature of the view you've examined, how many Republicans actually believe that?
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
While I agree with you about the vile nature of the view you've examined, how many Republicans actually believe that?
Many of the Christian Republicans believe that conception regardless of the means of that conception is God's will and it being God's will that means even aborting a fetus conceived in rape is a sin. So probably the majority, since the Republican party in inundated with Evangelicals.
Which is ironic as their book doesn't declare a fetus as a human until it is born and draws its first breath. Prior to that point, it is an animal soul.
Not exactly the majority. Thankfully, not even close.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... e-of-rape/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/22/who-rejects-abortion-in-the-case-of-rape/)
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Many of the Christian Republicans believe that conception regardless of the means of that conception is God's will and it being God's will that means even aborting a fetus conceived in rape is a sin. So probably the majority, since the Republican party in inundated with Evangelicals.
54% of all evangelicals report themselves to be Republican, according to the Gallup organization (//http://www.gallup.com/poll/20242/Another-Look-Evangelicals-America-Today.aspx):
QuoteSeveral conclusions arise from consideration of these data:
Evangelical Christians, as defined, are slightly more likely to be female and aged 50 and older than the overall national adult population.
Evangelical Christians are somewhat less likely to be college graduates than the total population, but have an income structure that generally mirrors the national population.
Evangelical Christians are overrepresented in the South, and are underrepresented in the East and, to a lesser degree, in the West compared with the basic U.S. population distribution.
Evangelical Christians skew strongly Republican in terms of their political orientation. More than half (54%) identify themselves as Republicans, compared with 35% of the total population. On the other hand, 22% identify as Democrats, compared with 33% of the total population.
Along these same lines, almost 6 in 10 evangelical Christians are conservatives, compared with just about 4 in 10 national adults, and they are less likely to identify themselves as moderates or liberals.
That is not the same as saying that 54% of all Republicans are evangelical. The evangelical wing of the Republican Party is clearly waning. McCain's nomination in 08, defeating Huckabee, and Romney's defeat of both Bachman and Santorum revealed the weakness of the evangelicals in the Republican Party.
The numbers I've seen indicate that the religious are majorities in both parties, but that the evangelicals skew to the Republican Party. It's pretty hard to find numbers on how many Republicans are evangelicals, though. I'd read a few years back that they comprise about 25% of the Republican rolls, but cannot find a link to support that recollection.
Based on that, I don't think that "probably a majority" is really accurate. If you have specific information regarding how many Republicans are evangelicals who reject abortion arising from rape, that would be pertinent.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "Alaric I"Hold on mermaid. I understand your frustration but calm it down a bit.
Honestly, why should she? She shared a deep personal experience, and Jason twisted it to make it sound like she was saying something else entirely, something moronic. Worse than a strawman. If I were her, I'd be equally pissed.
Agreed 100% which is why I backed Aurora's description of how this all went down and came out swinging myself. If I were Mermaid my language would be even stronger. She was Horribly misrepresented. Not a bit surprised she's pissed. I was pissed FOR her.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Aroura33"Honestly, why should she? She shared a deep personal experience, and Jason twisted it to make it sound like she was saying something else entirely, something moronic. Worse than a strawman. If I were her, I'd be equally pissed.
And it is understandable for her to be, but if she is that frustrated with him she should take care of it via PM and not air it on the board like this.
Nope. Accused or misrepresented in public gets you SPANKED in public. We can totally call bullshit Right in the middle of a thread here if need be. If you like to take your disagreements off into PM land knock yourself out. Totally your choice.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Mermaid"If I liked weed I would. I really do wish I liked it. :rollin:
Would a bottle of Jack help?
Guinness.
Can I talk you into shots of Jameson sometime?
*grin*
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
While I agree with you about the vile nature of the view you've examined, how many Republicans actually believe that?
According to the conventional wisdom around here, since some of them do therefore all of them do. Unlike Democrats and Joe Salazar. That's completely different. With Democrats it is always and only isolated incidents and isolated nutballs, never any evidence of anything larger.
Yes, I am pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, which would be like shooting fish in a barrel except that the fish are jumping out of the barrel to suffocate faster than I can shoot them.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Yes, I am pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, which would be like shooting fish in a barrel except that the fish are jumping out of the barrel to suffocate faster than I can shoot them.
Well the only things you have successfully pointed out to us is: 1. You have no tact whatsoever 2. You lack morals and 3. You're a troll.
Good job.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Which is ironic as their book doesn't declare a fetus as a human until it is born and draws its first breath. Prior to that point, it is an animal soul.
What I find interesting is even though a fetus most definitely does support all 5 things needed to be a life, there is much controversy on when life actually begins. One could argue that an embryo exhibits those signs. Things that make you go HMMMMM.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "SvZurich"Which is ironic as their book doesn't declare a fetus as a human until it is born and draws its first breath. Prior to that point, it is an animal soul.
What I find interesting is even though a fetus most definitely does support all 5 things needed to be a life, there is much controversy on when life actually begins. One could argue that an embryo exhibits those signs. Things that make you go HMMMMM.
Life and personhood and two different things.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "SvZurich"Which is ironic as their book doesn't declare a fetus as a human until it is born and draws its first breath. Prior to that point, it is an animal soul.
What I find interesting is even though a fetus most definitely does support all 5 things needed to be a life, there is much controversy on when life actually begins. One could argue that an embryo exhibits those signs. Things that make you go HMMMMM.
Life and personhood and two different things.
Yes the are, but i sthe issue life, or is the issue personhood? I think the issu is life itself.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
While I agree with you about the vile nature of the view you've examined, how many Republicans actually believe that?
According to the conventional wisdom around here, since some of them do therefore all of them do. Unlike Democrats and Joe Salazar. That's completely different. With Democrats it is always and only isolated incidents and isolated nutballs, never any evidence of anything larger.
Yes, I am pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, which would be like shooting fish in a barrel except that the fish are jumping out of the barrel to suffocate faster than I can shoot them.
It's in the GOP's
national platform. One of the big authors of the anti-abortion even in the case of rape bills, along with Todd Akin, was their vice presidential nominee, and GOP state after GOP state has introduced the same kind of laws. While the average Republican on the street might not agree, the party as a whole and its leadership is steaming forward at full speed ahead with this nonsense. I haven't heard too many Democrats in Congress say the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and all guns banned, and it isn't in their national platform.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"It's in the GOP's national platform. One of the big authors of the anti-abortion even in the case of rape bills, along with Todd Akin, was their vice presidential nominee, and GOP state after GOP state has introduced the same kind of laws. While the average Republican on the street might not agree, the party as a whole and its leadership is steaming forward at full speed ahead with this nonsense. I haven't heard too many Democrats in Congress say the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and all guns banned, and it isn't in their national platform.
Yes, but the seed has been planted, I have heard many democrats say that the 2nd amendment is out of date and should be repealed. I might take some time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end up being their national platform.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes the are, but i sthe issue life, or is the issue personhood? I think the issu is life itself.
No, because it is a legal issue not a religious issue. Since only in the eyes of the law is a person granted rights, it is about personhood. Is a fetus a person with whom should be afforded legal protection? No, a fetus has no significance other than which the person carrying it gives it, and that is the only protection that should be afforded it.
If the issue was solely "life" then we would have to extend all legal protection to a mushroom.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes, but the seed has been planted, I have heard many democrats say that the 2nd amendment is out of date and should be repealed. I might take some time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end up being their national platform.
There is a difference between amended and repealed.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes, but the seed has been planted, I have heard many democrats say that the 2nd amendment is out of date and should be repealed. I might take some time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end up being their national platform.
There is a difference between amended and repealed.
It takes an amendment to repeal an amendmant. And they actually say repealed. You may not, but I wasn't talking about you.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes the are, but i sthe issue life, or is the issue personhood? I think the issu is life itself.
No, because it is a legal issue not a religious issue. Since only in the eyes of the law is a person granted rights, it is about personhood. Is a fetus a person with whom should be afforded legal protection? No, a fetus has no significance other than which the person carrying it gives it, and that is the only protection that should be afforded it.
If the issue was solely "life" then we would have to extend all legal protection to a mushroom.
Murder isn't defined as taking someones personhood, it is defined as taking someones life.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes the are, but i sthe issue life, or is the issue personhood? I think the issu is life itself.
No, because it is a legal issue not a religious issue. Since only in the eyes of the law is a person granted rights, it is about personhood. Is a fetus a person with whom should be afforded legal protection? No, a fetus has no significance other than which the person carrying it gives it, and that is the only protection that should be afforded it.
If the issue was solely "life" then we would have to extend all legal protection to a mushroom.
Murder isn't defined as taking someones personhood, it is defined as taking someones life.
Actually the legal definition of murder is the killing of a
person with intent and malice aforethought with no legal excuse or authority.
A woman should have authority over her own body. So abortion =/= murder.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"While I agree with you about the vile nature of the view you've examined, how many Republicans actually believe that?
According to the conventional wisdom around here, since some of them do therefore all of them do. Unlike Democrats and Joe Salazar. That's completely different. With Democrats it is always and only isolated incidents and isolated nutballs, never any evidence of anything larger.
Yes, I am pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, which would be like shooting fish in a barrel except that the fish are jumping out of the barrel to suffocate faster than I can shoot them.
It's in the GOP's national platform. One of the big authors of the anti-abortion even in the case of rape bills, along with Todd Akin, was their vice presidential nominee, and GOP state after GOP state has introduced the same kind of laws. While the average Republican on the street might not agree, the party as a whole and its leadership is steaming forward at full speed ahead with this nonsense. I haven't heard too many Democrats in Congress say the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and all guns banned, and it isn't in their national platform.
Anti-abortion is in their national platform. Magical vaginas that prevent conceptions from rape are not in their national platform.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Anti-abortion is in their national platform. Magical vaginas that prevent conceptions from rape are not in their national platform.
But a magical wizard who lives in the sky is in their platform. And it is that belief that informs their stances on abortion and other things and has some of them believing that there are magic vaginas.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"It's in the GOP's national platform. One of the big authors of the anti-abortion even in the case of rape bills, along with Todd Akin, was their vice presidential nominee, and GOP state after GOP state has introduced the same kind of laws. While the average Republican on the street might not agree, the party as a whole and its leadership is steaming forward at full speed ahead with this nonsense. I haven't heard too many Democrats in Congress say the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and all guns banned, and it isn't in their national platform.
Bear in mind that my question, "How many Republicans believe that?", was not directed at finding the number of Republicans who wish to ban some or all abortions, but rather, this point of Bobby's post:
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
Bobby generalizes that stupidity to all Republicans, and I highly doubt that it is a widely-held view. That's why I asked for numbers, to justify that imputed depth of idiocy to the entire party. Sloppy argumentation does no service, no matter how agreeable the point might be.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Actually the legal definition of murder is the killing of a person with intent and malice aforethought with no legal excuse or authority.
A woman should have authority over her own body. So abortion =/= murder.
Which is thus defined as a human being. SO are unborn children not human beings?
Edit, I forgot to address your point of the change in wording. You are correct, it does say person.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Anti-abortion is in their national platform. Magical vaginas that prevent conceptions from rape are not in their national platform.
But a magical wizard who lives in the sky is in their platform. And it is that belief that informs their stances on abortion and other things and has some of them believing that there are magic vaginas.
That same magical wizard is also in the Democratic platform, along with the intention to support that magical wizard with my tax dollars:
QuoteFaith.
Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-nat ... r-together (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#greater-together)
You're railing against Republicans for things the Dems do as well. I think this double-standard is exactly what Jason is pointing out, and I think it's a fair target.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"It's in the GOP's national platform. One of the big authors of the anti-abortion even in the case of rape bills, along with Todd Akin, was their vice presidential nominee, and GOP state after GOP state has introduced the same kind of laws. While the average Republican on the street might not agree, the party as a whole and its leadership is steaming forward at full speed ahead with this nonsense. I haven't heard too many Democrats in Congress say the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and all guns banned, and it isn't in their national platform.
Bear in mind that my question, "How many Republicans believe that?", was not directed at finding the number of Republicans who wish to ban some or all abortions, but rather, this point of Bobby's post:
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
Bobby generalizes that stupidity to all Republicans, and I highly doubt that it is a widely-held view. That's why I asked for numbers, to justify that imputed depth of idiocy to the entire party. Sloppy argumentation does no service, no matter how agreeable the point might be.
I doubt even Todd Akin really believes women have magical vaginas. It's little more than a stupid attempt to justify morally repugnant legislation that isn't backed by any rational argument, but that also shows they
know how repugnant the legislation is, yet they're bound and determined to push it through anyway. That morally repugnant legislation is in their national platform.
The difference with the OP story is that, whether you agree with the conclusion or not, there are rational arguments beyond religious ones against arming college women with handguns for fear they might get raped.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Actually the legal definition of murder is the killing of a person with intent and malice aforethought with no legal excuse or authority.
A woman should have authority over her own body. So abortion =/= murder.
Which is thus defined as a human being. SO are unborn children not human beings?
Edit, I forgot to address your point of the change in wording. You are correct, it does say person.
No. Unborn fetii are human fetii not human beings. You are a human being when you exhibit the attributes of personhood, of acting human. A fetus can't really act.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"I doubt even Todd Akin really believes women have magical vaginas. It's little more than a stupid attempt to justify morally repugnant legislation that isn't backed by any rational argument, but that also shows they know how repugnant the legislation is, yet they're bound and determined to push it through anyway. That morally repugnant legislation is in their national platform.
I think you're right about this. Else, why the efforts to camouflage all the "waiting period/tell your parents/force the woman to see a sonogram" laws? The Republicans know damned well that their desired legislation will not stand court scrutiny (and rightfully so).
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"The difference with the OP story is that, whether you agree with the conclusion or not, there are rational arguments beyond religious ones against arming college women with handguns for fear they might get raped.
Indeed. But again, my point was aimed at the smear that was being applied in the bait-and-switch of imputing such a stupid position to all Republicans, and I stand by what I posted, and implied, earlier -- that no matter how laudable the intention, achieving it by disingenuous argumentation ultimately is counterproductive, insofar as it erodes reason.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes, but the seed has been planted, I have heard many democrats say that the 2nd amendment is out of date and should be repealed. I might take some time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end up being their national platform.
There is a difference between amended and repealed.
To add, there is also a difference between
might (become a platform) and
is (a platform).
I could argue might, maybe, and if a lot of things, but we are talking about things that
are, not the many things that might be.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"You can't see the difference between saying women have magical vaginas that prevent rape sperm and if they do get pregnant from rape it is God's will and they have to keep the rape baby and some guy saying that having a gun just because you feel you are going to get rape is bad? Both are stupid statements but the statements that the Republicans made regarding rape are stupid in such a magnitude it borders on the obscene.
But you probably cannot see the difference.
I never said that what the Republican Party has said on rape isn't detestable. I'm not arguing who has made the worst comments on rape here. My entire point, which you seemed to have completely missed, was that liberals tend to ignore the stupid shit said by their own party leaders just the same as conservatives do, all in the interest of feeling morally superior than the "other side"
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"So what you are saying is that a few loudmouth Republicans make a stupid statement about rape and we shouldn't paint all of them with a broadbrush? Right?
Well isn't it the platform of the ENTIRE Republican party to banned abortions period with no exceptions? I didn't see any exceptions to rape or incest in their 2012 platform. Did you?
You're clearly misunderstanding the difference between the views of politicians pandering to their majority voting block, and the views of the entire constituency of the Republican party. I live in Massachusetts, and it's a pretty liberal state. There are still a good amount of Republicans up here, and you would be hard pressed to find one that agreed with the Republican's 2012 platform on rape. So yes, I am saying that we shouldn't paint them all with a broadbrush, because that would be the ignorant thing to do.
By the way again just want to point out the hypocrisy. The majority of liberals will tell you that profiling and stereotyping is a horrible thing. Although this rule is allowed to be broken when it comes to being able to profile and stereotype the opposing party. None of them are suburban Republicans, or libertarians. They are all ignorant, white, southern Christians. That's the hypocrisy. Don't stereotype people, well....except for the people we don't like.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Can I talk you into shots of Jameson sometime?
*grin*
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaybe.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Actually the legal definition of murder is the killing of a person with intent and malice aforethought with no legal excuse or authority.
A woman should have authority over her own body. So abortion =/= murder.
Which is thus defined as a human being. SO are unborn children not human beings?
Edit, I forgot to address your point of the change in wording. You are correct, it does say person.
No. Unborn fetii are human fetii not human beings. You are a human being when you exhibit the attributes of personhood, of acting human. A fetus can't really act.
Fair enough.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Alaric I"Yes, but the seed has been planted, I have heard many democrats say that the 2nd amendment is out of date and should be repealed. I might take some time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end up being their national platform.
There is a difference between amended and repealed.
To add, there is also a difference between might (become a platform) and is (a platform).
I could argue might, maybe, and if a lot of things, but we are talking about things that are, not the many things that might be.
Yet to ignore what could be a very real threat is foolish.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"There is a difference between amended and repealed.
To add, there is also a difference between might (become a platform) and is (a platform).
I could argue might, maybe, and if a lot of things, but we are talking about things that are, not the many things that might be.
Yet to ignore what could be a very real threat is foolish.
Only if I view it as a threat. Maybe I agree that the 2nd amendmend could use an amendment. :-D
Quote from: "mykcob4"1) Punish the criminal NOT the victim.
which was fine until you said..
3) Women need to be smarter about where they go, how they go there and with whom they go there with.
Punish the victim by limiting what she does? Where I live, that's called tyranny.