On 24/12/2013 6:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:56:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 23/12/2013 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British
>>> version. :P
>>
>> Sigh! You have worn me down. Maths it is.
>
> ;)
>
> Jim
>
;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12/24/2013 2:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> Lars R. <rou### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> And to do this, you should calm down your own citizens so they don't
>> disturb your pervert game. And how to do that: Keep them dumb (e.g. by
>> shorting a broad education in your population), tell them again and
>> again your lies that you're fighting a common enemy, until even the last
>> one in your country beleave it without doubt. (And only a few remind
>> that your current "enemy" was bred by yourself some years ago. History
>> repeats itself.)
>
> You do realize that many muslim terrorist attacks have been executed by
> muslims who had lived and studied for years in a western country, some
> of them even having a higher education?
>
> It's more than just education. It is very much about the religion and
> its indocrination.
>
> I think that a very good demonstration of this is that recently a poll
> was performed in the UK, and one of the questions was about homosexuals.
>  From the about 500 muslims that participated in the poll exactly 100%
> opposed homosexuals. Many of these muslims had been born in the UK and
> had studied there all their lives.
>
Some of that can be fear too. Since its not acceptable to Islam, and 
Islam doesn't have a lot of flexibility in such matters, unlike 
Christians, who have sidelined their stricter sects, in favor of more 
"love thy neighbor", than, "follow the rules", there is bound to be a 
certain level of, "If I pick anything other than what Islam says I 
should put down, then someone might find out, and I am going to not just 
be in trouble with Allah, but other people.", going on with those polls.

Someone else was recently talking about the difference they saw between 
what polls showed that Muslims thought in the Netherlands (I think it 
was..), and the reality of dealing with those people every day (and it 
was a Muslim saying this). They stated that the reality was not what the 
polls reflected. That the polls showed the "official" stance, the one 
the members where worried someone might find out they disagreed with, 
which someone more hardline might call them on, and they would get in 
major trouble over, if they where found out, but that the reality was 
that almost no one they knew actually thought that way in reality.

In other words, its a case of, "I will go along with the hate and anger, 
because someone might be watching." Their real attitudes may not in fact 
reflect, at all, what the polls show, but they "think" that the polls do 
show the real view, and none of them are willing to risk sticking their 
head up, and finding out how many people around them agree with them 
about it. They might turn out to be alone, and everyone else against them.

Pretty much the same thing has happened with every religion, if it comes 
to that. Those that want to change risk everything, from their 
perspective, to change things, or.. they turn on each other, to protect 
themselves, because they are sure the ones that disagree outnumber them. 
The real numbers might be 80% not giving a damn, but every single one of 
those 80% is "standing alone", in a sea of people that they are sure 
will condemn them for holding such an ungodly view.

That said, the other factor, specific to Western education, is culture 
shock. The openness of the West runs very contrary to what most of these 
people ever dealt with, and there are only two reactions you can have, 
either abandon faith, or harden it, when confronted with the dissonance 
between such vast successes, and denial of so much of the supposed 
"righteous ideals" of a religion. Either it has be been gained via some 
sort of cheat, or.. your faith has to be wrong, for someone steeped so 
heavily in belief, and, they have already been fed plenty of, "They 
cheated their way to success!", already, in most cases. But, its also 
the "earn a degree, so you can wave it around, while denying the things 
you got a degree in.", thing too, for some. There may be no intention at 
all, from the start, to broaden their views, or learn. It is all about 
learning the trappings of the West, so they can, while completely 
failing to understand the subject, (much like certain creationists 
getting degrees in biology, or geology, then turning that info in to a 
distorted pretzel, for their own invalid arguments), present what, but 
only to them, and other believers, sound like plausible explanations 
about how the West works, and what its been doing.

The sad thing is, some of the crap certain political elements, 
especially in the US, pull, would be enough to make an argument, without 
needing to make crap up. But, that's not how propaganda works. You have 
to keep shoveling new crap on the fire, to keep it going, otherwise they 
might have time to look around and wonder what you are screwing up, 
which has helped make life miserable, even without the West being 
involved in it.

But, the have, at least to some extent, had a few nasty surprises (like 
the Arab Summer), where it turned out people where not as stupid and 
sheep like as they thought they where. But, yeah.. fear, I think, plays 
far more in those poll results, that the actual real opinions, when 
dealing with real people, instead of ideas.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> They stated that the reality was not what the 
> polls reflected. That the polls showed the "official" stance, the one 
> the members where worried someone might find out they disagreed with, 
> which someone more hardline might call them on, and they would get in 
> major trouble over, if they where found out, but that the reality was 
> that almost no one they knew actually thought that way in reality.

That, in itself, is a big problem with many muslim subcultures in the
west (ie. the peer pressure that doesn't seem to be as strong as ever.)

As politically incorrect as it is to say, the culture itself is to blame,
and muslims will not get over that problem until it's changed.

Of course the problem is only aggravated by the western mentality that
says to them: "Your culture and your religion are very valuable, you
should keep them, embrace them and treasure them. It's your cultural
heritage and it would be a great loss if it were to be muddied and mixed
with the western culture."

This sentiment is very naive because it only thinks about the positive
things of the exotic culture, completely ignoring the negative things,
pretending that those are not *really* part of the culture. However,
no matter how we try to pretend that it's not part of their culture,
the sad fact is that it is, and we are only encouraging them to keep
it that way and not making a change for the better.

(This is, by the way, the main reason why I oppose the burkha as a
matter of principle. The politically correct segment of our society
wants to think of it as "freedom to dress in whatever way you want."
However, that's not what the burkha represents at all in muslim cultures,
and what's worse, the PC segment knows this perfectly well, but still
deliberately ignores the fact. The burkha in most islamic cultures is
a sign of submission. To these cultures, only a woman dressed in a
burkha is chaste and virtuous, while a woman "exposing herself" is
a whore. Not in all islamic cultures, of course, but in many. The
burkha pretty much represents the exact *opposite* of "you are free
to dress in whatever you want." More blatantly, it's only imposed on
women; men are free to do whatever they want. And that is why I oppose
the custom as a matter of principle. It's sexist and in direct opposition
to the most basic concepts of freedom and equality.)

> That said, the other factor, specific to Western education, is culture 
> shock. The openness of the West runs very contrary to what most of these 
> people ever dealt with

Note that many, if not most, of those muslims had been born in the west
and lived and studied their whole lives here. It shouldn't be as much a
cultural shock to them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/27/2013 3:48 PM, Warp wrote:
> (This is, by the way, the main reason why I oppose the burkha as a
> matter of principle. The politically correct segment of our society
> wants to think of it as "freedom to dress in whatever way you want."
> However, that's not what the burkha represents at all in muslim cultures,
> and what's worse, the PC segment knows this perfectly well, but still
> deliberately ignores the fact. The burkha in most islamic cultures is
> a sign of submission. To these cultures, only a woman dressed in a
> burkha is chaste and virtuous, while a woman "exposing herself" is
> a whore. Not in all islamic cultures, of course, but in many. The
> burkha pretty much represents the exact *opposite* of "you are free
> to dress in whatever you want." More blatantly, it's only imposed on
> women; men are free to do whatever they want. And that is why I oppose
> the custom as a matter of principle. It's sexist and in direct opposition
> to the most basic concepts of freedom and equality.)
>
This I 99% agree with. I have trouble wrapping my head around the people 
that propose the idea of taking the symbol and using it to empower. It 
might empower "them", but it doesn't do a damn thing for the rest of the 
women around the world. But, then, in the long run, there "might" be 
value in turning it into a meaningless costume, instead. Just.. its no 
wear close to that, and its not going to become that, *until* is really 
is choice, not forced on them, either by religion, or their own false 
sense of modesty/shame. Its no better if you oppress yourself, and in 
the process, perpetuate the stupid ideas that allowed it to become a set 
of chains, holding you down. We get a lot of the same stupid things even 
in Western culture, where "choices" are made, not based on what woman 
want, but are taught to think they should "expect", or "be like". They 
are just not so violently enforced, but, never the less, when, say.. a 
rape happens, the first thing trotted out is a long list of excuses 
about what she wore, did, thought, where she was, what she did/didn't 
say, etc. And, worse, juries fall for that crap, including other women.

>> That said, the other factor, specific to Western education, is culture
>> shock. The openness of the West runs very contrary to what most of these
>> people ever dealt with
>
> Note that many, if not most, of those muslims had been born in the west
> and lived and studied their whole lives here. It shouldn't be as much a
> cultural shock to them.
>
True, but in such cases its usually the religious lie that they fall 
for, "The bad things you see wouldn't exist, if everyone followed these 
other, supposedly, perfect rules." Some people find that thinking very 
tempting, especially if you can manage to give them something they don't 
have, then isolate them from people who might, say.. point out the flaws 
in the logic.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> They 
> are just not so violently enforced, but, never the less, when, say.. a 
> rape happens, the first thing trotted out is a long list of excuses 
> about what she wore, did, thought, where she was, what she did/didn't 
> say, etc. And, worse, juries fall for that crap, including other women.

Sure, some people will use those things as excuses. However, I wouldn't
say it's the point.

The fact is, the risk of being raped can be affected by one's behavior
in the exact same way as the risk being mugged can be. If, for example,
a certain part of the city is known for the amount of crime, and you just
carelessly walk there alone in nice expensive clothes, don't be surprised
if you get mugged with a higher probability than if you were walking in
a busy mall, for instance. The fact is, you *can* affect the risks with
your actions.

Asking women questions about what they were doing, what they were wearing,
and where they had been can give us valuable information about certain
patterns that could ostensibly increase the risk of being raped. If,
for example, 90% of women who are raped in a certain city have certain
characteristics and/or were in a certain part of the city, we can deduce
that there's something common to these cases.

Telling a woman "you can decrease the risk of being raped by doing this"
is not victim blaming. It's pragmatism. It's no different from saying
things like "you should lock your doors before leaving home".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:27:13 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?
>>
>> Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.
>>
>> You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
>> must fight against "terrorism"!
>>
>> But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
>> that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
>> world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
>> a promised heaven?
>
> This is something I've never figured out.
>
> It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I haven't  
> got the vaguest idea *why*.
>

Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and become  
Muslims.



-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and become  
> Muslims.

There are quite many passages in the koran that can be used to justify
murder. For instance 5:33 says:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle
and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should
be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut
off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a
disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have
a grievous chastisement."

In 9:29:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book,
until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued."

These and many other passages are affirmed by the ahadith. For example:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924:
Muhammad said: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say:
La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and
whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his
life from me."

Sahih Muslim 30:
Muhammad said: "I have been commanded to fight against people so long
as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and become
> > Muslims.
>
> There are quite many passages in the koran that can be used to justify
> murder.
>
Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible (Jewish,
Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow the murder.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:49:01 +0200, Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> > Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and become
>> > Muslims.
>>
>> There are quite many passages in the koran that can be used to justify
>> murder.
>>
> Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible (Jewish,
> Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow the  
> murder.
>
>
Jewish: Thou shalt not kill. There is also scripture that says to be  
hospitable to strangers. The only killing is specifically in a war  
situations concerning specific cities/towns. They basically use the same  
as the Old Testament of the Bible and a few other oral traditions.

Christian: Goes even further than being hospitable with "Love thine  
enemies". Jesus was a Jew. Christianity started with the Jewish religion,  
but Jesus fulfilled the difficult to complete laws and set them free from  
the law and gave them grace. Men, women and different races are all  
considered equal.

Muslim: Kill non-Muslims. In the Koran there are a few similarities to the  
Bible, but the details contradict and differ from the Bible. They believe  
in Creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, Moses and they believe the Jesus was  
a Prophet that never died. They believe Mohammad to have been the final  
prophet. Women are considered to have half the brainpower of a man.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-12-27 17:48, Warp a écrit :
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> They stated that the reality was not what the
>> polls reflected. That the polls showed the "official" stance, the one
>> the members where worried someone might find out they disagreed with,
>> which someone more hardline might call them on, and they would get in
>> major trouble over, if they where found out, but that the reality was
>> that almost no one they knew actually thought that way in reality.
>
> That, in itself, is a big problem with many muslim subcultures in the
> west (ie. the peer pressure that doesn't seem to be as strong as ever.)
>
> As politically incorrect as it is to say, the culture itself is to blame,
> and muslims will not get over that problem until it's changed.
>

It's not only muslims that suffer from this.  In many parts of the world 
where Christianity still has a strong hold on society, you will see 
similar attitudes from people.  Case in point: A recent US study found 
that 1 pregnant woman in 200 "thought" she was still a virgin.  The 
authors of the study hypothecized that it was probably due to a mix of 
lack of sexual education leading with unsafe sexual activites, and fear 
of reprisal if they answered the survey truthfully.

> Of course the problem is only aggravated by the western mentality that
> says to them: "Your culture and your religion are very valuable, you
> should keep them, embrace them and treasure them. It's your cultural
> heritage and it would be a great loss if it were to be muddied and mixed
> with the western culture."
>
> This sentiment is very naive because it only thinks about the positive
> things of the exotic culture, completely ignoring the negative things,
> pretending that those are not *really* part of the culture. However,
> no matter how we try to pretend that it's not part of their culture,
> the sad fact is that it is, and we are only encouraging them to keep
> it that way and not making a change for the better.

[Devil's advocate]
I seem to remember you posting about Kantele and its probable 
disparition in the near future.

While Islam is nowhere near extinction, so it's not a fair comparision, 
you can't lament the loss of traditional Finnish culture, while at the 
same time criticizing others who want to preserve their own.
[/Devil's advocate]



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:22:51 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:49:01 +0200, Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> > Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and
>>> > become Muslims.
>>>
>>> There are quite many passages in the koran that can be used to justify
>>> murder.
>>>
>> Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible
>> (Jewish,
>> Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow
>> the murder.
>>
>>
> Jewish: Thou shalt not kill. There is also scripture that says to be
> hospitable to strangers. The only killing is specifically in a war
> situations concerning specific cities/towns. They basically use the same
> as the Old Testament of the Bible and a few other oral traditions.
> 
> Christian: Goes even further than being hospitable with "Love thine
> enemies". Jesus was a Jew. Christianity started with the Jewish
> religion, but Jesus fulfilled the difficult to complete laws and set
> them free from the law and gave them grace. Men, women and different
> races are all considered equal.
> 
> Muslim: Kill non-Muslims. In the Koran there are a few similarities to
> the Bible, but the details contradict and differ from the Bible. They
> believe in Creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, Moses and they believe the
> Jesus was a Prophet that never died. They believe Mohammad to have been
> the final prophet. Women are considered to have half the brainpower of a
> man.

Actually, the commandment properly translated (so I understand) is "Thou 
shalt not murder."  Killing in God's name is permissible (and 
encouraged), and there are other circumstances where people are commanded 
to kill (stoning, but just not quite to death? No, stonings are supposed 
to end up with someone dead - an adulterer, for example).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible (Jewish,
> Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow the murder.

Death penalty by stoning is decreed in the Bible. (And no, Jesus did not
repeal that. And no, I'm not in the mood to start a biblical debate on
the subject.)

There's also quite a clear command to kill witches (which likewise is
not repealed anywhere.) This particular passage has been used countless
times to kill people, even nowadays.

Most Christians let secular morality and concepts of human rights trump
those commandments, which is a good thing. Unfortunately not all of them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/23/2013 1:09 PM, Lars R. wrote:
>>> But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their
>>> lives, that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed
>>> about our world, about their future in this world that they hope
>>> for salvation in a promised heaven?
>>
>> This is something I've never figured out.
>>
>> It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I
>> haven't got the vaguest idea *why*.
>
> Okay, you already oversimplicate it. :-(
>
> It has nothing to do with Islam. Religion is just a vehicle to carry an
> oversimplied message. Why simplified? So it can be understood by people
> without education.
>
> As always: It is much easier to blame other people for own misery. That
> principle works exactly the same "here" (in Western Europe and Nothern
> America) and "there" (the Eastern Hemisphere, the Muslim world etc.)
>
> The only way to overcome such thinking is: education and enlightenment.
> But instead of investing in schools and universities we "invest" in
> armament and support apologists of stupidity, not only in Muslim
> countries, also in our own ones. :-(

A lot of us would love to bring education and enlightenment to these 
other places, but their governments actively frustrate this goal. 
Things that in the West are regarded as shameful balderdash, credited 
only by the most philosophically impoverished, are presented as 
unvarnished truth by the state-run media.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 23:27:08 -0600, John VanSickle wrote:

> A lot of us would love to bring education and enlightenment to these
> other places, but their governments actively frustrate this goal.

Indeed, education is anathema to power in many places, ignorance keeps 
people from asking too many uncomfortable questions.

We're starting to see that in the US.  OK, it's not just starting now, 
it's been a long road to get a lot of people in this country to become 
ignorant (and thus to vote against their own interests).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/30/2013 9:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible (Jewish,
>> Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow the murder.
>
> Death penalty by stoning is decreed in the Bible. (And no, Jesus did not
> repeal that. And no, I'm not in the mood to start a biblical debate on
> the subject.)
>
> There's also quite a clear command to kill witches (which likewise is
> not repealed anywhere.) This particular passage has been used countless
> times to kill people, even nowadays.
>
> Most Christians let secular morality and concepts of human rights trump
> those commandments, which is a good thing. Unfortunately not all of them.

Well as a Christian I can tell you that the reason that I do not kill 
witches or homosexuals or Sabbath-breakers is not because I have let the 
commandments be trumped, but rather because those commandments were not 
given to me in he first place.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 12/28/2013 11:39 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> They
>> are just not so violently enforced, but, never the less, when, say.. a
>> rape happens, the first thing trotted out is a long list of excuses
>> about what she wore, did, thought, where she was, what she did/didn't
>> say, etc. And, worse, juries fall for that crap, including other women.
>
> Sure, some people will use those things as excuses. However, I wouldn't
> say it's the point.
>
> The fact is, the risk of being raped can be affected by one's behavior
> in the exact same way as the risk being mugged can be. If, for example,
> a certain part of the city is known for the amount of crime, and you just
> carelessly walk there alone in nice expensive clothes, don't be surprised
> if you get mugged with a higher probability than if you were walking in
> a busy mall, for instance. The fact is, you *can* affect the risks with
> your actions.
>
Uh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong.. You know what the most common factors in like 
90% of all rape cases are:

1. Its within 5 miles of the victims home, or even in their home.
2. Its virtually always someone they know.
3. Its usually a guy, doing it to a woman.

So... The risk factors women should avoid are:

1. Going anyplace near their home.
2. Actually interacting with people they know.
3. Being female.

Have I got that right?

There is no other commonalities. It has never mattered to rapist what 
the woman (or rarer man) was wearing at the time, at all. Its 
statistically insignificant. Whether or not they have been drinking, is, 
again, statistically insignificant. Parties are low on the list of 
places it happens, unless its one at the place they live. While woman 
are certainly harassed a lot walking alone, there is, again, since its 
usually someone they know that does it, statistically irrelevant to the 
crime.

All of the things that you can imagine might "decrease her risk", are, 
in the grand scheme of things, nothing more that a) media 
sensationalistic BS, b) things brought up to shame them, and get the 
rapist off the hook, and/or totally statistically meaningless.

Its like telling someone that they can reduce their risk of drowning, by 
avoiding swim suits. And, its not your fault, nor was it mine, back 
before I had this pointed out to me, for believing that all those things 
do increase risk. No one **ever** gets told by the news that the rape 
victim was a mute virgin, with no history of drug/alcohol use, who had 
only one friend, and dressed like a nun. What you do here is that she 
was found three blocks away from her house, wearing nothing but 
underwear, and, based on having actually worn lipstick, must, therefor, 
have been a) headed to a party, b) assaulted by a random person, and c) 
dressed like a slut (never mind that they never found the rest of her 
clothes, and she didn't own single dress, never mind anything tight 
fitting. Its inconsistent with what people *assume* must be true, 
therefor, it can't possibly be that he only friend did it to her, at her 
house, and dumped the body later. And, even *when* they figure out that 
is true, the news media will have, by then, already painted her like a 
two bit hooker, and then, lacking any new juicy facts, dropped the story 
like a wadded up post it note.

This, BTW, is Wikipedia's take on the top "risks" (a lot of the stuff 
from a search turns up things on college students, or behind pay walls, 
which doesn't help much):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_associated_with_being_a_victim_of_sexual_violence

Basically - being young, being drugged, having already had abusing 
relationships (this is a behavioral issue, where such people tend to 
pick the same sort of people to date as they did before), or, 
ironically, becoming educated (which I suppose can be chalked up to 
idiots that don't like women who make more than they do, etc.), oh, and 
being a sex worker, or being in poverty.

But, then, other places:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics?gclid=COuo9aCn3LsCFTDhQgodFl0AmQ
http://www.humboldt.edu/stoprape/statistics.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/
http://image.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2813%2970069-X/fulltext

This one seems to be what "makes for" being a rapist - 
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

You will note that, no where, on "any" of these sites, that deal with it 
professionally, are how they dress, where they go, if they are walking 
alone, etc. are among the list of "risks".

But, and even better one that addresses the key points of what are total 
myths:

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php

Some excerpts:

"The suggestion of avoiding walking alone, especially at night is a 
common suggestion to avoiding sexual assault. However, only 9% of rapes 
are committed by 'strangers'. Women are raped in their homes and in 
their work places where they are less likely to be believed and even 
less likely to report."

"Reports show that there is a great diversity in the way targeted women 
act or dress. Rapists choose women based on their vulnerability not 
their physical appearance."

With a note being that the later "based on vulnerability", which one 
could presume to means "alone, or in a dark alley", is undermined by the 
fact that most assaults are by people they know, and in 
places/situations where the rapist feels they can get by with it, and 
the victim will not be believed, as per the first quote. In other words 
- there is no way in hell that all but a small percentage of rapists 
would pick someone they can't control in some way, assault them in a 
place where the victim would be believed (instead of some place assumed 
to be safe), or based on what they where wearing.

The sort that do the later, generally are "serial rapists", who know 
they might get caught, are driven by **specific** criteria, like hair 
color, or reminding them of their mother, or some other insane, and 
specific, motivation, etc. In other words, the classic, "This is how the 
once rapist, who now, realizing these women will report him, just turned 
serial killer.", types, which is bloody rare. They don't, generally, 
pick them based on dress length, or merely being alone.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:40:08 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:22:51 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:49:01 +0200, Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>>> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> > Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and
>>>> > become Muslims.
>>>>
>>>> There are quite many passages in the koran that can be used to justify
>>>> murder.
>>>>
>>> Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible
>>> (Jewish,
>>> Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow
>>> the murder.
>>>
>>>
>> Jewish: Thou shalt not kill. There is also scripture that says to be
>> hospitable to strangers. The only killing is specifically in a war
>> situations concerning specific cities/towns. They basically use the same
>> as the Old Testament of the Bible and a few other oral traditions.
>>
>> Christian: Goes even further than being hospitable with "Love thine
>> enemies". Jesus was a Jew. Christianity started with the Jewish
>> religion, but Jesus fulfilled the difficult to complete laws and set
>> them free from the law and gave them grace. Men, women and different
>> races are all considered equal.
>>
>> Muslim: Kill non-Muslims. In the Koran there are a few similarities to
>> the Bible, but the details contradict and differ from the Bible. They
>> believe in Creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, Moses and they believe the
>> Jesus was a Prophet that never died. They believe Mohammad to have been
>> the final prophet. Women are considered to have half the brainpower of a
>> man.
>
> Actually, the commandment properly translated (so I understand) is "Thou
> shalt not murder."  Killing in God's name is permissible (and
> encouraged), and there are other circumstances where people are commanded
> to kill (stoning, but just not quite to death? No, stonings are supposed
> to end up with someone dead - an adulterer, for example).
>
> Jim

"Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it. I'm not  
sure who is encouraging it though. Are you talking about the Jews actions  
in the middle east? If God told them to fight the Muslims, the Jews would  
have won long ago.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 11:28 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong

Period!
No ifs or buts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:28:46 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it.

And how exactly do you prove that God told you to do it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:36:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/01/2014 11:28 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong
> 
> Period!
> No ifs or buts.

Absolutely spot on.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:28:46 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it.
>
> And how exactly do you prove that God told you to do it?
>

If you can't hear the voices. Then you must be evil.
Die! Oh! son of Satan. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/14 19:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:28:46 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> 
>> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it.
> 
> And how exactly do you prove that God told you to do it?
> 
> Jim
> 
<Deliberately begs the question>
It says so in our Holy Book.
The Holy Book is the Word of God.
Therefore God told us to do it.

Also... God exists because our Holy Book says so.
Since the Holy Book is the Word of God, it cannot be wrong

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 8:06 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> <Deliberately begs the question>
> It says so in our Holy Book.
> The Holy Book is the Word of God.
> Therefore God told us to do it.
>
> Also... God exists because our Holy Book says so.
> Since the Holy Book is the Word of God, it cannot be wrong

But your Holy Book is missing a comma, compared to my Holy Book.
Thus (and therefore), your Holy Book is an abomination in the sight of 
the God of my Holy Book (which is THE WORD of GOD).
So it is behind the bike sheds for us. Pal.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1-1-2014 21:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/01/2014 8:06 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> <Deliberately begs the question>
>> It says so in our Holy Book.
>> The Holy Book is the Word of God.
>> Therefore God told us to do it.
>>
>> Also... God exists because our Holy Book says so.
>> Since the Holy Book is the Word of God, it cannot be wrong
>
> But your Holy Book is missing a comma, compared to my Holy Book.
> Thus (and therefore), your Holy Book is an abomination in the sight of
> the God of my Holy Book (which is THE WORD of GOD).
> So it is behind the bike sheds for us. Pal.
>
Gentlemen, please. Bikes are not in the holy book. Find another place to 
settle your dispute. Hint: England is not in the book either.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 8:59 PM, andrel wrote:
> Bikes are not in the holy book.

You have lost all creditability, now.
I know that you are a Nederlander and bikes rate high in the lowlands.

Phalse Profit!  ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 9:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/01/2014 8:59 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Bikes are not in the holy book.
>
> You have lost all creditability, now.

P.S. Bike sheds have a sacred place in the heart of every British 
schoolboy. (Of a certain type.)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 20:01:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/01/2014 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:28:46 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>
>>> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it.
>>
>> And how exactly do you prove that God told you to do it?
>>
>>
> If you can't hear the voices. Then you must be evil.
> Die! Oh! son of Satan. ;-)

:)

Except, of course, in the US if you hear voices, you tend to be thought 
of as being nuts.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 20:06:58 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 01/01/14 19:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:28:46 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> 
>>> "Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it.
>> 
>> And how exactly do you prove that God told you to do it?
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
> <Deliberately begs the question>
> It says so in our Holy Book.
> The Holy Book is the Word of God.
> Therefore God told us to do it.
> 
> Also... God exists because our Holy Book says so.
> Since the Holy Book is the Word of God, it cannot be wrong

Now we need a non-tautological way of answering the question.  The legal 
system here in the US tends to frown on tautology as justification.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:39:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/01/2014 9:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 01/01/2014 8:59 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> Bikes are not in the holy book.
>>
>> You have lost all creditability, now.
> 
> P.S. Bike sheds have a sacred place in the heart of every British
> schoolboy. (Of a certain type.)

Orange.  That's what colour it should be. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 6:19 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Except, of course, in the US if you hear voices, you tend to be thought
> of as being nuts.

That's why it, generally, doesn't come out until the trial. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 6:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:39:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 01/01/2014 9:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2014 8:59 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>> Bikes are not in the holy book.
>>>
>>> You have lost all creditability, now.
>>
>> P.S. Bike sheds have a sacred place in the heart of every British
>> schoolboy. (Of a certain type.)
>
> Orange.  That's what colour it should be. ;)
>

Now, there is a colour, you could march to.
(If you are a bigot.) :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Uh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong..

Fine. Women should take no precautions *at all* to try to lower the risks.
Why bother? They are going to get raped anyway.

I'm almost tempted to call you a nasty name.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> Well as a Christian I can tell you that the reason that I do not kill 
> witches or homosexuals or Sabbath-breakers is not because I have let the 
> commandments be trumped, but rather because those commandments were not 
> given to me in he first place.

I know that excuse, but it misses the point.

It doesn't matter if God gave those commandments to everybody or only
to the hebrews, and it doesn't matter if the judiciary system to enact
those commandments is nowadays in place or not. The point is that God
did give those commandments, which means that God thinks they are good
and just. And if you are completely honest (as you should be, if you
are a Christian), then you would agree that you do *not* think those
commandments are good and just. The very fact that you would never
stone someone to death in any circumstance (much less for such a
"heinous" crime as breaking the sabbath or being rude to your parents)
shows that you do not think it's just punishment. If you are honest
to yourself, you will agree with this.

In other words, you disagree with your God.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:38:51 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Well as a Christian I can tell you that the reason that I do not kill
>> witches or homosexuals or Sabbath-breakers is not because I have let the
>> commandments be trumped, but rather because those commandments were not
>> given to me in he first place.
>
> I know that excuse, but it misses the point.
>
> It doesn't matter if God gave those commandments to everybody or only
> to the hebrews, and it doesn't matter if the judiciary system to enact
> those commandments is nowadays in place or not. The point is that God
> did give those commandments, which means that God thinks they are good
> and just. And if you are completely honest (as you should be, if you
> are a Christian), then you would agree that you do *not* think those
> commandments are good and just. The very fact that you would never
> stone someone to death in any circumstance (much less for such a
> "heinous" crime as breaking the sabbath or being rude to your parents)
> shows that you do not think it's just punishment. If you are honest
> to yourself, you will agree with this.
>
> In other words, you disagree with your God.
>

Sin is sin and God hates sin but He loves us. Sin deserves death. That is  
why Jesus died for our sins in our place - because we cannot do it  
correctly out of ourselves. When we are one with Jesus, we do His will.  
Jesus let the woman that was caught in idolatry free, yet with the words  
"Sin no more".

If we love sin we won't want Jesus. Heaven is open to everyone. Heaven  
belongs to Jesus and if you don't want to go to Jesus, you don't have to.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 11:27 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Sin is sin and God hates sin

Then why did he create it?
(Gnostic arguments accepted.)

Why did He endow us with the capacity to sin?

More to the point. Who defines what is sin?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Sin is sin and God hates sin but He loves us. Sin deserves death. That is  
> why Jesus died for our sins in our place - because we cannot do it  
> correctly out of ourselves. When we are one with Jesus, we do His will.  
> Jesus let the woman that was caught in idolatry free, yet with the words  
> "Sin no more".

> If we love sin we won't want Jesus. Heaven is open to everyone. Heaven  
> belongs to Jesus and if you don't want to go to Jesus, you don't have to.

But the question is: Would you stone someone to death because they worked
on sabbath day?

And please try to understand my point. I'm not asking if the commandment
was given to gentiles. I'm not asking if the old testament judiciary
system is still in place to enact these punisments. I'm asking if you
*honestly* think that it's a good and just punishment, and therefore
would have no problem in participating in its enactment.

If you answer yes, then please don't be offended if I say that I don't
believe you. If you answer yes, I think that you are only compelled to
do so because else you would face a contradiction in your own beliefs.
If you are completely honest, you would agree that the punishment is
both barbaric and completely disproportionate, and that you would never
personally grab a stone and throw it to kill someone, no matter what
they did.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:05:54 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Sin is sin and God hates sin but He loves us. Sin deserves death. That  
>> is
>> why Jesus died for our sins in our place - because we cannot do it
>> correctly out of ourselves. When we are one with Jesus, we do His will.
>> Jesus let the woman that was caught in idolatry free, yet with the words
>> "Sin no more".
>
>> If we love sin we won't want Jesus. Heaven is open to everyone. Heaven
>> belongs to Jesus and if you don't want to go to Jesus, you don't have  
>> to.
>
> But the question is: Would you stone someone to death because they worked
> on sabbath day?
>
> And please try to understand my point. I'm not asking if the commandment
> was given to gentiles. I'm not asking if the old testament judiciary
> system is still in place to enact these punisments. I'm asking if you
> *honestly* think that it's a good and just punishment, and therefore
> would have no problem in participating in its enactment.
>
> If you answer yes, then please don't be offended if I say that I don't
> believe you. If you answer yes, I think that you are only compelled to
> do so because else you would face a contradiction in your own beliefs.
> If you are completely honest, you would agree that the punishment is
> both barbaric and completely disproportionate, and that you would never
> personally grab a stone and throw it to kill someone, no matter what
> they did.
>

No. But it was "politically correct" for that time.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:10:47 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 02/01/2014 6:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:39:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/01/2014 9:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/2014 8:59 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>> Bikes are not in the holy book.
>>>>
>>>> You have lost all creditability, now.
>>>
>>> P.S. Bike sheds have a sacred place in the heart of every British
>>> schoolboy. (Of a certain type.)
>>
>> Orange.  That's what colour it should be. ;)
>>
>>
> Now, there is a colour, you could march to.
> (If you are a bigot.) :-(

Ah, yes, I didn't think about that in the discussion.  Sorry, let's try a 
different one.

Blue.

(Aside:  You do know what "bikeshedding" is, yes?)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:07:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 02/01/2014 6:19 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Except, of course, in the US if you hear voices, you tend to be thought
>> of as being nuts.
> 
> That's why it, generally, doesn't come out until the trial. :-)

Well, sometimes it does, but it does because there wasn't a need to go to 
trial - there was a need to go to a hospital instead.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:27:38 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> If we love sin we won't want Jesus.

And people say that saying "Happy Holidays" is hate speech.

Some of us do just fine without Jesus, thank you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2014 20:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:10:47 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/2014 6:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:39:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/01/2014 9:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 01/01/2014 8:59 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>>> Bikes are not in the holy book.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have lost all creditability, now.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Bike sheds have a sacred place in the heart of every British
>>>> schoolboy. (Of a certain type.)
>>>
>>> Orange.  That's what colour it should be. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Now, there is a colour, you could march to.
>> (If you are a bigot.) :-(
>
> Ah, yes, I didn't think about that in the discussion.  Sorry, let's try a
> different one.
>
> Blue.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RDlUlTR1xXc/UYBH7JMnrxI/AAAAAAAACFA/mEZ4NH6UbYg/s1600/tumblr_mm2mx0hnmy1qzjmo0o1_1280.jpg

orange dressed in blue.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 7:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >>Orange.  That's what colour it should be.;)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >Now, there is a colour, you could march to.
>> >(If you are a bigot.):-(
> Ah, yes, I didn't think about that in the discussion.  Sorry, let's try a
> different one.
>
> Blue.
>

There is many an Orange man who is a blue nose as well.


> (Aside:  You do know what "bikeshedding" is, yes?)

Yes and that is why I always spec a bike shed with a penthouse and patio 
doors. That way I might get a shed for bikes.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 7:47 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RDlUlTR1xXc/UYBH7JMnrxI/AAAAAAAACFA/mEZ4NH6UbYg/s1600/tumblr_mm2mx0hnmy1qzjmo0o1_1280.jpg
>
>
> orange dressed in blue.

There is no need to bring that house into it. ;-)
Or maybe there is.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:47:00 +0100, andrel wrote:

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RDlUlTR1xXc/UYBH7JMnrxI/AAAAAAAACFA/
mEZ4NH6UbYg/s1600/tumblr_mm2mx0hnmy1qzjmo0o1_1280.jpg
> 
> orange dressed in blue.

I'm not understanding the reference...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 21:03:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 02/01/2014 7:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> >>Orange.  That's what colour it should be.;)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>> >Now, there is a colour, you could march to.
>>> >(If you are a bigot.):-(
>> Ah, yes, I didn't think about that in the discussion.  Sorry, let's try
>> a different one.
>>
>> Blue.
>>
>>
> There is many an Orange man who is a blue nose as well.

Green? ;)

>> (Aside:  You do know what "bikeshedding" is, yes?)
> 
> Yes and that is why I always spec a bike shed with a penthouse and patio
> doors. That way I might get a shed for bikes.

But the discussion is about what colour it should be. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/2/2014 3:31 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Uh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong..
>
> Fine. Women should take no precautions *at all* to try to lower the risks.
> Why bother? They are going to get raped anyway.
>
> I'm almost tempted to call you a nasty name.
>
Sigh... Seriously? The problem here isn't that someone should take "no" 
precautions. The problem is taking "imaginary" ones, which do nothing 
but promote the excuses used to both get criminal off the hook, and 
shame women into thinking, "I should have done something different.", 
even when it was impossible to have done anything different. Slut 
shaming is ***NOT*** acceptable, but its exactly what happens, every 
single damn time a rape happens, and some idiots starts rattling off a 
list of things they "might have" done differently, while having no F-ing 
clue what the hell they did, or didn't, do, or based on a laundry list 
of myths and stupid assumptions.

You will note that one "huge" one is, "Don't drink, or get high, it 
increases your risk." Well.. That one doesn't help a whole hell of a lot 
either, in cases where there really is a predator of some sort involved. 
I know someone who has a family history of drinking problems, so knows 
what the risks are, and avoids having more than maybe one drink, who, at 
a concert, was one of about 100 victims of some idiot that decided to 
dump some sort of drug into people's drinks. Her boyfriend at the time 
was the only person, including he father (a man with problems with 
alcoholism), her mother, most of her friend, and complete strangers, who 
all "assumed" she had gotten stinking drunk, not had half a drink, into 
which someone dumped something else. And, even he didn't figure it out 
until halfway home, when he thought back about things and realized that 
a) she never had more than the one drink in her hand, b) he was with her 
the whole entire time, and c) there is no way in hell she should be that 
blitzed from it.

The default assumption, by bloody everyone, was that **she** screwed up 
somehow. But, again, this is one woman, out of hundreds, who reported 
something having been slipped into their drinks, without them knowing 
it. Are you going to tell me that she wasn't careful enough? That she 
was dressed wrong? That she shouldn't have drank anything at all? That 
more than a hundred of women, none of whom saw it get slipped into their 
drinks where all just too stupid to notice? If she had been alone, what 
are the odds you would have just chocked this up as, "Shouldn't have 
been alone, drinking, while wearing what ever it was she was wearing at 
the time."?

You don't want to know what kinds of names I like to call people that 
can't bloody GET THIS.

How are "delusional" precautions helpful? If 2/3 of all rapes are done 
by people they know, what the frak "precautions" do you expect from 
them? If what they wear, where they are, and just about everything 
"other" than intentionally taking higher than normal risks, while drunk 
off their ass, neither increases, nor decreases, their risks, then who 
the hell are you to be judging them for meaningless choices, or claiming 
they "should have taken more precautions"?

Its not about taking "no" precautions, its about actually knowing what 
the fuck the risks really are, and what really, actually does increase 
them, and, at least as importantly, not, unintentionally, playing the 
bullshit game that the rapists, and their apologists, want everyone to, 
and blaming the victim for what happened, but accusing them of having 
too short a skirt, of walking down the wrong road, or some other 
statistically useless, but very useful for some people, excuses.

In short, stop being a useful idiot to these people. Treat the victims 
as smart intelligent people, until/unless there is a damn good reason to 
not, who didn't take some sort of imaginary risks, and, in most cases, 
probably couldn't have done a bloody thing to reduce them, not as, 
somehow, by default, automatically, and, without any need of facts or 
evidence, culpable in what happened.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 12:20 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:47:00 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RDlUlTR1xXc/UYBH7JMnrxI/AAAAAAAACFA/
> mEZ4NH6UbYg/s1600/tumblr_mm2mx0hnmy1qzjmo0o1_1280.jpg
>>
>> orange dressed in blue.
>
> I'm not understanding the reference...
>
She is of the House of Orange. The same way our Queen is of the House of 
Windsor. Previously the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 12:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 21:03:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/2014 7:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>> Orange.  That's what colour it should be.;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Now, there is a colour, you could march to.
>>>>> (If you are a bigot.):-(
>>> Ah, yes, I didn't think about that in the discussion.  Sorry, let's try
>>> a different one.
>>>
>>> Blue.
>>>
>>>
>> There is many an Orange man who is a blue nose as well.
>
> Green? ;)
>

If you want.

I have no opinions on the matter. (See everyone, it can be said. :-) )


>>> (Aside:  You do know what "bikeshedding" is, yes?)
>>
>> Yes and that is why I always spec a bike shed with a penthouse and patio
>> doors. That way I might get a shed for bikes.
>
> But the discussion is about what colour it should be. ;)
>

Why? Is it a religious thing? It is in Northern Ireland and the West 
coast of Scotland.

The school that I went to was an urban school and it was near the 
junction of two main thoroughfares. Cycling was a contra survival thing, 
hence we had no bike shed. The bogs were the place to go, to smoke and 
be tough.

So to keep in the spirit, I will say.
Large red sandstone blocks, blackened with age, and white porcelain tiles.




-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > I'm almost tempted to call you a nasty name.
> >
> Sigh... Seriously? The problem here isn't that someone should take "no" 
> precautions. The problem is taking "imaginary" ones, which do nothing 
> but promote the excuses used to both get criminal off the hook, and 
> shame women into thinking, "I should have done something different.", 
> even when it was impossible to have done anything different. Slut 
> shaming is ***NOT*** acceptable, but its exactly what happens, every 
> single damn time a rape happens, and some idiots starts rattling off a 
> list of things they "might have" done differently, while having no F-ing 
> clue what the hell they did, or didn't, do, or based on a laundry list 
> of myths and stupid assumptions.

Ok, I'm so tempted that I can't resist it anymore: You are fucking moron.

Someone trying to be helpful is not "slut shaming". Go fuck yourself.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I know someone who

Btw, how about we start citing sources rather than just relaying
personal anecdotes? I'll start:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/Pages/increased-risk.aspx
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/Pages/decrease-risk.aspx

"In particular, certain actions reduce the risk of rape more than
80 percent compared to nonresistance."

Your sources, please?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message