[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719695]My fucking point. Something bad happened and you are COMPLETELY disallowed from saying "you did something stupid" in any shape, way, or form.[/QUOTE]
A better question is why would you say that in the first place. Not only is it completely insensitive, but it's flat-out wrong.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719642]Imagine this scenario: In South Africa, the rape capital of the world, a woman walks into a dark alley. She is completely unprotected in any way. This is a stupid act, yes or no?
I am simply demonstrating this shitty argument JohnnyMo used which serves only to trap people.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty easy to trap people when they're making bad arguments. A logically sound argument is just as sound regardless of the terms you insert. If I swap out the scenario of an argument so that it is obviously crazy to any reasonable person to make the demonstration of its invalidity obvious, it can be applied to every argument of the same format and used to show how wrong your original assertion is.
Going down a dark alley isn't stupid. Going down a dark alley if you have plenty of other reasonable options is kinda stupid. Does it make a rape the woman's fault? No. Does it make a rape partially the woman's fault? Nope. Still no. All the blame lies on the person committing the completely morally indefensible act.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719666]Because he used the shitty trap argument against me, and there was no answer I could possibly give which did not leave me appearing to defend a rapist in some way, shape, or form, and appearing a complete scumbag.[/QUOTE]
Sure there was. Admit the principle you're arguing on is unsound. That's why it works so well!
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719727]It's pretty easy to trap people when they're making bad arguments. A logically sound argument is just as sound regardless of the terms you insert. If I swap out the scenario of an argument so that it is obviously crazy to any reasonable person to make the demonstration of its invalidity obvious, it can be applied to every argument of the same format and used to show how wrong your original assertion is.
Going down a dark alley isn't stupid. Going down a dark alley if you have plenty of other reasonable options is kinda stupid. Does it make a rape the woman's fault? No. Does it make a rape partially the woman's fault? Nope. Still no. All the blame lies on the person committing the completely morally indefensible act.[/QUOTE]
I concur.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719727]Going down a dark alley isn't stupid. Going down a dark alley if you have plenty of other reasonable options is kinda stupid. Does it make a rape the woman's fault? No. Does it make a rape partially the woman's fault? Nope. Still no. All the blame lies on the person committing the completely morally indefensible act.[/QUOTE]
So we are reduced to "Well your chances of getting raped aren't THAT bad", I see.
It's a city, of course there are going to be other reasonable options. Go down a block to the street. Failure to do so is stupid.
You're still clinging to your idea that "if I can completely overshadow something stupid done by the fact that something horrible happened, I win!"
Drunk driver slams into a tree and dies. It might be insensitive to say he was stupid for driving drunk, but it's true.
Students at Kent State throw stones at National Guardsmen with rifles. It might be insensitive to say "it's stupid to throw things at men with big rifles" but it's true.
It can apply to fucking any argument. It's a trap that is difficult to get out of, through no fault of mine.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719727]Does it make a rape partially the woman's fault? Nope. Still no. All the blame lies on the person committing the completely morally indefensible act.[/QUOTE]
If you're looking at it with determinism in mind, then yeah, it's just as much her fault as it is the rapist's. Which is to say no fault at all.
But I think we should look at "fault" less and more at what we do about it. Do we tell attractive women to not go outside or do we correct the rapists?
elecbullet, instead of trying to come up with a scenario where someone is raped due to rapists existing, could you please come up with a scenario in which the rape is not only justifiable, but also deserved. just so it can be further solidified that you are out of your fucking mind
[QUOTE=Rubs10;31719790]If you're looking at it with determinism in mind, then yeah, it's just as much her fault as it is the rapist's. Which is to say no fault at all.
But I think we should look at "fault" less and more at what we do about it. Do we tell attractive women to not go outside or do we correct the rapists?[/QUOTE]
I think it's pretty reasonable for me to grab my 16-year-old daughter on the shoulder before she goes in a goddamned dark alley in South Africa, and tell her to use the street a block down.
They have a name for this argument, Johnny, it's called the Argument from Emotional Appeal.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719780]It can apply to fucking any argument. It's a trap that is difficult to get out of, through no fault of mine.[/QUOTE]
It is a fault of yours, your initial argument was faulty from the very beginning.
I don't even think you ever rebutted SigmaLambda's point that festivals like Mardi Gras and Carnivale are allowed to go on. They are by and large as close to a "heterosexual pride" festival as you can get.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719803]I think it's pretty reasonable for me to grab my 16-year-old daughter on the shoulder before she goes in a goddamned dark alley in South Africa, and tell her to use the street a block down.
They have a name for this argument, Johnny, it's called the Argument from Emotional Appeal.[/QUOTE]
You're thinking of the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to emotion" argument. Not only that, but that's not the argument Johnny made. He isn't blaming the rapist for the act of an emotional anger towards the idea of rape, simply that rape is sexual assault and blaming the woman in any way for getting raped is morally reprehensible.
how about this
so theres this construction company
they arent very good with their management and their sites are filled with hazards due to a case of the "dont-give-a-fucks"
multiple passerby and workers die and their families sue the construction company
the company argues that they shouldnt need to fix the flaws with the sites when its much easier for passerby to stay away from it
is this is any way, shape, or form acceptable on any level
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31719826]You're thinking of the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to emotion" argument. Not only that, but that's not the argument Johnny made. He isn't blaming the rapist for the act of an emotional anger towards the idea of rape, simply that rape is sexual assault and blaming the woman in any way for getting raped is morally reprehensible.[/QUOTE]
Argument from emotional appeal, "appeal to emotion", same goddamned thing, you're just nitpicking.
And no, that's not how "appeal to emotion works", "appeal to emotion" works along the lines of "you can't say it's a stupid idea to go down an alley in South Africa because THAT POOR WOMAN!"
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=child birth;31719847]how about this
so theres this construction company
they arent very good with their management and their sites are filled with hazards due to a case of the "dont-give-a-fucks"
multiple passerby and workers die and their families sue the construction company
the company argues that they shouldnt need to fix the flaws with the sites when its much easier for passerby to stay away from it
is this is any way, shape, or form acceptable on any level[/QUOTE]
lol no, good thing my argument is not related to that in the least
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719780]So we are reduced to "Well your chances of getting raped aren't THAT bad", I see.[/QUOTE]
Nowhere did I make a point remotely similar to that.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719780]It's a city, of course there are going to be other reasonable options. Go down a block to the street. Failure to do so is stupid.[/QUOTE]
What if the alternative route involves taking a several block detour through the projects
My mother was faced with a similar choice walking home from school every day for years.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719780]You're still clinging to your idea that "if I can completely overshadow something stupid done by the fact that something horrible happened, I win!"[/QUOTE]
If you think this is what's being argued you might as well concede now.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719780]Drunk driver slams into a tree and dies. It might be insensitive to say he was stupid for driving drunk, but it's true.
Students at Kent State throw stones at National Guardsmen with rifles. It might be insensitive to say "it's stupid to throw things at men with big rifles" but it's true.
It can apply to fucking any argument. It's a trap that is difficult to get out of, through no fault of mine.[/QUOTE]
Neither of those arguments are applicable. The drunk driver is endangering others. What he did WAS stupid. Not to mention that's a person against nature. It was either the person doing something stupid or a sad act of nature. You can't say a tornado is an asshole for destroying some guy's house in Kansas but it doesn't make it stupid that he lived there. Throwing rock at people is meant to prevent a reaction. The reaction may be disproportionate but you're assaulting people in the attempt to get to do something.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719803]I think it's pretty reasonable for me to grab my 16-year-old daughter on the shoulder before she goes in a goddamned dark alley in South Africa, and tell her to use the street a block down.
They have a name for this argument, Johnny, it's called the Argument from Emotional Appeal.[/QUOTE]
Nice job calling my argument a fallacy that is unrelated to the actual argument.
I hate when arguments get to the point that you have to make a thousand quote boxes in reply to a post with a thousand quote boxes, don't you?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719860]
lol no, good thing my argument is not related to that in the least[/QUOTE]
you could literally switch "construction company" with "south african city", "hazard" with "rapist", "passerby and workers" with "citizens", and "die" with "are raped" and its your argument about dark alleyways and bullshit
[quote][quote]So we are reduced to "Well your chances of getting raped aren't THAT bad", I see.[/quote]Nowhere did I make a point remotely similar to that.[/quote]
[quote]Going down a dark alley isn't stupid. Going down a dark alley if you have plenty of other reasonable options is kinda stupid. Does it make a rape the woman's fault? No. Does it make a rape partially the woman's fault? Nope. Still no. All the blame lies on the person committing the completely morally indefensible act.[/quote]
You know what I mean.
The point is, you can do stupid things, and HORRIBLE things can happen as a result. This, however, does not change the fact that you did a stupid thing.
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=child birth;31719885]you could literally switch "construction company" with "south african city", "hazard" with "rapist", "passerby and workers" with "citizens", and "die" with "are raped" and its your argument about dark alleyways and bullshit[/QUOTE]
That would only apply if I were saying "The rapist should get off because the woman asked for it", whereas in actuality I simply said "The rapist is a horrible atrocious human being but the woman did something stupid and the fact that something bad happened to her does not change that". Or something along those lines.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719906]You know what I mean.
The point is, you can do stupid things, and HORRIBLE things can happen as a result. This, however, does not change the fact that you did a stupid thing.[/QUOTE]
the stupid action doesnt justify the reaction so what the fuck does it matter
[QUOTE=child birth;31719928]the stupid action doesnt justify the reaction so what the fuck does it matter[/QUOTE]
I can tell my daughter not to go in an alley on the basis of "you might get raped". This is completely reasonable. Possibly somewhat insensitive, or blunt. But reasonable.
In the same way, I can say "By running around looking like My Little Pony you are not helping your cause".
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719906]You know what I mean.
The point is, you can do stupid things, and HORRIBLE things can happen as a result. This, however, does not change the fact that you did a stupid thing.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with walking down an alley. The reason it becomes "stupid" is BECAUSE RAPE EXISTS. There is no way it's not immediately obvious that this is not the fault of rapists.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31719956]It doesn't matter. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with walking down an alley. The reason it becomes "stupid" is BECAUSE RAPE EXISTS. There is no way it's not immediately obvious that this is not the fault of rapists.[/QUOTE]
[quote]it becomes "stupid"[/quote]
therefore using my excellent powers of deduction I conclude that you admit that walking down a dark alley in South Africa can be a stupid idea
Civil Rights marches back in the 60's didn't have Black people dressed in overalls and have chains wrapped about their limbs or have buckets of chicken and watermelon in their hands. They just marched and at most they probably sang hymns on their way to Birmingham or D.C.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719989]therefore using my excellent powers of deduction I conclude that you admit that walking down a dark alley in South Africa can be a stupid idea[/QUOTE]
did you not read the 4 words after that or something
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31719989]therefore using my excellent powers of deduction I conclude that you admit that walking down a dark alley in South Africa can be a stupid idea[/QUOTE]
Your excellent powers of deduction apparently failed to deduce that when I explicitly said it several posts ago. That's not the issue. The issue is about blame.
What the fuck difference does it make whose fault it is that walking down an alley is a stupid idea, it is a STUPID IDEA.
It is also a stupid idea to run around in your underwear, for different reasons, however the two situations can be compared in such a way that you immediately brought up the dreaded rape argument.
I must remember to use that against you at every chance I get.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31720081]What the fuck difference does it make whose fault it is that walking down an alley is a stupid idea, it is a STUPID IDEA.
It is also a stupid idea to run around in your underwear, for different reasons, however the two situations can be compared in such a way that you immediately brought up the dreaded rape argument.
I must remember to use that against you at every chance I get.[/QUOTE]
Could you get any more juvenile?
Yes, I could start running around in my underwear and painting rainbows on myself
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31720081]What the fuck difference does it make whose fault it is that walking down an alley is a stupid idea, it is a STUPID IDEA.
It is also a stupid idea to run around in your underwear, for different reasons, however the two situations can be compared in such a way that you immediately brought up the dreaded rape argument.
I must remember to use that against you at every chance I get.[/QUOTE]
If your reasoning skills are as bad as they seem to be it won't work.
We'll see about that.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31720107]Yes, I could start running around in my underwear and painting rainbows on myself[/QUOTE]
Dern gays doing something I've admitted is not harmful! They deserve every bit of the bigotry I've already admitted is wrong which is directed against them!
i almost want to ask elec more questions to get incredibly stupid answers but that would be rude as hell
either way gay pride parades are still gonna happen, and thats pretty awesome.
Jeez and you call me a shitty debater
[editline]13th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=child birth;31720143]i almost want to ask elec more questions to get incredibly stupid answers but that would be rude as hell
either way gay pride parades are still gonna happen, and thats pretty awesome.[/QUOTE]
No, no, no, no, I'm here until 11:30, then I have to go to bed, Southeastern US Church tomorrow.
what do you think about using the words "fag", "faggot", and "gay" as insults. i would like your opinion on using them on gay people and straight people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.