Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your Most Controversial Opinions!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 286 of 300 (374744)
01-05-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
01-05-2007 2:50 PM


Of course you're not required to but sometimes it is a good idea.
Maybe. But paying the rent and buying groceries for your daughter are also good ideas, and while know-nothing economists might disagree, not everybody has a lot of choices in the job market.
Anyway, let's turn it around on its head. Everybody knows that rich, white Ivy League frat boys are loaded with cash and aren't too bright. Getting extorted by fake rape charges and lawsuits are part of the risk of their lifestyle. Shouldn't they take some responsibility for their actions (i.e. hiring strippers who later make potentially false claims of rape to extort money)?
Or is taking responsibility something that only women are supposed to do?
It is a risk that strippers accept when they take a job.
Is it? You have her signature on a waiver that says "you might get raped"?
I don't understand what you mean by "accept the risk". Aren't you "accepting the risk" of all kinds of bad stuff simply by leaving your home?
But you do leave your home, right? If you get hit by a car in the supermarket parking lot, didn't you "accept the risk"? So you have no right to complain, or even file an insurance claim against the driver?
Or even recieve medical treatment? I'm just curious how far "accepting the risk" goes, since it only ever seems to be something women are required to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-05-2007 2:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-05-2007 3:18 PM crashfrog has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 300 (374746)
01-05-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
01-05-2007 3:07 PM


Shouldn't they take some responsibility for their actions?
Yeah, we all should.
It is a risk that strippers accept when they take a job.
Is it? You have her signature on a waiver that says "you might get raped"?
How many strippers do you personally know?
The ones I know are aware that some of the guys they strip for want to rape them and they accept it as a risk. One of the reasons they bring a body guard.
I don't understand what you mean by "accept the risk". Aren't you "accepting the risk" of all kinds of bad stuff simply by leaving your home?
Yes, I am. The first thing I do when I get in my car is put my seatbelt on.
But you do leave your home, right? If you get hit by a car in the supermarket parking lot, didn't you "accept the risk"? So you have no right to complain, or even file an insurance claim against the driver?
Why wouldn't I? Because I accepted the risk? That's why I have insurance, because of the risks.
Why does accepting a risk mean, to you, that one exempts themself from the consequences?
I'm just curious how far "accepting the risk" goes, since it only ever seems to be something women are required to do.
You see what you want to see.
P.S. So, you left the State of Misery, I mean, Missouri...
How's that going for you? New job, or something? You and the wife both happy about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 01-05-2007 3:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by crashfrog, posted 01-05-2007 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 288 of 300 (374752)
01-05-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by New Cat's Eye
01-05-2007 3:18 PM


Why does accepting a risk mean, to you, that one exempts themself from the consequences?
I don't know what it means, but that's how it's used - on waivers, for instance, where "accepting the risk" means that even if it's someone else's fault, you have no legal recourse.
But it really comes up in discussions of rape, like this one, where the slightest indication that the victim might be somebody interested in recreation (or, indeed, doing anything at all besides sitting at home with a hajib on) is used to dismiss any responsibility that the rapist should be expected to take. And when it's not happening here with people like you, it's happening on the cover of newspapers, or on TV, or basically anywhere, because the spotless reputation of unknown rapists is apparently always a priority over their victims.
I mean, look. It's obvious that the risk of rape is ever-present, especially for women. And generally, a woman doesn't have to do anything to be at risk. Plenty of rapists are perfectly willing to break into your house to rape you. Obviously anything a woman chooses to do to ameliorate that risk is a good idea.
But if there's something a woman didn't do, that doesn't excuse the rape. A woman has every right to do nothing at all to prevent rape, if she wants, and that doesn't make the rape her responsibility. It's always the sole responsibility of the rapist. And sometimes we have little choice about what we do or the situations we're in. And, for god's sake, being raped is bad enough on it's own without every single person second-guessing every little thing you did and blaming you for not seeing the future.
Truly our society's dripping contempt for rape victims mystifies me, since known rapists are typically so vilified, but it's obvious in every form of media.
How's that going for you? New job, or something? You and the wife both happy about it?
Thank you for asking. Actually my wife has started work on her Ph.D. in entomology here at Big Red, and I'm trying to figure out how to get back into school, myself. We're both pretty happy about it; Lincoln treats us well (as long as we don't try to drive anywhere, it's impossible to navigate in this town) and our new apartment is a big upgrade from our old digs in Columbia.
I hope St. Louis is treating you well.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-05-2007 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5929 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 289 of 300 (374836)
01-05-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by crashfrog
01-05-2007 2:22 PM


If men have free will, then there's no risk of rape; there's merely the possibility that a man will chose to try to rape you. His choices are his responsibilities. You're not required to avoid completely legal behaviors simply because someone else might make a bad choice.
I would like you to repeat after me:
I will support and encourage my wife/son/daughter/girlfriend to pursue a legal career as a stripper for hire. I will encourage thier attending to business at private drunken parties alone with no means of protection. It is a great way to meet people. It is a wonderful career oprtunity to add to ones job portfolio. A wise career choice I would recomend to anyone. Come on...you can do it.
Are you saying that convinience store robberies shouldn't be prosecuted in Cabrini Green?
Vicinity, and I said no such thing.
Tell me - have you ever shopped at a convineience store? Doesn't that make you kind of a hypocrite that you've benefited directly from the services of a kind of job you don't think is moral?
Exactly what do morals have to do with this?
Where have I made a moral judgemnt?
So are you ready to wear your white hood yet? It's legal you know.
Don't forget to hawk the strip services of your: self,wife,daughter or son while you are at it. perhaps you will drum up business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by crashfrog, posted 01-05-2007 2:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2007 2:16 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 290 of 300 (374877)
01-06-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by 2ice_baked_taters
01-05-2007 9:19 PM


Nothing you've said addresses my argument, though. And you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by "taking responsibility."
What responsibility does a person engaged in completely legal behaviors have in regards to completely illegal behaviors perpetrated against them?
Answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 01-05-2007 9:19 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 291 of 300 (374935)
01-06-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by crashfrog
01-05-2007 11:51 AM


So, unless everybody's having sex in exactly the way that you proscribe, they're committing a moral infraction on the level of the Nazi holocaust?
Don't get all disjointed Justin, I didn't make a moral equivolent in terms of degree, only in kind.
You call stripping 'above board' because it is legal. But we don't get to decide what legal is. That is imposing morality on our fellow citizens. We do it though, and with your blessing.
Neither you, nor I, have the power to prescibe sexuality in terms of practice. If we assume that power for ourselves, then we have declared ourself to be equal with God in that particular area.
Can you handle the knowledge of good and evil?
Can a stripper?
Or the man who rapes her?
Appearently not!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 01-05-2007 11:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Taz, posted 01-06-2007 3:23 PM Rob has replied
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2007 6:58 PM Rob has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 292 of 300 (374964)
01-06-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Rob
01-06-2007 1:31 PM


I wonder, scottness, can you ever bring yourself to talk in a linear fashion or must you always talk in cryptic almost nonsensical evangelistic phrases?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Rob, posted 01-06-2007 1:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Rob, posted 01-06-2007 3:58 PM Taz has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 293 of 300 (374969)
01-06-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taz
01-06-2007 3:23 PM


I wonder, scottness, can you ever bring yourself to talk in a linear fashion or must you always talk in cryptic almost nonsensical evangelistic phrases?
Would it be more convenient for you to continue believing what it is you believe if I did?
I try my best to speak very clearly. Linear thinking is one dimensional. If you want to understand reality, you must broaden your thinking. Don't be so black and white! (eg. stop condemning Bush you fascist ).
But if you want to enjoy your life in a linear fashion, then you might as well say, ignorance is bliss.'
I think repentance is far more logical in light of certain observations. But somehow, that is a controversial opinion in our culture's postmodern madness.
Sweet dreams!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taz, posted 01-06-2007 3:23 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Taz, posted 01-06-2007 4:46 PM Rob has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 294 of 300 (374973)
01-06-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Lithodid-Man
12-02-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Lithodid's most controversial opinion
Hi LM.
Would you be willing to "flesh" out this notion of yours on a new thread? The Brass Ring of theoretical biology has always been a Unified Theory of Biology (with apologies to Peter Borger, who although an inter-galactic distance away from an actual UToB, at least came up with a catchy name for it). After all, if you can't discuss a controversial theory on a discussion board dedicated to controversial theories, where can you discuss it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2006 7:16 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 295 of 300 (374987)
01-06-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Rob
01-06-2007 3:58 PM


scottness writes:
Would it be more convenient for you to continue believing what it is you believe if I did?
And the point is?
I try my best to speak very clearly. Linear thinking is one dimensional. If you want to understand reality, you must broaden your thinking. Don't be so black and white! (eg. stop condemning Bush you fascist ).
We haven't even begun to have a debate and you are already misrepresenting what I said. Since when did I imply that we should think in a linear fashion?
For the moment, I'm not here to disagree with you or to debate with you. The question I asked was relatively simple. Do you always talk in such cryptic phrases?
I think I read somewhere on here that some people talk like fortune cookies. Are you one of those that prefer to communicate like a fortune cookie?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Rob, posted 01-06-2007 3:58 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Rob, posted 01-06-2007 5:22 PM Taz has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 296 of 300 (374992)
01-06-2007 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Taz
01-06-2007 4:46 PM


Since when did I imply that we should think in a linear fashion?
You said:
I wonder, scottness, can you ever bring yourself to talk in a linear fashion...?
I thought that was a clear implication that that was the way you think. And your condemnation of Bush verifies the hypothesis, so I threw that in as well.
I used to think the same way Taz... So I understand the terms and inferences.
Do you always talk in such cryptic phrases?
I think I read somewhere on here that some people talk like fortune cookies. Are you one of those that prefer to communicate like a fortune cookie?
Was his name Rob? Who was it that said that to me? I can't remember....
I think the language is clear, though it is complex in texture.
What do you mean by cryptic?
I mean no offense, only caution... try reading this:
John 8:43 - Why is my language not clear to you? Because you a...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Taz, posted 01-06-2007 4:46 PM Taz has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 297 of 300 (375004)
01-06-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Rob
01-06-2007 1:31 PM


Don't get all disjointed Justin, I didn't make a moral equivolent in terms of degree, only in kind.
It's "Crashfrog", please, or "Crash."
Does any of that address my argument? I don't see where.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Rob, posted 01-06-2007 1:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Rob, posted 01-06-2007 7:52 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 299 by AdminNem, posted 01-06-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 298 of 300 (375011)
01-06-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by crashfrog
01-06-2007 6:58 PM


Does any of that address my argument? I don't see where.
I think so, Crash. But I already covered it, so never mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2007 6:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 300 (375015)
01-06-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by crashfrog
01-06-2007 6:58 PM


We are NOT on a first name basis
Scottness writes:
quote:
Don't get all disjointed Justin, I didn't make a moral equivolent in terms of degree, only in kind.
It's "Crashfrog", please, or "Crash."
This message is more for Scottness than it is for Crashfrog.
Please do NOT use personal names without the expressed permission of the person. We have "handles" or "screen names" for a reason. We all have a right to as much anonymity and protection on the web as possible and I ask that all members respect that.
The number one reason for why not to do it is instances of fraud or retribution. I can track down any of you, if I were so inclined, with only your name and location. I'm not going to divulge how I can do that but its really easy. Thankfully, I'm not a complete lunatic (which may be debatable) and I doubt that most of our members are either. But we have to remember that we have lurkers lurking about. We don't now what they are capable of.
Please do not use real names.
Edited by AdminNem, : Fixed html tags
Edited by AdminNem, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2007 6:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 300 of 300 (375027)
01-06-2007 9:25 PM


Closing time
Any sequel topic should have a MUCH more specific theme, and a topic title that goes with that specific theme.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024