zapatos

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/

"the true test of another person's intelligence is how much he agrees with you"

Ah yes, The Majestic Moose!

One per every crowd.

Also, anybody who is not an identical twin cannot prove that they are a begonia.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I'd like to second what was said by StringJunky. I hope you won't let your past ruin your future. It certainly seems like you are on the right track. Good luck in your future.

Well, that's your opinion, and I dare say it is in the minority. According to the law and most people, there is a big difference between killing a human and, say, killing a mouse.

I'd like to propose that moderators be more liberal in the use of their right to ban people right from the start.

No, it is not Dark Matter. As StringJunky said, it is a visualization of the large scale structure of the universe.

Thanks. The implications of this law are just now making their way to me at work and I'm still on the low end of the learning curve.

Why?