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

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:32:07 -0500, Warp wrote:

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

That's really mature, Warp.  Way to go.

<slow clap>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:09:51 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> Green? ;)
>>
>>
> If you want.
> 
> I have no opinions on the matter. (See everyone, it can be said. :-) )
> 

LOL

> 
>>>> (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.

I guess you don't know what it is....

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding is a good summary. :)

> 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.

That's the way to do it. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 06:09:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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.

Ah, I see.  I don't tend to notice stuff like that. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:38:26 +0200, Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom>  
wrote:


> 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.

I can agree with that. You get people raping babies and grannies - that  
has nothing to do with dress code.
Another problem concerning this is fake rape claims where a girl claims  
some-one has raped them only later to recant and say they just didn't like  
his attitude or something or wanted to pat him back for something silly. I  
have heard many accounts of girls claiming their teacher has raped them  
and recant afterwards. And again the innocent one's life is destroyed.
On the other hand, because of things like this a rape victim has to  
produce proof and keep reliving the ordeal in order to prosecute - if she  
ever finds the strength to do it. Many are just too scared or ashamed.
-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's really mature, Warp.  Way to go.

> <slow clap>

The irony in your behavior is quite amusing. You are really behaving
like a 5yo who has learned a new insult.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 18:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:09:51 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> So to keep in the spirit, I will say.
>> Large red sandstone blocks, blackened with age, and white porcelain
>> tiles.
>
> That's the way to do it. :)
>
> Jim
>
No, no, no! It clearly states in Profits 3:5:6 sub-para 54 that:
'There shall be blocks shaped in a medium size and they shall be of a 
colour that is not anathema in my sight nor shall they be discoloured. 
Yea, and the tiles shall be of magnolia in colour nor shall they be 
cream nor yet white.'

Ye sons of Beelzebub. Your perversion of the Word is blasphemous.

Stone them, I say. Stone them!

John (still at work)

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 10:15 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Stone them, I say. Stone them!

No sooner said than done.
Man! ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:15:36 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 03/01/2014 18:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:09:51 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>> So to keep in the spirit, I will say.
>>> Large red sandstone blocks, blackened with age, and white porcelain
>>> tiles.
>>
>> That's the way to do it. :)
>>
>> Jim
>>
> No, no, no! It clearly states in Profits 3:5:6 sub-para 54 that: 'There
> shall be blocks shaped in a medium size and they shall be of a colour
> that is not anathema in my sight nor shall they be discoloured.
> Yea, and the tiles shall be of magnolia in colour nor shall they be
> cream nor yet white.'
> 
> Ye sons of Beelzebub. Your perversion of the Word is blasphemous.
> 
> Stone them, I say. Stone them!

Oh, no, I wasn't commenting on the correctness of the suggested design, 
but rather on the procedure.  The suggested design sounds ... well, 
actually, not too bad. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 23:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Oh, no, I wasn't commenting on the correctness of the suggested design,
> but rather on the procedure.  The suggested design sounds ... well,
> actually, not too bad. :)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
Stone him, stone him!

John

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 00:19:33 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 03/01/2014 23:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Oh, no, I wasn't commenting on the correctness of the suggested design,
>> but rather on the procedure.  The suggested design sounds ... well,
>> actually, not too bad. :)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
> Stone him, stone him!

After we move to Washington, I'll be in a place where it's legal to be 
stoned. (though that's not really my thing).

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 6:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:09:51 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Green? ;)
>>>
>>>
>> If you want.
>>
>> I have no opinions on the matter. (See everyone, it can be said. :-) )
>>
>
> LOL
>
>>
>>>>> (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.
>
> I guess you don't know what it is....
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding is a good summary. :)
>

Similar to what I understand it to mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2014 6:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 06:09:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Ah, I see.  I don't tend to notice stuff like that. :)
>

No reason that you should.
I have worked with the Lowlanders quite a bit recently and it shows a 
certain awareness to know who your co-workers monarch is. I would sell 
our lot for a mess of pottage but not everyone is like that.
BTW Did you know that Belgium has a new king?

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:23:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding is a good summary.
>>
>>
> Similar to what I understand it to mean.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality

Yep.

The explanation I initially had been given was something along the lines 
that people contribute to the discussion of the colour because they can - 
they may not know anything about construction, building codes, etc - but 
they can have an opinion on the colour, so they provide it so they're 
"participating."

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:32:19 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> No reason that you should.
> I have worked with the Lowlanders quite a bit recently and it shows a
> certain awareness to know who your co-workers monarch is. I would sell
> our lot for a mess of pottage but not everyone is like that.

That makes sense, I guess.

> BTW Did you know that Belgium has a new king?

Nope.

The only royal I'm somewhat interested in hearing news of is Theresa, the 
Crown Princess of Lichtenstein. ;)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 1/3/2014 2:32 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
But, you are not being helpful to give bad advice.

See, the problem here is that some of the advice is bloody useless. You 
rattled off a list of "common" suggestions, of which maybe 1 of them 
wasn't useless. A year ago I would have done the exact same thing, 
then.. I listened to victims of rape, I read their accounts, and found 
out what is and isn't true about the subject. Now.. I get a bit pissed 
when I see the same nonsense trotted out.

Here is the thing - A few months back someone put up a post about 
"their" experience and why they don't trust either cops, or the courts, 
to do what is right when it comes to rape cases. This was the script 
that got followed, both times she actually reported it:

1. The cops initially don't believe it.

2. They spend hours going over not what the rapist did, but every nit 
picky little idiocy possible, from what she was wearing to what she 
said, how hard she fought back, if at all (never mind the guy is usually 
stronger, and resistance could get you killed in some cases). In other 
words, about 5 minutes of, "Who was it, and we did he do?", and 1:55 
minutes of them making someone who had been abused, beaten, and raped, 
feel even more like shit, by trying to come up with some bloody stupid 
ass excuse for why it was, at least in part, her fault, and therefor, 
the cops wouldn't have to arrest someone.

3. Harassment from various people, including acquaintances, some of them 
the friends of the rapist themselves, the press, and other media, etc. 
Many of them didn't want it to be true, insisting she must have, on some 
level wanted, it, or asking them "what did you do wrong".

4. When months later, it came to court, she had to sit on the witness 
stand and go through the whole damned experience, all over again, 
including an all new interrogation, just like the 2 hours she spent with 
the cops, to start with, only to have the bloody jury believe the 
rapist's excuses, and let him off.

Guess how many **women** posted on to that article who claimed that this 
sort of thing wasn't "common", that the list of "concerns" where valid, 
that any of the advice about what they wore, or not, and other similar 
things **ever** protected them either, or that they had a different 
experience when going to the cops, or in court, when it finally came to 
a trial? But, there where dozens of men showing up, to offer advice, all 
of it in the same vein of, "Well, if only you had done this instead.", 
or, "What where you wearing at the time?"

Maybe I shouldn't have jumped all over you like I did, but.. no matter 
how much you might have intended to help, pretty much every rape victim 
in the world, on reading your advice, would be cursing you for being a 
fool. Your intent doesn't matter. Its whether or not your advice isn't 
something every single damn one of them heard before it happened 
already, but proved, when it did happen, to be meaningless, and then, 
heard again, over and over again, from people who either wanted to, 
"help them avoid it next time", or, "should have done, but didn't".

To put it in simplest terms - men get raped too, but only the women ever 
get useless advice about what they are wearing, or where they where 
walking, etc. And, to paraphrase the author of that, and several other 
blog posts on the subject, "The problem isn't what the women are doing, 
its the assumption that those things should matter, combined with men 
who haven't learned to truly respect women, instead of seeing them as 
objects to be pursued, and, for some, taken." That, and.. what ever the 
"intent", thinking that its "helpful" to give out advice about their 
lipstick, or clothing, or anything else, while presuming that men, for 
some reason, don't need to worry about this the same way, proved the point.

Rape isn't "natural", its not someone men "must do", or are "force by" 
their biology to commit. It happens because men are told to assume that 
women dressing a certain way "want it", that coercion is a valid way to 
get women into bed, that "no" doesn't **always** mean no, that somehow 
they "deserve" something for the effort, and.. that all of these stupid 
assumptions, but the men that do commit rapes, can somehow be avoided by 
dressing the right way, staying in lit places, hanging out with the 
right friends, and a long list of other bad advice. The women are not 
the ones that need to be fixed, and most of the ways people trot out, 
all with the best intentions, to, "reduce the risk", don't, because they 
have nothing ***at all*** to do with why, where, how, and when rape happens.

But, if you really feel so strongly that I am being unfair, take it up 
with the people that woke me up to how bloody stupid this advice usually 
is, and made me agree enough about it to jump at someone so strongly for 
giving it:

http://skepchick.org/2013/08/when-i-didnt-consent-why-i-reported-why-i-didnt/

Or, the reaction some of those previous victims have to some similar 
"advice/product" intended to "protect" people (two women, who I like to 
think are badly confused have come up with "underwear", which is 
inconvenient, stupid, and silly, based on the faulty assumption that 
someone with a knife is going to be trying to rape the person wearing 
it, out in the scary world, and not "at home", with someone who might 
already have it off, assuming any woman would actually want to wear 
these things in their own home, or anyplace else they feel safe, in the 
first place, by the time they cross a line and get told to piss off and 
go away):

http://skepchick.org/2013/11/scienceburqas/

I doubt they will be any more enthused by your misguided attempt to "help".

Post a reply to this message

On 1/3/2014 6:01 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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?
>
A campus is not the rest of the world, and the statistics "do" differ 
between there and other places. That tends to happen, when you cram a 
lot of people, in a specific age group, many of which seem to presume 
that one purpose of college is to party and get laid, in one place. And, 
I never said "all", advice was bad advice. What I objected to was most 
of the stuff you came up with as "advice".

Post a reply to this message

On 1/3/2014 1:55 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Another problem concerning this is fake rape claims where a girl claims
> some-one has raped them only later to recant and say they just didn't
> like his attitude or something or wanted to pat him back for something
> silly.

You have no clue a) how uncommon that really is, and b) how much shit 
women go through, even when it is legitimate, which might result in them 
"wanting" to recant it, even if it did happen. So.. Don't go there. I 
refer you to the same thing I posted in the other comment:

http://skepchick.org/2013/08/when-i-didnt-consent-why-i-reported-why-i-didnt/ 


This is why even many of those "recanted" cases are not really 
recanting, and at least one of the reasons why so many rapes never get 
reported at all, even when they *are* real.

Anyone else want to trot out one of the endless excuses for why its 
either, "not the guys fault, or didn't happen, or isn't really that big 
of a problem"? The "false rape" thing is vastly rarer than people claim, 
and is just one more reason used by MRAs (Men's Right Association) types 
to claim that "no" rape is ever rape, among other things. What sort of 
people do you think "intentionally" spread it, right along with the ones 
that do it unintentionally, because, despite having no statistics to 
back up the claim, "Everyone knows it happens a lot."

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-01-04 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You have no clue a) how uncommon that really is, and b) how much shit
> women go through, even when it is legitimate, which might result in them
> "wanting" to recant it, even if it did happen. So.. Don't go there. I
> refer you to the same thing I posted in the other comment:

While it is important to understand the significance of item b), it's 
also important to understand that

> http://skepchick.org  [snip]

is in fact a particular subset of the larger population of women. 
Despite the overall message of some of the posts on that site, not every 
moment of every woman's life is a living hell, forever, even if you're a 
non-white transgendered woman.

Not saying that life doesn't suck, but...if it sucked /that/ much? 
People would be killing themselves a /lot more often/ than they are.

(Though I will say that, for myself, the greatest gift I can give my 
hypothetical children is to never have them, because The World.)

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> A campus is not the rest of the world, and the statistics "do" differ 
> between there and other places. That tends to happen, when you cram a 
> lot of people, in a specific age group, many of which seem to presume 
> that one purpose of college is to party and get laid, in one place. And, 
> I never said "all", advice was bad advice. What I objected to was most 
> of the stuff you came up with as "advice".

Firstly, if such a study shows that actions can be taken to reduce the
risk of rape in one community, and that they have a significant effect,
then it's not unreasonable to deduce that actions can be taken in other
communities as well. Or do you have actual credible sources that say
otherwise?

Secondly, I didn't say "they should do this or that". What I said was
that it's a good thing to try to figure out what could be done to reduce
the risks, and listed some things that could be studied to see if there
is some correlation.

What really irks me is when someone comes up and calls the act of actually
trying to do something with names like "slut shaming". Trying to *help*
prevent rapes is not victim blaming. Insulting people who do so is
disgusting.

Such an attitude is only detrimental. It gives women the notion that
"you are just a helpless victim and there's nothing you can do about it.
Don't let people tell you otherwise, they are just victim blaming you."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:28:13 +0200, Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom>  
wrote:

> On 1/3/2014 1:55 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Another problem concerning this is fake rape claims where a girl claims
>> some-one has raped them only later to recant and say they just didn't
>> like his attitude or something or wanted to pat him back for something
>> silly.
>
> You have no clue a) how uncommon that really is,
I do. I just thought it was worth mentioning since I haven't seen it  
mentioned in this post.

and b) how much shit
> women go through, even when it is legitimate, which might result in them  
> "wanting" to recant it, even if it did happen. So.. Don't go there. I  
> refer you to the same thing I posted in the other comment:
>

True. I should have mentioned that as well.



-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 04/01/2014 10:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:23:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding is a good summary.
>>>
>>>
>> Similar to what I understand it to mean.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality
>
> Yep.
>
> The explanation I initially had been given was something along the lines
> that people contribute to the discussion of the colour because they can -
> they may not know anything about construction, building codes, etc - but
> they can have an opinion on the colour, so they provide it so they're
> "participating."
>
>

My understanding is that people will accept the big picture as described 
by the "experts" because they don't feel competent to question it. But 
for smaller projects they will talk it to death. As anyone can build a 
"bikeshed".

Just like cooking. Everyone will tell you how to cook and may feal that 
they could open a restaurant because they can cook for a dinner party.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/01/2014 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The only royal I'm somewhat interested in hearing news of is Theresa, the
> Crown Princess of Lichtenstein.;)

Into a bit of Necro, are we> ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 23:59:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> My understanding is that people will accept the big picture as described
> by the "experts" because they don't feel competent to question it. But
> for smaller projects they will talk it to death. As anyone can build a
> "bikeshed".

Ultimately, the two explanations aren't that different.  It's about 
peoples' feeling of competence, and that they need to contribute 
something, so they do when there's something they feel they can 
legitimately have an opinion about.  I may not have an opinion on the 
merits of using fir vs. pine, but I can have an opinion about what colour 
it is, and since I can have one, I should so I can be seen to be 
participating in the discussion.

The things that require a lower amount (or no) expertise on tend to draw 
more discussion than the things that require a higher degree of 
expertise, so you end up with a larger discussion about what colour the 
hypothetical bikeshed should be than about whether (say) the ground is 
solid enough to support the weight of the shed and its contents.

Or indeed about the structure of a house vs. the shed in the back yard.

> Just like cooking. Everyone will tell you how to cook and may feal that
> they could open a restaurant because they can cook for a dinner party.

Yep.

Which is why so many restaurants fail - cooking is a small portion of 
running that kind of business.  Obviously you have to be competent at 
purchasing, pricing, marketing, portion sizing, and a ton of other things.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:01:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 04/01/2014 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The only royal I'm somewhat interested in hearing news of is Theresa,
>> the Crown Princess of Lichtenstein.;)
> 
> Into a bit of Necro, are we> ;-)

No, I just want to know how Martin gets on. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 4-1-2014 11:32, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 6:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 06:09:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ah, I see.  I don't tend to notice stuff like that. :)
>>

<sorry guys, been not so much on-line lately because some physician was 
trying to modify my nose>
> No reason that you should.

It is the same house that also gave rise to the orangemen, so I though 
that it might be clear from context.

> I have worked with the Lowlanders quite a bit recently and it shows a
> certain awareness to know who your co-workers monarch is. I would sell
> our lot for a mess of pottage but not everyone is like that.
> BTW Did you know that Belgium has a new king?

I did, but Belgium is very near. I might be wrong but I think our 
succession was much better prepared and orchestrated. (And we had the 
better dress for the Queen).



-- 
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 1/5/2014 2:39 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> A campus is not the rest of the world, and the statistics "do" differ
>> between there and other places. That tends to happen, when you cram a
>> lot of people, in a specific age group, many of which seem to presume
>> that one purpose of college is to party and get laid, in one place. And,
>> I never said "all", advice was bad advice. What I objected to was most
>> of the stuff you came up with as "advice".
>
> Firstly, if such a study shows that actions can be taken to reduce the
> risk of rape in one community, and that they have a significant effect,
> then it's not unreasonable to deduce that actions can be taken in other
> communities as well. Or do you have actual credible sources that say
> otherwise?
>
And.. if this was true in all cases, there would, I presume, be a) other 
studies, and/or b) it wouldn't contradict prior facts?

You are correct that I don't have a study I can quote. The problem is 
that one study, by itself, may as well be annecdotal, for all its worth 
until properly replicated, there are at least some psychologist who are 
putting such studies under fire **precisely** because so much of them 
tend to be done on campuses, in the same environment, and often using 
subjects who "volunteer", which they can't say for certain isn't already 
a biased group, and finally, you can't explain away decades of 
statistics, which suggest that some behaviors seem to have no impact, at 
all, on such cases, based on one study, of things in one specialized 
environment.

> Secondly, I didn't say "they should do this or that". What I said was
> that it's a good thing to try to figure out what could be done to reduce
> the risks, and listed some things that could be studied to see if there
> is some correlation.
>
> What really irks me is when someone comes up and calls the act of actually
> trying to do something with names like "slut shaming".  Trying to *help*
> prevent rapes is not victim blaming. Insulting people who do so is
> disgusting.
>
Using the same arguments for what they "should have done", or "didn't 
do", or how, "next time you can be more careful by doing these things, 
so is partly your fault it happened", however **is**, and that is 
precisely what you see, in every news report, every blog post, every 
discussion by arm chair experts on what someone did wrong, even if they 
don't have the facts, and for all they know, did every single thing on 
the list. Its not about what ***you*** intended, or tried to do, its 
about how the that "advice" get missed used, the moment someone actually 
becomes victim, and how, maybe, some of it isn't a sound as one study 
might imply.

I don't think that is wrong to try to help. I wasn't calling the attempt 
slut shaming, or victim blaming, things like clothing choice, and the 
like ***are*** used for both, all the damn time, which makes binging 
them up, as part of a list of options, problematic, even if, in some 
specific cases, and/or ways, they may be meaningful. The problem being 
precisely that a) they are not specific, b) they may differ, greatly, 
depending on the community and its own standards, and c) may not be 
meaningful at all, in other contexts.

Basic logic would imply, to use "clothing choice" as the best example of 
this problem, that if dressing "provocatively" was the issue, not the 
perception, locally to the rape case, of what the hell that even means, 
then the prevalence of bikinis and European nude beaches would "both" 
show some sort of drastic increases, due to the "provocative" nature of 
the dress, or lack there of, compared to "normal" clothing. You might 
even find a "statistical connection", by doing your "study" at a bunch 
of beaches during Spring Break. After all, its where you can find a huge 
number of people in both states, even in the US, and.. well, the 
specific conditions, context and environment can't possibly be a factor, 
right?

That is precisely why, that specific "advice" is itself possibly way 
less useful that it seems. Its purely arbitrary to the local conditions. 
Provocative, in Iran, vs. 50 years ago in the US, vs. 99% of the beaches 
today, vs. a nudist colony, are **all different**. Are campuses, never 
mind communities, supposed to post big signs everyplace, which say, 
"This will keep you safe from the nuts, while this other picture will 
get you attacked"? Are they supposed to just "know", or do you set some 
arbitrary standard of "safe", and tell them all to stick to that, while 
calling all the ones that get raped anyway, "anomalous statistics".

That is the problem with some of the "advice". Its only meaningful, if 
at all, in context, and even then, no one has a damn clue what the 
context is in any given place. Even when the context is, "Women can only 
be protected by wearing a sack, which doesn't even let you see their 
eyes.", it happens anyway, too often, and, if anything, the excuses for 
why they did something wrong, and the men didn't, just get worse and 
worse, the closer you get to that.

It also doesn't help when you have polar opposite statistics - like the 
one person posting on one of those blogs, or maybe someplace else where 
the subject came up, who stated that they had been to many parties, 
gotten drunk enough to pass out at a few of them, but never been raped, 
**ever** despite horrible choices, over drinking, and doing every single 
thing wrong, but she knew a guy who had been raped (the definition here 
being without consent, or even, in his case, awareness), several times, 
by woman, at some of the same parties, because *he* passed out on the couch.

No, what gives women the idea that they are helpless victims is doing 
everything "right" according to these lists, not being believed, having 
people try to claim that they made it up, having the cops treat them 
like shit, then their friends, and other people around them, then, if 
they do get to court, going through it all over again, and, all the 
time, being asked, "Did you say no?", "Who where you with?", "What did 
you do?", "How long was your dress?", "What else where you wearing?", 
and on, and on.

By all means, give advice. But, make sure its advice that actually means 
something. As am sure I said in the prior post, your "intent" isn't as 
important as whether or not it was good advice. And.. there are 
thousands of victims, decades of statistics, whole websites dedicated to 
the facts, and myths, or rape and what, if anything, increases, and 
decreases the risks, and you have... one study, done on a campus, a 
practice even psychologists are questioning the value of, as something 
you can extrapolate real data, about any other environment, from.

If I somehow unintentionally implied that you where either slut shaming, 
or victim blaming.. then, I definitely apologize for the former, but.. 
the latter can be done "accidentally" by simply failing to recognize 
that what is "advice" to someone trying to "help", is victim blaming to 
people who are only hearing, "Well, here goes the usual list 'advice' 
everyone gives, after the fact.", or even an attempt at making excuses 
for the perpetrator, if its, in fact, given in the context of someone 
who "has" had it happen to them.

Given that this is precisely how it gets used.. out of the context of 
saying, "Such and such study says...", and still risking getting ripped 
to shreds by women who have heard it all before, and have good reason to 
think its bull, isn't it just "possibly" detrimental to give advice that 
the victims themselves are likely to turn around and say, "Great, yet 
another one that has no clue what they are talking about!"?

I really suggest you actually read the accounts of the people that have 
gone through it, what they got told, what they did, or didn't do, what 
advice did, or didn't work, and what they, not some study, think the 
problem(s) really are. That would be a good way to do something useful. 
Using one single study, whose advice is practically a bumper sticker for 
everything people say anyway, and never helps... *that*, I tend to 
suspect, is way less helpful that you hope.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/4/2014 8:13 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-04 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You have no clue a) how uncommon that really is, and b) how much shit
>> women go through, even when it is legitimate, which might result in them
>> "wanting" to recant it, even if it did happen. So.. Don't go there. I
>> refer you to the same thing I posted in the other comment:
>
> While it is important to understand the significance of item b), it's
> also important to understand that
>
>> http://skepchick.org  [snip]
>
> is in fact a particular subset of the larger population of women.
> Despite the overall message of some of the posts on that site, not every
> moment of every woman's life is a living hell, forever, even if you're a
> non-white transgendered woman.
>
> Not saying that life doesn't suck, but...if it sucked /that/ much?
> People would be killing themselves a /lot more often/ than they are.
>
> (Though I will say that, for myself, the greatest gift I can give my
> hypothetical children is to never have them, because The World.)

I posted that site because its the one I could remember how to find an 
article on. Its not the **only** place I have read the same things from. 
And.. you are seriously suggesting that only a certain "sort" of women 
post there, or in the comment threads, and that somehow their experience 
is therefore atypical of what goes on? Based on what exactly?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/5/2014 3:24 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:28:13 +0200, Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/3/2014 1:55 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> Another problem concerning this is fake rape claims where a girl claims
>>> some-one has raped them only later to recant and say they just didn't
>>> like his attitude or something or wanted to pat him back for something
>>> silly.
>>
>> You have no clue a) how uncommon that really is,
> I do. I just thought it was worth mentioning since I haven't seen it
> mentioned in this post.
>
> and b) how much shit
>> women go through, even when it is legitimate, which might result in
>> them "wanting" to recant it, even if it did happen. So.. Don't go
>> there. I refer you to the same thing I posted in the other comment:
>>
>
> True. I should have mentioned that as well.
>
Ah, well. Sorry then. Its almost par for the course in such discussions 
that when someone says, "Oh, and then there are the ones making it up.", 
it ends up devolving, at some point, into them trying to claim "all of 
them" make it up. Heck, its practically a urban myth, truism, and 
"obvious fact" in the minds of some parts of the population, especially 
among men younger than, maybe 30, that it *is* an undisputed fact, and 
way too many of the ones older than that.

When a presenter can't even have a couple of drinks at the hotel bar, 
after speaking, and gets followed into the elevator, and propositioned 
by some idiot that won't take no for an answer, but thankfully didn't go 
farther than that, and a) the convention showed near disbelief, and a 
lack of intent to do anything about it, and b) it got tagged "elevator 
gate" by a stupid number of people.. its kind of obvious there is a 
bigger problem, and maybe how she was dressing, or where she was, or how 
many beers she had, etc... wasn't the issue. There are whole "women 
only" conferences that have cropped up due to this BS, in the last 2-3 
years, because the real ones went, "Well, I am sure there is a slight 
problem, but.. we just can't quite see it right now, and don't see any 
point in making people 'uncomfortable' by adding unnecessary rules, or 
taking reports seriously." Extrapolate from that sort of harrassment in 
supposed "professional" situations, and the cases where sexual assaults 
have even happened, not just verbal, or being propositioned, to the rest 
of the world, which **isn't** professional.. and, the picture starts 
looking damned ugly.

Some places a women "could" walk down the street, naked, and not be 
harassed (well not much more than just walking down the street, which 
isn't exact right either, really), but, here in the US, you can't even 
be a speaker at a convention, trying to get back to your room, without 
worrying about some ass assaulting you, when female. And.. forget "not 
going alone to your room", at least one of the full on rapes that I have 
read about was "by" the supposed escort, who promised to keep them from 
being attacked by some other person.

One of them called the whole mess, "Schrodinger's Rapist", its 
impossible to know which, if any, man might do it, until it either 
happens, or doesn't happen. Its that bad, sometimes, and.. what do they 
get, "Don't go alone, dress the wrong way, drink, have a social life, or 
do anything that might let the cat out of the box." Everyone, for some 
reason, always thinks they have "never" heard any of that advice, or 
thought about the absurd lengths you would have to go to follow it, and 
have it actually work, given the mental state, the privilege, and the 
sense of entitlement that always seems, on some level to exist in the 
heads of the people that do this sort thing. None of which is, since 
even the sane guys often joke about it, visible on the surface.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/2/2014 4:38 AM, Warp 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.

He gave them in order to accomplish a number of purposes which He 
regards as good and just.  However, now that those purposes have been 
served, the commandments are no longer good and just; therefore they are 
no longer in effect.

 > 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.

I am glad that the commandments were not given to me, but whether 
something is right or wrong does not depend on how I feel about it.

 > 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.

"Any circumstance"?  Sir, you do not know me.  There are some crimes for 
which I regard stoning as too merciful a punishment.  But in this era 
God has reserved those things for the secular authorities.

 > In other words, you disagree with your God.

I certainly do disagree with God (and as a result have wronged Him on 
numerous occasions).  There are a number of commandments, which apply to 
me, that I would have left out if I had written the Bible, and it is 
only with careful consideration that I recognize that they really are 
better than what I would have come up with on my own.  And thus I 
recognize that my disagreement with God is proof of a flaw in me and not 
in God.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 12/19/2013 4:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> I'm really wondering if Hollywood screenwriters have to sign a contract
> where they make an oath that in any story where there are multiple
> characters, if one of them is wounded, sick or otherwise not completely
> right, they always, and I mean always, have to hide it from the others,
> even in situations where there's literally zero reasons to do that, it
> makes absolutely no sense, it has no purpose whatsoever, and it only
> makes things worse for everybody, and even if telling the others would
> actually be beneficial.
>
> I'm sick of seeing this again and again and again. It's like a holy rule
> of screenwriting. It has been seen in like a million movies, and there's
> no sign of it ever stopping.
>

I think people IRL do this, hoping someone will notice and make a movie 
about them. ;)

-- 
http://isometricland.net

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is
active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> He gave them in order to accomplish a number of purposes which He 
> regards as good and just.  However, now that those purposes have been 
> served, the commandments are no longer good and just; therefore they are 
> no longer in effect.

"They are no longer in effect" if you pick&choose verses as you like,
and ignore others that indicate that they are very much still in effect.
Of course other branches of Christianity pick&choose in a different
manner and think that they *are* still in effect (but come up with
excuses as to why they cannot be enacted.) And I'm not making this up
because I know of such denominations.

Anyway, from that, and from this:

> I am glad that the commandments were not given to me, but whether 
> something is right or wrong does not depend on how I feel about it.

it's relatively clear that you do not think that many of those
commandments are good and moral because they clash with your own
concept of morality.

>  > 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.

> "Any circumstance"?  Sir, you do not know me.  There are some crimes for 
> which I regard stoning as too merciful a punishment.

You would honestly kill someone by stoning? You will have to excuse me
but I don't believe you. You don't sound like the kind of person that
would ever do that, no matter what that someone did.

>  But in this era 
> God has reserved those things for the secular authorities.

I suppose you could find a really contrived interpretation of some
passages to support that. Or perhaps not.

>  > In other words, you disagree with your God.

> I certainly do disagree with God (and as a result have wronged Him on 
> numerous occasions).  There are a number of commandments, which apply to 
> me, that I would have left out if I had written the Bible, and it is 
> only with careful consideration that I recognize that they really are 
> better than what I would have come up with on my own.  And thus I 
> recognize that my disagreement with God is proof of a flaw in me and not 
> in God.

No. You disagree with your god because you are more moral than your god.
You *know* that many of those commandments are immoral, inhumane and
unjust. You are glad that you don't have to enact them or see them
enacted, and you come up with some rationalizations as to why they
do not apply today, but were somehow good in the past. You try to
convince yourself that "surely God had a good reason for these, even
if I don't understand them."

If you were completely honest to yourself, you would admit this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-01-06 23:26, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I posted that site because its the one I could remember how to find an
> article on. Its not the **only** place I have read the same things from.
> And.. you are seriously suggesting that only a certain "sort" of women
> post there, or in the comment threads, and that somehow their experience
> is therefore atypical of what goes on? Based on what exactly?

Well, it's a site that caters specifically to people that are skeptics, 
and shows preference for female-identifying individuals.  That, I'm 
afraid, is in fact a certain 'sort', not representative of the overall 
population.

Others likely post there, but /the most common/ (as entirely distinct 
from 'only', but with the net effect of carrying more weight) are by 
those for whom the site is built.  Their experience may or may not be 
atypical of what goes on, but it *is* a subset, and therefore has the 
*ability* to be skewed relative to the global set.

--
T. Cook

Post a reply to this message

On 1/8/2014 8:33 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-06 23:26, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I posted that site because its the one I could remember how to find an
>> article on. Its not the **only** place I have read the same things from.
>> And.. you are seriously suggesting that only a certain "sort" of women
>> post there, or in the comment threads, and that somehow their experience
>> is therefore atypical of what goes on? Based on what exactly?
>
> Well, it's a site that caters specifically to people that are skeptics,
> and shows preference for female-identifying individuals.  That, I'm
> afraid, is in fact a certain 'sort', not representative of the overall
> population.
>
Well... The problems I have with that as an argument for questioning 
their views on the subject is.. 1) While it does certainly cater to 
such, not everyone on it started out as a skeptic, or had their 
experiences "while" skeptics, 2) Skeptics would, one would think, be 
better people to ask about biases based on the sort of false positives 
and presumptions of causality that, frankly, even people doing studies 
fall into (which is one major reason why you want replication of 
results, not jumping on a study, or even more than one, from the same 
environment), as a basis of reaching a conclusion, 3) it presumes, 
without good reason, that their experience in this matter "is" different 
somehow, and finally, not everyone that posts there "are" women.

Well, that and, one of the major points I am trying to get across is 
that the "male centric" view that sits over top of our culture already 
biases *everything*, including, historically, the interpretations of 
data, and/or even the collection of it, in such studies. That view as 
what kept bird experts from even seeing the evidence that most birds are 
non-monogamous, instead of just asserting they where. Its the same bias 
that caused Masters and Johnson so many headaches when the real data 
about human sexuality kept failing to match their expectations of what 
constituted "normal". Its the same bias that has called into question, 
recently, conclusions about behavior, especially involving sex, 
relationships, and even violence, among primitive tribes. Its a bias 
that is so pervasive that the *automatic* reaction of nearly everyone, 
male and female, when an assault happens, is to either joke about what 
"she" might have done, or question it, but not what the guy did. There 
is a built in bias, where you are almost not even taken seriously at 
all, if you report something, regardless of whether you are, presumably, 
some sort of science geek, which seems to be the assumption about people 
on that network, or the stereotypical blond bimbo. In fact, they might 
even take the later "less" seriously, because they are all body, and not 
so much brains, and the "script" says that such woman are easier, less 
likely to say no, and thus, more likely to be lying, just out of spite.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/7/2014 11:29 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> He gave them in order to accomplish a number of purposes which He
> regards as good and just.  However, now that those purposes have been
> served, the commandments are no longer good and just; therefore they are
> no longer in effect.
>
No, people created them, for specific purposes, most of which involved 
trying to control other people. The irony being, they never seemed to 
grasp that, sometimes, trying to forbid something stupid, created an 
even worse evil as a consequence. There is a comment in one of the Disc 
world novels, to the effect, "Its too bad that gods only ever seem to 
come across shepherds, instead of goat herders, because sheep have to be 
driven, while goats can only be *led*."

>  > 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.
>
> I am glad that the commandments were not given to me, but whether
> something is right or wrong does not depend on how I feel about it.
>
It has everything to do with how you feel about it. Heck, if I was going 
to rewrite one of the silly "the devils greatest trick" statements, it 
would be either, "The devils greatest trick was convincing man that he 
wasn't also god.", or maybe, "The devils greatest trick was teaching man 
to believe in sin." Good is what causes the least pain, to the most 
people, or, preferably, any. But, its also a dream. A thing to be 
striven towards, to be believed in, and when necessary, revised, not 
because its *real* but because its what makes all of us feel better, in 
the long run, and you can't create a thing that doesn't exist, until you 
believe in it enough to try to make it real. The mistake religion makes 
is in not just claiming that it is real, but that they know what it is, 
refusing to abandon it, until forced (and there has never been a time 
that the church has not changed "because" the world did, instead of 
changing the world, where the outcome has not been terror and pain, for 
someone). Or, as someone else put it, religion claims to know the 
unknowable.

If you didn't "feel" that the things you believe where good, or had 
value, or could achieve something worth the effort, you wouldn't believe 
in what you do, any more than the list of things that, as Warp points 
out, other similar people have opted to believe in, but you now reject. 
That both you and them hold on to things that... I, and others, find 
absurd, irrational, and/or even dangerous, and are horrified that people 
still believe them... well, we are trying to build a better world. You.. 
are trying to crib together a dead one, so you can justify keeping the 
carpets.

> "Any circumstance"?  Sir, you do not know me.  There are some crimes for
> which I regard stoning as too merciful a punishment.  But in this era
> God has reserved those things for the secular authorities.
>
>  > In other words, you disagree with your God.
>
> I certainly do disagree with God (and as a result have wronged Him on
> numerous occasions).  There are a number of commandments, which apply to
> me, that I would have left out if I had written the Bible, and it is
> only with careful consideration that I recognize that they really are
> better than what I would have come up with on my own.  And thus I
> recognize that my disagreement with God is proof of a flaw in me and not
> in God.
>
Not to mention a whole lot that, I somehow predict, you "think" can be 
somehow justified by the Bible, or are in there, if you quint just 
right, or should be, yet, somehow never quite got written into it, in 
nice clear, hard to confuse of misinterpret, language. You, I suspect, 
would find the silly, "A fetus is a bit like a wad of chewing gum, so 
the god of the Koran told us about embryology!", nonsense, as, well... 
nonsense, yet, there is so much that is claimed, by Christians, who 
reject all the old, "no longer applicable" bits of the Bible, which are 
just as absurdly justified, by stretching the language of what is in the 
Bible so badly you can read whole libraries through it (i.e., nothing of 
the original meaning being retained in the process).

This doesn't impress people who look at the way people actually lived 
when it was written, the conflicts they had with their neighbors, the 
way religions actually worked back then, or note funny little 
absurdities, like how Jehovah was, at one time, one of three brothers, 
under the God El, and a war monger (The other two where Chemosh and 
Baal, one a god of farming, and the other one of commerce, and slave 
trading. Did Jehovah, later one, decide to bang his own sword into a 
hammer, and take up carpentry? lol), and the Jewish version fairly 
explicitly hinted at there being more than one god.

You don't get around those annoying little inconsistencies with the 
"core" idea behind a religion, any more than you can ignore 20 lines out 
of a passage listing everything from what sort of socks you should wear, 
to how many stone to throw at your son, if he calls you names, just so 
you can, for example, do what the right wing self-claimed "literalists" 
do, and insist that gays are evil, because of one single line in the 
same bunch of idiocies. (And, yeah, I know there is nothing about socks 
in the Bible, but.. are some of the other things in that passage any 
less silly?)

Your god is a variation on Terry Pratchett's Nuggan - an endless list of 
new things declared abominations, by one priest or the other, until, at 
some point, even children, rocks, and the color blue, get declared, 
"Evil in the sight of god." But, at least Nuggan filled in the pages of 
absurd declarations himself (until he died, and it kept filling itself 
with, instead, all the fears and anxieties of people that he once godded 
over), a page at a time, magically, instead of relying on something as 
unreliable as people to decide which new things to claim are bad, which 
ones suddenly became OK, and to tell everyone, "But, this isn't just my 
*opinion*. Its not like I say these things are true because I merely 
feel they are!", just like the other 20,000 contradictory versions, all 
of them disagreeing with each other, on almost every single thing that 
is, or isn't, bad, or is or isn't still in effect, or is, or isn't 
merely allegorical.

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-01-08 23:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well... The problems I have with that as an argument for questioning
> their views on the subject is..

Hmm.  I'm not sure I'm questioning the views on the subject as outlining 
that the views presented in that context aren't necessarily a pure 
random sampling that can be extrapolated to the whole population.  There 
are, without a doubt, a large number (far larger than there should be) 
of females whose experiences are as bad as presented.  However, I posit 
that the whole point of the site is to bring attention to those things 
/happening/ vs. all the times where it doesn't happen, so there's 
notable skew in that direction.

> Well, that and, one of the major points I am trying to get across is
> that the "male centric" view that sits over top of our culture already
> biases *everything*, including, historically, the interpretations of
> data, and/or even the collection of it, in such studies.

How much, I wonder, of Patriarchy is actively constructed by females? 
Not just as a 'if you're not fighting to destroy it, you're supporting 
it' thing, but directly working towards reinforcing its features?  Women 
aren't just a passive element that are only there to be victims of The 
System; much as some like to insist that women have no real agency 
because their voices aren't heard, throughout history there is a *major* 
impact from their actions, and they are just as complicit in 'how things 
are' as men.  Is it so important to have your name in headlines or the 
history books?

> Its a bias that is so pervasive that the *automatic* reaction of nearly everyone,
> male and female, when an assault happens, is to either joke about what
> "she" might have done, or question it, but not what the guy did.

That's the big point that Patriarchy is harmful to men, too; the reason 
it's not questioned what the guy did is because it's taken for granted 
in modern, Western society that males only think about sex and are 
mindless monsters that have no rationality (while women are able to 
magically control how men behave simply by what they wear and how they 
present themselves).  Such a mindset is harmful to /everyone/, really.

--
T. Cook

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> That's the big point that Patriarchy is harmful to men, too; the reason
> it's not questioned what the guy did is because it's taken for granted
> in modern, Western society that males only think about sex and are
> mindless monsters that have no rationality (while women are able to
> magically control how men behave simply by what they wear and how they
> present themselves).  Such a mindset is harmful to /everyone/, really.
>


<Rantwarning!>

It is that mindset that really offends me. Whenever I see someone wearing a
burka or even a niqab. I feel offended at the implied insult. Chadors and below
don't provoke this reaction in me and the shayla is quite attractive. No! It can
be very attractive.

Phew! I am glad to get that off my chest.

My wife's view is that they should be banned on safety grounds. Moving around
outside, crossing busy streets... should not be done with impaired vision. And
that comes from someone who is partially sighted.

</Rant>

You can read on. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 13:14:59 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> He gave them in order to accomplish a number of purposes which He
>> regards as good and just.  However, now that those purposes have been
>> served, the commandments are no longer good and just; therefore they are
>> no longer in effect.
>
> "They are no longer in effect" if you pick&choose verses as you like,
> and ignore others that indicate that they are very much still in effect.
> Of course other branches of Christianity pick&choose in a different
> manner and think that they *are* still in effect (but come up with
> excuses as to why they cannot be enacted.) And I'm not making this up
> because I know of such denominations.
>
If a denomination contradicts the Bible, then they are wrong.
In the Old Testament it was foretold that there would come a time that God  
would write his laws in their minds. This came into fulfillment when they  
were filled with the Holy Spirit.

If you read the Bible you will notice that Jesus never stoned anyone - no  
Christian stoned anyone and no Christian told anyone to stone anyone. In  
fact the opposite happened - Christians were stoned because of their  
belief. Today Christians are jailed and tortured for their belief in  
Muslim countries and China.

> Anyway, from that, and from this:
>
>> I am glad that the commandments were not given to me, but whether
>> something is right or wrong does not depend on how I feel about it.
>
> it's relatively clear that you do not think that many of those
> commandments are good and moral because they clash with your own
> concept of morality.

You are confusing punishment with morality. Sin deserves punishment - if  
you disagree, then you are condoning sin.

God had His plan from the beginning - He didn't simply change His mind  
about what is right or wrong. If you read the law you should realize that  
it is not about stoning, but about knowledge of good and evil and the  
punishment of sin.

God knew that it would be too difficult for us mere humans to bear which  
is why He sent His Son to die in our place so that those who accept His  
sacrifice will not have to suffer Hell.




-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> If a denomination contradicts the Bible, then they are wrong.

And that's what all denominations say about other denominations that
disagree with them. And the vast majority can out-argue you with
Bible passages all day long.

> In the Old Testament it was foretold that there would come a time that God  
> would write his laws in their minds. This came into fulfillment when they  
> were filled with the Holy Spirit.

That has zero to do whether the commandments given by God are still
in effect or not.

(Besides, the passage of Jeremiah you are referring to talks about the
people of Israel, not the gentiles. But of course you can interpret that
as liberally as you want, like all Christian denominations do with most
passages to suit their needs.)

> If you read the Bible you will notice that Jesus never stoned anyone - no  
> Christian stoned anyone and no Christian told anyone to stone anyone.

Neither did he say that the law was forfeit or ended. On the contrary,
he says: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the
least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

> In fact the opposite happened - Christians were stoned because of their  
> belief. Today Christians are jailed and tortured for their belief in  
> Muslim countries and China.

And Christians have jailed and tortured others (and even themselves)
for their beliefs during the entirety of history. And in fact, in some
places are still doing it (given how witches and homosexuals are being
killed by Christians in many parts of the world, especially Africa.)

(I wait for your "no true scotsman" fallacy...)

> You are confusing punishment with morality.

No, I'm not. Morality has a lot to say about crime punishment. For
instance, the severity of the punishment should be correlated to the
severity of the crime, and no criminal should be treated or punished
in an inhumane manner.

Death penalty by stoning is a barbaric and inhumane punishment regardless
of the crime. It's egregiously inhumane for such "crimes" as working
on the sabbath or not respecting your parents.

The fact that he is (and probably you are) glad that we do not enact
such punishment anymore is clear indication that he *knows* how inhumane
and disproportionate, and therefore how immoral, the punishment is.

> God had His plan from the beginning - He didn't simply change His mind  
> about what is right or wrong. If you read the law you should realize that  
> it is not about stoning, but about knowledge of good and evil and the  
> punishment of sin.

The penalty is still there, no matter how you try to twist its message.

> God knew that it would be too difficult for us mere humans to bear which  
> is why He sent His Son to die in our place so that those who accept His  
> sacrifice will not have to suffer Hell.

That doesn't make any kind of sense. Even if it did make any sense, it's
still bollocks. God did not sacrifice anything according to your theology.
Sacrificing is voluntarily losing something. So what exactly did God lose?
Nothing, that's what.

This isn't even going into the question of what kind of sick god would
create a hell where he sends his own creation to suffer indescribable
torment for all eternity because they didn't love him the right way,
while he just watches by, doing nothing.

Do you know what it's called when someone can watch someone else's suffering
and do nothing about it, even though it's fully in their power to end it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/01/2014 8:23 PM, Warp wrote:
> (I wait for your "no true scotsman" fallacy...)

Well, he wasn't a true Scotsman. ;-)

BTW IMHO There is no point, Warp. When you see that level of "faith". 
The only thing you can do is /make your excuses and leave/.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/01/2014 19:45, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 13:14:59 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>>> He gave them in order to accomplish a number of purposes which He
>>> regards as good and just.  However, now that those purposes have been
>>> served, the commandments are no longer good and just; therefore they are
>>> no longer in effect.
>>
>> "They are no longer in effect" if you pick&choose verses as you like,
>> and ignore others that indicate that they are very much still in effect.
>> Of course other branches of Christianity pick&choose in a different
>> manner and think that they *are* still in effect (but come up with
>> excuses as to why they cannot be enacted.) And I'm not making this up
>> because I know of such denominations.
>>
> If a denomination contradicts the Bible, then they are wrong.
> In the Old Testament it was foretold that there would come a time that
> God would write his laws in their minds. This came into fulfillment when
> they were filled with the Holy Spirit.
>
> If you read the Bible you will notice that Jesus never stoned anyone -
> no Christian stoned anyone and no Christian told anyone to stone anyone.
> In fact the opposite happened - Christians were stoned because of their
> belief. Today Christians are jailed and tortured for their belief in
> Muslim countries and China.
>
>> Anyway, from that, and from this:
>>
>>> I am glad that the commandments were not given to me, but whether
>>> something is right or wrong does not depend on how I feel about it.
>>
>> it's relatively clear that you do not think that many of those
>> commandments are good and moral because they clash with your own
>> concept of morality.
>
> You are confusing punishment with morality. Sin deserves punishment - if
> you disagree, then you are condoning sin.
>
> God had His plan from the beginning - He didn't simply change His mind
> about what is right or wrong. If you read the law you should realize
> that it is not about stoning, but about knowledge of good and evil and
> the punishment of sin.
>
> God knew that it would be too difficult for us mere humans to bear which
> is why He sent His Son to die in our place so that those who accept His
> sacrifice will not have to suffer Hell.
>

I think I have already mentioned 'begging the question'

John <shaking his head in exasperation at a particularly obtuse student>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/9/2014 12:15 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-08 23:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Well... The problems I have with that as an argument for questioning
>> their views on the subject is..
>
> Hmm.  I'm not sure I'm questioning the views on the subject as outlining
> that the views presented in that context aren't necessarily a pure
> random sampling that can be extrapolated to the whole population.  There
> are, without a doubt, a large number (far larger than there should be)
> of females whose experiences are as bad as presented.  However, I posit
> that the whole point of the site is to bring attention to those things
> /happening/ vs. all the times where it doesn't happen, so there's
> notable skew in that direction.
>
Well, the problem is, you can't always be certain, without looking at 
other factors, like.. "how many women on campus, in general, dress like 
that anyway?", which might make the results meaningless. I mean, alcohol 
is obviously a risk, but.. is it more of a risk than something else, if 
half the campus is drinking every weekend? And, how do those things 
extrapolate in the general population, where you might be, for example, 
not drunk, dressed in a business suit, or uniform, for work, etc., and 
almost certainly not matching "any" of the criteria given?

Frankly, I have seen a bit too many cases like this:

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luvwphS7LD1r6zdqno1_500.jpg

To believe the, "how you dress matters", claim, for one. The dark alley 
one.. is a maybe, but the percentage of people that stalk like that is 
low, except.. maybe on a campus, where nuts might hang out, because they 
*presume* they can find "loose women" to stalk. So, what does that say 
about dark alley some place else, where there isn't an expectation that 
random victims will wander through, for their convenience?

>> Well, that and, one of the major points I am trying to get across is
>> that the "male centric" view that sits over top of our culture already
>> biases *everything*, including, historically, the interpretations of
>> data, and/or even the collection of it, in such studies.
>
> How much, I wonder, of Patriarchy is actively constructed by females?
> Not just as a 'if you're not fighting to destroy it, you're supporting
> it' thing, but directly working towards reinforcing its features?  Women
> aren't just a passive element that are only there to be victims of The
> System; much as some like to insist that women have no real agency
> because their voices aren't heard, throughout history there is a *major*
> impact from their actions, and they are just as complicit in 'how things
> are' as men.  Is it so important to have your name in headlines or the
> history books?
>
Supported by, certainly, it happens all the time, all you need to do is 
look at the bloody idiot women who support extreme Republican positions 
in the US. Creating it.. only in the sense that they where brought up in 
it, many people convinced them, via upbringing, that it made sense, and 
is "natural", or "meant to be", and they turned around and just parroted 
that back, as defense of the world they already live in, to other 
people, including their own kids.

>> Its a bias that is so pervasive that the *automatic* reaction of
>> nearly everyone,
>> male and female, when an assault happens, is to either joke about what
>> "she" might have done, or question it, but not what the guy did.
>
> That's the big point that Patriarchy is harmful to men, too; the reason
> it's not questioned what the guy did is because it's taken for granted
> in modern, Western society that males only think about sex and are
> mindless monsters that have no rationality (while women are able to
> magically control how men behave simply by what they wear and how they
> present themselves).  Such a mindset is harmful to /everyone/, really.
>
Hmm. To an extent yeah. But it goes beyond that. There has been a 
default assumption about "purity", and a lot of other things. Someone 
once made a damn good argument, I think it was on a video blog called 
"Sex+", that no one, once they start looking at other people in terms of 
sex are "innocent", that virginity is a delusion, and, she even has one 
video torpedoing the very idea that "deflowering" is a real thing, and 
not just a sign of the person doing it a) not knowing any better, b) not 
being willing to take time, and c) a result of neither partner knowing 
what the F they are really doing. As she points out, the opening in 
question has to stretch to allow a baby to go through, but.. somehow, 
the first time, you can't stretch it enough to get a two inch tube into it?

But, beyond that, a guy that sleeps around get patted on the back, even 
*when* he has taken some sort of absurd purity pledge. Its no big deal 
if he breaks it. A woman with a high sex drive... is a slut, period, 
even if by "high" you mean, "Slept with one guy, one time.", before 
dating someone else. And, yes, again, its a gibberish idea supported by 
both men, and women, often completely unintentionally, because you just 
tell girls one thing about their behavior, and boys another, from the 
moment they are born. Even levels of aggressiveness, how they handle 
situations, etc., are a result of "training", not wiring. Girls are just 
as nasty about outsiders, but they **learn** to use a sort of inclusive 
exclusion, where they give someone they don't like a role to play, then 
tell them, "Just wait there, we don't need you yet.", sidelining them, 
while convincing the more gullible ones that they are being "included". 
Guys may, sometimes, do the same thing, as a kind of joke. Both do so, 
to hurt the person, sometimes, but.. girls are told "this" method of 
dealing with the situation is right, because its non-violent (don't hit 
you brother, girls don't do that!), while guys, do it to add to the 
pain, but may just beat the shit out of someone, because its "OK" for 
them to be physically aggressive.

Lots studies on this sort of thing too. Out of which bits of truth get 
teased, but only after we stopped "assuming" there was something 
inherently different between the sexes, and asked, "How much of this is 
a result of how they where taught to handle situations, and, more to the 
point, how to **not** handle them, and what does that do to how they 
express the same aggressions?"

The progress we make in fixing this isn't going to come from trying to 
"protect" people from threats that only exist as threats because they 
are part of a list of "built in" assumptions, in the current social 
structure. That doesn't work, because the assumptions simply change, as 
clothing styles, and the like, do, without addressing the underlying 
problem, which is that the assumptions exist at all. Its going to be 
fixed by torpedoing the idea that men and women are "naturally" 
different, when, all too often, they are merely living in parallel 
cultures, without realizing it, in which "crossing the line" and doing 
something from the other "culture" gets punished (a guy being just as 
ignored, or punished, for doing something feminine, though perhaps a bit 
less so, than when a woman, even today, enters a field heavy with men). 
We still have the same problem today, for example, that Johnson ran into 
decades ago, when in science and medicine. And.. try to be a straight 
guy doing hair dressing, or something, and see what happens...

Though, I must admit, its funnier than hell that, back when Masters and 
Johnson where doing work on sex, women where freaked at the idea that 
other women might be looking at their private parts, while having an 
medical examination, but now.. you are just as likely to have them 
freaked out by a guy doing the same thing. Somehow, the same problem 
persists, its just shifting categories, instead of going away. I am sure 
there are less clear examples of this happening too. Because, the 
underlying issues never get addressed, the assumptions just shift.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/10/2014 1:23 PM, Warp wrote:
> This isn't even going into the question of what kind of sick god would
> create a hell where he sends his own creation to suffer indescribable
> torment for all eternity because they didn't love him the right way,
> while he just watches by, doing nothing.
>
Only, he didn't.

The Bible, the "original Coptic" and earlier versions, not the "improved 
by blurring it all together, because scared people are more likely to 
obey", versions made later, mentions these things:

1. Gehenna - A city dump, outside Jerusalem. It was common practice for 
bodies of those dead from disease to be burned with the city trash here. 
The passage that modern versions "insist" on calling "hell" here thus 
states that, to paraphrase, since I don't have the exact quote, "If you 
fall in with the wrong people, your soul will be burned, along with your 
body, in the garbage dump, outside the city." No idea if "soul" is even 
the proper word here, but this seems to me to be the equivalent of 
saying that, "If you fall in with the wrong people, your reputation will 
die with you, and no one will remember anything you did, other than that 
you got thrown out with the rest of the trash."

2. Some bit later on, there is some passage that references the word 
"Hades", obviously in the NT. Having been influenced at that point, by 
the Romans/Greeks, they came up with the idea that your "soul" went to 
this place when you died. Its "misinterpreted", thanks to later 
revision, and some later passages, as some sort of great paradise, where 
you see god all the time. But, Hades, and thus the place meant "by" the 
original text, is not paradise, its a place of waiting, where you sit 
around, oblivious of everything going on anywhere, like tape storage, 
until some later time, when god decides to do something about you.

3. Later on, another "edit" exchanges Tartarus, which is a prison for 
fallen angels, with "hell", again, completely changing the meaning, and 
making it some place of punishment for everyone. Though, its unclear if 
these edits came before, or after, they commissioned Dante, to make up 
some elaborate absurdity called "hell", and we got stuck with the whole 
lakes of fire, and souls being punished forever stuff.

But, if you want the real version of death, from the OT of the Bible, 
before priests started taking on bits of Roman mythology, then you get a 
lovely section which basically states that all of the rewards you will 
ever have, all that you will ever know, or experience, all wisdom that 
you might acquire, etc., you got "in life" and that no man, whether 
good, or evil, can expect anything more, or experience, or do, anything, 
at all, once dead. That you get this one life, and that is it *period*.

Ecclesiastics 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your 
might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is 
neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."

And yet, people believe they gain all of these, in heaven.

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-01-11 16:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, yes, again, its a gibberish idea supported by
> both men, and women, often completely unintentionally, because you just
> tell girls one thing about their behavior, and boys another, from the
> moment they are born. Even levels of aggressiveness, how they handle
> situations, etc., are a result of "training", not wiring.

I think that completely discounting 'wiring' as a contributing factor to 
behaviour and saying that /everything/ is social conditioning is as 
flawed as the other way around.  There really are actual physical 
differences between the sexes that go beyond just 'that's a matter of 
upbringing and presentation'.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2014 6:10 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-11 16:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And, yes, again, its a gibberish idea supported by
>> both men, and women, often completely unintentionally, because you just
>> tell girls one thing about their behavior, and boys another, from the
>> moment they are born. Even levels of aggressiveness, how they handle
>> situations, etc., are a result of "training", not wiring.
>
> I think that completely discounting 'wiring' as a contributing factor to
> behaviour and saying that /everything/ is social conditioning is as
> flawed as the other way around.  There really are actual physical
> differences between the sexes that go beyond just 'that's a matter of
> upbringing and presentation'.
I am not completely discounting it. Its just that, when its even 
possible to make clear determinations, of any kind, as to differences, 
the "overlap" represents like 99% of the population, with the outliers 
being on either end of the remaining 1%. Well, ok, not exactly those 
numbers, but you get the point. Worse, studies on things like spacial 
ability, which is generally assumed to be a trait men are better at, 
turn out to disappear completely, if you expose the women in a study to, 
say, video games, which require a lot of spacial recognition. Its simply 
a case that women are "less likely to need it", due to cultural factors, 
so don't develop it as extensively. Expose them to conditions where they 
do need it, and the supposed "difference" disappears. Give that sort of 
thing, how is it even possible to say that there is an area of 
"overlap", with outliers, who don't fit, and that those "edges" are, in 
fact, purely a social artifact? Answer- You can't, which throws a wrench 
in the whole assumption that any differences, at all, in terms of mental 
ability, and how we deal with the world, are hardwired, or, if any of it 
is, then, if given the same exact conditions, without cultural biases, 
likely to produce "obvious" differences.

Post a reply to this message