Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Bill FA
Recent Activity
-
Bill commented on the article |I hope that you are so honest with any potential marital partner, Amanda. What would be tragic is if a guy thinks sex will be important to you after marriage and it's not. Also, the world has a long history of women manipulating men into marriage via sex, so your idea about sex being entirely on the woman's terms may not be ideal. I think it should always be a mutual decision, though obviously if you want to remain abstinant, as long as you are honest about your low drive, no harm no foul.
-
Bill commented on the article |Juan, I just want to say that I agree 100%. It's insane how the media has softpedalled this story.
-
Bill commented on the article |I agree with everything you said, Amanda. I also agree with Ruth's very important point in this article (which wasn't as well made in her first article) that the time for advice about rape prevention is not after the rape. That is what Ruth is objecting to, and rightly so, but should have been more clearly stated the first time around (since we're criticising writers). In fact, even if Amy had originally said, "What happened to you is rape. Now, I would advise other readers of this column, blah blah blah", that would have been more acceptable. Instead she immediately called her to task for what she did. I finally get what all the hoopla is about.
-
Bill commented on the article |Extremes and absolutes are different things. When you say, "All crows are black", I simply have to find one white crow to prove you wrong. The statement is an absolute, my one white crow is an extreme. What I'm spending way too much time dealing with is people who say "rape is NEVER preventable" or "the victim literally has NO choice in the matter". These are absolutes. In the extreme, as a matter of logic, this statement is false. The victim can choose to lose her home, children, pets, money, life, family, etc. That's the one white crow in this case. When someone uses a word like "literally", I take it to actually mean literally.
It's not just for the sake of argument that I do this. I generally assume that you are making statements in an attempt to convince someone of your position, this being a political website and all. Faulty logic, with well-known fallacies in it, can be used by your opponents to deny what you say. Simple changes in wording can make your logic far less assailable (note I didn't say unassailable, for example - avoiding absolutes). Then the substance of what you say can stand. Do you disagree with this notion?
As for my reaction, I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that your comment about denial was directed at me, as if I was attempting to deny that abuse had occurred, when in fact I agree that the abuse occurred and was wrong. The reason I made this assumption is that you seem to be arguing just to hear yourself argue, not to convince me of anything, because you continue to make what are to me radical statements without offering any proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, according to the patriarchy, so make with the evidence :)
-
Bill commented on the article |
Wow. Even when I agree with you people, you attack. I'm not sure what your purpose for continuing this dialogue is, if not to persuade people who disagree with you over to your point of view. First you all attack Amy for no reason apparent to me, then you attack me, but when you start to convince me, you tell me you don't need to convince me but that I should convince myself to your point of view. Maybe it's the patriarchy talking, but when I take the time to craft a logical argument, I do it to convince people, or find holes in my own logic. Clearly I'm pissing in the wind here against a sophisticated sort of internet troll. And I started off on the side of agreeing that this was a case of rape. I can't imagine what you would do to someone who disagrees fundamentally with you.
-
Bill commented on the article |
So Juan, are you suggesting that the victim ought not get out of an abusive situation? Are you implying that what I talked about was denial in some sense? Are you saying that I'm wrong, because I'm part of the patriarchy (still waiting for my membership card) and the victim ought to let the first incident go, because they have love/money/pets tied up in the relationship?
Shawna it sounds like you did get out as soon as possible, so good on you. I hope you have done all you can to put the abuser away. Part of the evil patriarcy's job is to put people in jail for these types of crimes, but they need your help to do so.
-
Bill commented on the article |
Brava, Diane, that is what I'm talking about. Sound logic. Your assertion that people fixate on how rape is avoidable is logical. So is your assertion that the majority of time rape is not avoidable. So is your assertion that it doesn't matter if it is avoidable. I think by clearing up your logic and stating it this way that you have made a much better case. Simply denying that rape can ever be preventable is not logically sound and just turns off your opponents. It's like saying all crows are black. Sound logic usually avoids absolute terms like "never" and "always".
So, a much better argument than "Stop blaming the victim! Rape is not preventable!" is to say, "When you fixate on whether any given rape, or rape in general, is preventable, you miss the fact that the majority of rapes are not preventable and yet, unlike most crimes, are treated as if they were." This treatment has obvious negative consequences on the victim.
This statement is much more likely to get support than to get an argument. I still don't know if it is factual without some evidence to support it, but at least it is not easily refuted by finding "one white crow", as logical minds will tend to do. Remember that your audience is not the choir of women and minorities, it is the patriarchy and the rapist who justifies what he does as not being rape. Juan is correct that there is not "one right logic", and I'm surprised that someone outside the circle of graduate mathematics/computer science practicioners knows this (Goedel's incompleteness theorem for logical systems), but it is still useful to make arguments to people in the language they understand. Even Goedel did that.
-
Bill commented on the article |
Male ducks rape female ducks, by the definitions offered here. What is your evidence that they objectify their mates, or that they desire power over them? What is your evidence that human rape has nothing to do with sex (considering that sex is part of the definition)?
-
Bill commented on the article |
Sorry, but by my standards, to base one's "research" on interviews with 14 women, as the author of your book does, is not science, but is at best pseudo-science. There are valid practicioners of social sciences; I was wrong to infer otherwise, but your book and by extension you, cite no scientific evidence to back your assertion that the male libido does not exist/is not stronger than the femal. I don't see how interviews with women could possibly tell us otherwise.
Here: http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare
-
Bill commented on the article |
This is by far the best thread in this entire discussion. Thanks Gabrielle B for starting a meaningful and convincing discussion. Diane, I would continue to argue that you should not carry your money in a big clear wallet around your neck, because that will increase the likelihood of your being robbed. Robbery is wrong. See, I do take that approach to other crimes. I also lock my doors and live in a neighborhood with low crime statistics. It's foolish to act as if we have complete control over our lives, but equally foolish to act as if we have none. However, Gabrielle B has gone a long way toward convincing me that my premise (she was in a risky environment/dispalying risky behavior) is wrong. She is not, like the rest of you, trying to convince me that there is no such thing as risky behavior, or that it doesn't matter.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits