[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464035]lol looking both ways is common sense and it's to prevent accidents. I don't even understand what you're getting at. if someone wanted to intentionally run you down why would they care if you're trying to cross the street or not
[b]this is a really shitty comparison to rape. you can't just look both ways to get out of the way of someone raping you[/b][/QUOTE]
who the fuck ever said you could even do that? are you even reading or comprehending anything i say? So looking both ways is common sense but telling people to be safe when going into a shady neighborhood is victim blaming? I don't see why you're advocating for one form of precaution but not another because "oh the person doing it is gonna do it anyways WHY BOTHER?"
[QUOTE=gtanoofa;42464009]that's a stereotype, stereotypes are generally bad and lead to confusions and well messy outcomes.
Also the young person who would do what you just described is p fucked up lol.
If someone was buying alcohol for me i would totally consume it if i knew the person but then again i am a guy so who knows, i certainly don't, regardless the victim is already impaired and will consume more alcohol if given.[/QUOTE]
Anyone who commits rape is pretty fucked up mate, that's like a universal rule. That being said, it's a lot easier for prospective rapists to pick up their victims in a socially acceptable fashion rather than say, raping and stabbing dozens of women on the street. Most cases of rape would actually be from young men who don't understand or (more likely) don't care about the rules of consent because they're too wasted to care.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464035]
this is a really shitty comparison to rape. you can't just look both ways to get out of the way of someone raping you[/QUOTE]
And yet you're suggesting that it's stupid to even try?
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464025]that's being a little extreme, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
Well, it's pretty much the only "precaution" you can take. Actually, the only real "precaution" you could take, taking into account all the various causes and sources of sexual assault, would be pretty much to know nobody... and that's completely ridiculous.
Yet it's the direct logical conclusion that stems from Thunderfoot's line of reasoning.
Boy, wouldn't it be great if that guy was actually addressing the SOURCE of the problem (by teaching people "not to rape" (= educating on consent, how to behave like a decent person around other people, etc.)), instead of addressing the SYMPTOMS with smug condescending remarks about common sense that any woman out there knows ever since she first got cat-called / groped / abused etc.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42464037]and stupid too. it's stupid to even consider how to take 'precautions' against serial killers or psychopaths because you CAN'T take precautions against people who could have literally ANY trigger, no matter how silly, to do awful things. so why is it being brought up?[/QUOTE]
oh right because defending yourself against an attacker is silly and does nothing at all. sorry your argument is totally infallible and i should just stop talking because self defense has never ever saved anyone at all.
i'm not even gonna argue with the sanius squad with this. clearly trying to be aware of your surroundings and protecting yourself is totally a bad idea.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42464040]I read more on the case from this article (dated 1964) which suggests he took the stockings from their house: [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/64may/gardner.htm[/url]
Even so, there were other cases (even recent ones) where the rapist took the victims item of clothing as a souvenir (be it stockings, tights or stiletto shoes)[/QUOTE]
no psychological profile was taken, ergo any such evidence is coincidental at best
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464045]who the fuck ever said you could even do that? are you even reading or comprehending anything i say? So looking both ways is common sense but telling people to be safe when going into a shady neighborhood is victim blaming?[/QUOTE]
where did I ever say that
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464052]oh right because defending yourself against an attacker is silly and does nothing at all. sorry your argument is totally infallible and i should just stop talking because self defense has never ever saved anyone at all.[/QUOTE]
you should stop talking because you fail to understand the subject of the conversation and are being belligerent
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464055]where did I ever say that[/QUOTE]
[quote]lol looking both ways is common sense and it's to prevent accidents. I don't even understand what you're getting at. if someone wanted to intentionally run you down why would they care if you're trying to cross the street or not
this is a really shitty comparison to rape. you can't just look both ways to get out of the way of someone raping you[/quote]
if its such a chore to argue with the "sanius squad" then don't. your contributions will not be missed
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464045]who the fuck ever said you could even do that? are you even reading or comprehending anything i say? So looking both ways is common sense but telling people to be safe when going into a shady neighborhood is victim blaming?[/QUOTE]
Okay, hang on, I wanna try to understand this. Where are you going with the "shady neighborhood" analogy?
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464065]if its such a chore to argue with the "sanius squad" then don't. your contributions will not be missed[/QUOTE]
of course they won't. none of you ever really get the point anyways.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42464073]Okay, hang on, I wanna try to understand this. Where are you going with the "shady neighborhood" analogy?[/QUOTE]
When you go a place with high crime rate
Or just places where you would have to watch your wallet
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464074]of course they won't. none of you ever really get the point anyways.[/QUOTE]
im not the one who barged in with accusations
feel free to not post. id welcome it
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't tell other people to 'not post'" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464054]no psychological profile was taken, ergo any such evidence is coincidental at best[/QUOTE]
And yet there's no psychological evidence that suggests the inverse is true either. It's clear that he liked to pray on girls with stockings because he, you know, did just that. Whether or not he 'prefered' to pray on girls solely with stockings is based on circumstantial evidence where it seems the majority of the girls he prayed on were wearing stockings. It's impossible to say one or the other whether he 'prefered' women with stockings, all we know is that he did infact do that. This is all just to prove the point that it's impossible to know someone psychology beforehand, which is further proven by the fact that we still can't agree about someone's psychology after the fact.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464055]where did I ever say that[/QUOTE]
It's like the whole contention of your side bro, learn to debate :P
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464086]im not the one who barged in with accusations
feel free to not post. id welcome it[/QUOTE]
You don't have any actual arguements to add to this debate, you're at the level of calling people names (sanius squad) and I'm perfectly happy to continue posting.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464054]no psychological profile was taken, ergo any such evidence is coincidental at best[/QUOTE]
So if someone is going out solely attacking black/white/chinese/gay/lesbian people you would disregard such attacks until a psychological profile is taken?
If it was transgender people being attacked it would surely be called a "hate crime".
[QUOTE=Zyler;42464105]And yet there's no psychological evidence that suggests the inverse is true either. [/QUOTE]
ill concede that but it bears no weight to the argument
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42464110]So if someone is going out solely attacking black/white/chinese/gay/lesbian people you would disregard such attacks until a psychological profile is taken?[/QUOTE]
oh yeah? if a man starts killing people in say a chinese-heavy district id hope youd wait for a psychological profile before you claim he was doing it for such a reason.
keep in mind we're talking about forensics here? its supposed to be a science
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464111]ill concede that but it bears no weight to the argument[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]This is all just to prove the point that it's impossible to know someone psychology beforehand, which is further proven by the fact that we still can't agree about someone's psychology after the fact.[/QUOTE]
Why are you even arguing? What are you even arguing?
The whole idea of the case study is that it's impossible to predict what could happen in a potentially dangerous situation. And no, that doesn't mean we should go under the bed sheets and hide, it just means we should take all reasonable precautions like we always do all the time and always have (Unless you just run out into the street in the middle of rush hour traffic for fun, right?). This whole idea that taking precautions is victim blaming is a horrible way of justifying something and only puts blame on people who are trying to help with the problem instead of actually dealing with the problem itself.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464086]im not the one who barged in with accusations
feel free to not post. id welcome it[/QUOTE]
Sorry to post off topic but I think you'll find that asking others to not post is against the rules.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Backseat moderating" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Zyler;42464105]
You don't have any actual arguements to add to this debate, you're at the level of calling people names (sanius squad) and I'm perfectly happy to continue posting.[/QUOTE]
what?
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464111]ill concede that but it bears no weight to the argument
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
oh yeah? if a man starts killing people in say a chinese-heavy district id hope youd wait for a psychological profile before you claim he was doing it for such a reason.
keep in mind we're talking about forensics here? its supposed to be a science[/QUOTE]
From all the harping I've read on here I'd say that forensics and science take second place to the rights of LGBT people or anyone with assumed 'privilege'.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42464128]From all the harping I've read on here I'd say that forensics and science take second place to the rights of LGBT people or anyone with assumed 'privilege'.[/QUOTE]
I'd generally say human rights is second only to the survival of an entire species of animals, and only in the case where loads of people wouldn't be killed as a result.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42464124]what?[/QUOTE]
You are not actually posting any arguments to support your case.
You are just insulting people for disagreeing with you.
You are not actually providing a case to support.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42464122]Sorry to post off topic but I think you'll find that asking others to not post is against the rules.[/QUOTE]
I think it is(n't against the rules when a mod agrees)
The rules of facepunch are a bit weird
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464064]quotes[/QUOTE]
I never said telling people to be safe was victim blaming
it's just that putting all your effort into talking about what a victim could have done or what women should be doing is a waste of time, doesn't tackle the real issue, and tends to lead to victim blaming
[QUOTE=gokiyono;42464145]I think it is(n't against the rules when a mod agrees)
The rules of facepunch are a bit weird[/QUOTE]
The rules of facepunch are pretty much just along the lines of 'don't be a dick', which is fine as long as you have the right people supporting it.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464150]I never said telling people to be safe was victim blaming
it's just that putting all your effort into talking about what a victim could have done or what women should be doing is a waste of time, doesn't tackle the real issue, and tends to lead to victim blaming[/QUOTE]
So I guess you're saying that installing rape alarms in public areas which are dark/dangerous at night time is a waste of time because it'd give the victims some options.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464150]I never said telling people to be safe was victim blaming
it's just that putting all your effort into talking about what a victim could have done or what women should be doing is a waste of time, doesn't tackle the real issue, and tends to lead to victim blaming[/QUOTE]
Of course just saying that a victim could've done something is a waste of time because it already happened, but openly discussing the issue instead of just blocking out the issue of rape because it's apparently insulting to the victim to discuss how rape could be prevented is just rubbish.
What you're essentially saying is that it's not
telling people to be safe > victim blaming
but that
telling people to be safe > talking about what could have been done > victim blaming
ergo
telling people to be safe > victim blaming.
[QUOTE=Zyler;42464172]Of course just saying that a victim could've done something is a waste of time because it already happened, but openly discussing the issue instead of just blocking out the issue of rape because it's apparently insulting to the victim to discuss how rape could be prevented is just rubbish.
What you're essentially saying is that it's not
telling people to be safe > victim blaming
but that
telling people to be safe > talking about what could have been done > victim blaming
ergo
telling people to be safe > victim blaming.[/QUOTE]
No.
Because you should be "talking about what could have been done" with the person who committed the crime, not the one on the receiving end.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42464177]No.
Because you should be "talking about what could have been done" with the person who committed the crime, not the one on the receiving end.[/QUOTE]
Why can't you do both? If open discussion is what leads to us finding a resolution to the issue of rape within our culture, why can't we learn from the victims of rape instead of beating around the bush for no purpose whatsoever.
And until we can find a way to get rid of rape altogether within our culture, we should always seek whatever way we can reasonably reduce it's likelihood without intruding on people's freedoms.
I appreciate how progressive you are on this issue, but the way we move forward is by encouraging discussion of the issue and getting people involved, not shying away from the topic.
Would it seriously be better if victims of rape were not allowed to discuss their experiences and try to find condolences by telling another person how to avoid a similar experience?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42464177]No.
Because you should be "talking about what could have been done" with the person who committed the crime, not the one on the receiving end.[/QUOTE]
But wouldn't that just leave that person vulnerable for the next attack?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42464150]I never said telling people to be safe was victim blaming
it's just that putting all your effort into talking about what a victim could have done or what women should be doing is a waste of time, doesn't tackle the real issue, and tends to lead to victim blaming[/QUOTE]
except its not a waste of time. telling people they don't have to worry about protecting themselves is dumb when they should because society as it is is not at state where we can do things without having to worry about dangerous people. of course i believe we should get to the source of the issue but its foolish to assume that because we are going for the source now, that we can just ignore the dangers we all still live with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
