zapatos

You have discouraged or tried to redirect the conversation away from risk mitigation suggesting it was not appropriate. Sorry, I don't remember seeing that question before. I am confident this will not all go away if women simply do a better job of avoiding dark allies and miniskirts. My position is that we should discuss all aspects of this issue and the circumstances surrounding it with the goal of reducing the problem. Yes, I know there will be just as many bad people. So you want me to tell my daughter to throw caution to the wind and take one for the team? You can treat your kids like cannon fodder; I choose another approach. And I doubt you ever will. Ask your wife, or any woman, if she is more likely to be harassed in a mini-skirt and with cleavage or in sweats. Or if drunk college men are more likely to harass than sober college men. Or if she is more likely to receive unwanted stares going bra less. The fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me feel you are out of touch. Ah, EFFECTIVE training. Of course. I thought it was that she had to be acting in an official capacity for her to have "been trained", but now I see that you have not been trained if it was not EFFECTIVE. Like I wasn't actually trained in CPR because when I used it the guy died. Thanks for clearing that up John. You are a fountain of information. Yes, I think that's been pretty well established by now.

Why can we not discuss it if it doesn't address the broader issue? Why can't the nuances be discussed? For the life of me I cannot understand why some aspects of this issue are verboten. It is not as if sexual assault will continue until we reach consensus in this thread. There should be NOTHING that cannot be discussed. As far as the 'massive area of required focus', almost all of our discussion centers not around how women address risk, but around whether or not we are allowed to discuss how women address risk and what that says about us. And at the risk of opening another bone of contention, I don't really agree that these scenarios are all that uncommon'. As the father of two twenty-something boys I've had a lot of exposure to the behavior of young ladies. The risks they take with their behavior are mind boggling and quite common. The stories of passing out in frat houses, unprotected sex with strangers, and taking their clothes off at parties makes my skin crawl.

I suspect it will hurt at least as much as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Despite being framed as a non-sequitur and an attempt to blame the victim, yes. That’s exactly what’s happening. You've been much more reasonable, at least explaining why you don't think it should be discussed in this thread and asking for arguments. But the stream of logical fallacies used to discredit any attempt at taking the contrary position by myself and others is ridiculous. How many times are you going to misrepresent how I and others feel about the perpetrator's responsibility? If you keep ignoring certain parts of what is being said we are never going to have a meaningful dialogue.

To me it smacks of allowing emotion to override open discussion. I have seen dozens if not hundreds of conversations on this site where what was perceived as a totally ludicrous assertion was debated openly and in earnest. Rather than saying "we shouldn't discuss that", people would instead explain with vigor why the assertion was wrong. The very first thread I opened on this site was on the topic of whether or not atheists fought fair. The reason I opened the thread was because it appeared to me that the rules of debate and evidence followed by many on this site when debating a scientific topic, were dramatically modified once we started discussing topics that included more emotion. My opinion on how people behave with respect to debate on this site has not changed significantly.

I've been wondering something similar. How could a suggestion that people limit their exposure to risky situations generate so much controversy? I feel like had someone responded with "well, yeah, of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations", then that portion of this discussion would have been over.

We are applauding them for standing up to a system that has long put them in harm's way. Look at the #metoo movement. Look at the support they are receiving in this thread. People are stepping all over themselves, from politicians to celebrities to people like us, praising and supporting these women who are risking themselves and their livelihoods to take on the trolls who feel they can abuse women and get away with it. I'm a bit disappointed that on a site like this we are unable to look at any other aspect of sexual harassment without it being suggested we are somehow part of the problem rather than the solution. As I am seen as not affording women the same respect and latitude that I do to civil rights activists, I can only conclude that I have failed completely in my ability to communicate effectively.

So you are saying they trained them to not lose their jobs or get threatened? Otherwise I don't know how you can make the claim that the training did not work. I'd like to see a citation on that please. I've never seen it said or implied anywhere that they were trained not to lose their jobs or get threatened except by you. I certainly never made such a claim. So she attended a school for training activists, but because she acted as a private citizen, you feel that means she wasn't meaningfully trained? If she had been acting in an official capacity, would that have suddenly made her training meaningful? I've seen better arguments made by religious fundamentalists. As is your M.O. you seem to just be looking to pick a fight rather than engage in any meaningful discussion. You should get your hearing checked. Seriously, you are way off the mark here. No one here has said anything even remotely close to that. Perhaps you should criticize MigL for statements he actually makes, instead of those you anticipate he might make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks I'm not sure what you are asking. As you say, she did receive death threats and lose her job. Why do you think the training helped her NOT get death threats or lose her job?!?! LOL!

I'm glad you used the examples of Rosa Parks and the lunch counter incidents. First I have to say that there is little that generates more respect in me than for someone who puts themselves at risk for what they know to be 'the right thing'. I am in awe of such people. In the cases of Rosa Parks and those at the lunch counters, those were not people who threw safety to the wind because they were just tired or hungry. They were all trained activists performing calculated, risky activities meant to further their goal. They are akin to soldiers going into battle, entering a risky situation but taking what steps can be taken to minimize risk. I would never be critical of the actions taken by Rosa Parks and those sitting at the lunch counters and wish I could have been there to support them. But at the same time I would be critical of a black man in the South in the '50s who flirted with a white woman in public. There is no reason to take that risk, simply based on the ideal that no harm should come to him.

Yes, I want us to keep saying that the woman shouldn't have worn the short skirt, and to make life easier for the bad people. You hit the nail on the head.

Because there are bad people in the world who are in charge of their own dicks and choose to use them for evil. It is naive to think otherwise. Well, you focus on the future, and I'll split my focus between the future and today. We both have the same goal, we just disagree on what actions should be taken until we arrive.

Is that what I and others are doing here?

Does this apply to anything other than sex crimes? For example, should we not practice risk mitigation when it comes to financial crimes such as credit card or identity theft, simply because it unnecessarily prolongs the existence of an inequitable system? But all risk is not the same. Ask any woman; they practice risk mitigation all the time. Do they park their car in an attended lot or on a backstreet? I don't see many women deciding to take on additional risk for the ideal of hurrying along the demise of an inequitable system. There will never be a time when there is no risk to women based on their gender. It's an imperfect world. Sorry but I don't think I can get on board with this sentiment. Ignoring the reality of an imperfect world will result in a lot of unnecessary suffering as we work to improve the system. We need to focus on both simultaneously.

A few days ago in New Zealand a woman walking around topless at a music festival was groped by a man. The woman then attacked the man in response. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/670909/New-Years-Eve-topless-woman-groped-attack-man-New-Zealand-Rhythm-Vine-festival-video I don't think anyone disagrees that the man was wrong to grab the woman, but I have a difficult time working up much sympathy for her. I find it hard to believe that she didn't realize walking around topless amongst a bunch of drinking young men was risky behavior. This is obviously an extreme example, but at the very least she should not have been terribly surprised that this was more likely to happen to her than to her friend.

I have yet to see anyone suggest differently. Yet whenever there is a suggestion that the overall situation is more nuanced than simply predator/prey, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the practical in favor of the ideal. A woman who ignores risk because it's "not fair" is not the same as a seal who has no choice but to swim in the same waters as sharks.

I get it. I would have to figure tax into everything I buy. But what's the difference? The government gets the same amount of tax revenue whether they get it from individuals or businesses, and it is a lot simpler to get it from the much smaller number of businesses. Similarly, I don't know why we would give a tax break to businesses to stimulate the economy. If you want to stimulate the economy, give that $1.6 trillion to the tax payers. They will spend most of it, which will cause businesses to have to hire more people and pay higher wages. Trickle Up Economics!

So why not have no taxes on individuals and just tax corporations?

It also takes no thought to blindly refute something, whereas it does take thought and effort to accept something.

I feel like I just had a flashback to the 60s.

It is interesting that you see a Christian belief in God as "silly and quite irrational", but a God acting according to your specifications would be "real" and rational.

Agreed. But no one here is using it for propaganda. We are just trying to have a rational discussion, and so it might be best to assume the best interpretation of what is said, rather than the worst. Unfortunately there is no where to go to be completely safe. But that doesn't stop us from making decisions that reduce risk. If I should be safe anywhere it is in my home. But that doesn't stop me from locking the doors at night. Life is not fair. There are bad people everywhere. Let's not pretend that is not the case. And here is where you are misunderstanding the point being made. They are NEVER guilty, and neither StringJunky nor I were saying otherwise. Suggesting that there are risks out there, and that those risks should be considered when making decisions, is not being insensitive. It is being practical. Due to people in power taking advantage of those not in power, mostly. My argument was only that risks exist, and we shouldn't ignore them simply because it's not fair that we are exposed to them. The police should prosecute, even though he was stupid for flashing the money. The point was just that he likely could have mitigated the risk. Women have traditionally been treated like shit with respect to harassment and assault. That is one of the reasons they tend to avoid men who are known to harass. Most women avoid risky situations, but some still take an enhanced risk of drinking to excess at fraternity parties. They haven't assumed risk by being female, but certainly they are more at risk due to being female. They obviously can't. That is one of the things that is wrong and we must fix. But until that flaw in our system is fixed, let's not ignore that flaw just because it's not fair. In the 19th century US you couldn't modify being black, so you mitigated that risk by not doing things that were likely you get you beaten or killed. You didn't just say "it's wrongI'm treated like that', and do whatever in the hell you wanted. Sorry, but you'll have to explain why you can talk about it there, but I've made some major blunder by bringing it up here. When have we ever shied away from discussing anything on this site? Are you married? Ask your wife if she's more likely to receive unwanted attention when showing skin and cleavage than she is when wearing sweat pants and a bulky sweatshirt. I imagine clothes have little to do with rape, but it certainly has something to do with harassment.

If I go to a baseball game and get injured by a foul ball, I will be more likely to win a lawsuit than if I am hit by a ball in my backyard that came from some guy hitting balls nearby. The reason of course is that I assumed some risk by choosing to go to a place where foul balls are likely to be hit in the stands. There is of course no excuse for committing a crime, but I am certainly at risk of people commenting on my behavior if I flash cash in crime ridden neighborhood then get robbed. Therefore I am pragmatic about what behavior I exhibit.

I may be mistaken but I believe people are reading into what StringJunky is saying, rather than simply reading the words he used. I didn't see StringJunky's example as comparing 'women in general who've been assaulted' with 'a blinged-up rapper inc Calcutta'. He also never suggested that women might not have the 'right to go to a bar or a party'. Instead I saw him using a very obvious example of how people should assess risk in their daily lives. It becomes difficult to talk about related or subtle differences in emotional topics, because of the knee jerk reaction to support someone who is so obviously wronged. But I have heard women say that they are going to go wherever they want, wear whatever they want, and act however they want, because "god damn it I shouldn't have to modify my behavior for anyone!" And while they are right that they shouldn't have to modify their behavior, they should at least be aware of the risk associated with their behavior. If a woman who is dressed provocatively walks unescorted through a prison, much less a party, there is no justification for harming her, and no 'blame' on her when it comes to trying those who did the harm. But the woman needs to assess risk to herself when it comes to sexual assault, just like she assesses risk when it comes to investments or eating spicy food.

Unless you are looking at very short time frames it looks as if the polling does show that more people dislike him. In January 2017, roughly 45% of those polled approved of Trump and 42% disapproved. In December 2017, roughly 37% of those polled approved of Trump, while 57% disapproved. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/