Schrödinger Rapist, once again.

What what?

rEvolutionist wrote:

AliRadicali wrote:One could argue that if society wasn't as weirdly prudish and PC as it is, there would be a lot less sexually frustrated men verbally harrassing and sexually assaulting people.

It's a possibility, but without any evidence backing it up, it doesn't serve much to make that claim.

Rape rates in the south of the US, specifically the sexually repressed bible belt, are waaaaay higher than other areas. So are incest rates. Now you can argue a bunch of different correlations here, wealth, religion, education level, but personally I think the logical place to place most of the blame is the repression of actual sexuality(abstinence only, no sex out of wedlock, sex is taboo) in that society, combined with the hypersexuality of the media. It presents a bizarre contradiction which logically leads to sexual frustration.

Dar wrote:W'm'n c'n g't ' c'n'f'd'nc' b''st fr'm dr'ss'ng 'p. R'm'mb'r h'll'w''n? 't's k'nd' l'k' th't.

I guess, but why is it boosting her confidence though? Because she thinks she'll get male attention. SURE, she'll say she's "doing it for her", but to expect men to stand in appreciative admiration without actually acting on is plain unrealistic IMO. It's playing coy.

M'by m' d'c's''n t' b'c'm' 'n 'p'str'ph' r'd'c'l w's ' p''r 'n'. 'k'y, ''ll st'p.

Sorry, just thought I'd inject a little humor into this rather long thread.

Women can get a confidence boost from dressing up. Remember holloween? It's kinda like that.

@Ali... Yeah, I totally accept that repression of sexuality leads to bad shit (hell, anyone know any girls who have travelled to Turkey and/or the middle east? Just ask them), but you were talking about "society", not the deep south. And like everything, it's a trade off (man I am a fence sitter! ) between risking offending potentially half of society and being more sexually open. I suppose Europe is probably more on the right track with this than the US and Australia (to a lesser extent). They are a little more free with their sexuality and don't seem so hung up on it. I wonder what the sexual assault stats say for Europe. Could be interesting to look at.

Dar wrote:M'by m' d'c's''n t' b'c'm' 'n 'p'str'ph' r'd'c'l w's ' p''r 'n'. 'k'y, ''ll st'p.

Sorry, just thought I'd inject a little humor into this rather long thread.

Women can get a confidence boost from dressing up. Remember holloween? It's kinda like that.

'What' exactly is the confidence boost? Why do women get a confidence boost from dressing in an arguably sexual way?

I think its more similar to role playing than seeking male attention. Embodied cognition can extend to one's clothing. One's clothing can effect one's impression of themselves. This seems more prevalent in women, but its not entirely absent in men. A woman can legitimately want to feel sexy via her outfit for herself without doing so to attract male attention. Still, I do think it a bit silly of her to do so then get upset if she attracts male attention. Even so, a sexy outfit does not mean that she's 'asking for it'.

A paper on enclothed cognition http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112000200

Cheers for that Dar. I'll try and read that paper tomorrow.

Dar wrote:I think its more similar to role playing than seeking male attention. Embodied cognition can extend to one's clothing. One's clothing can effect one's impression of themselves. This seems more prevalent in women, but its not entirely absent in men. A woman can legitimately want to feel sexy via her outfit for herself without doing so to attract male attention. Still, I do think it a bit silly of her to do so then get upset if she attracts male attention. Even so, a sexy outfit does not mean that she's 'asking for it'.

A paper on enclothed cognition http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112000200

While I acknowledge that the clothes we ear affect how we feel and act, I have trouble seeing this article as a refutation to my point. If dressing sexy makes one feel sexy, and that sense of sexiness gives confidence, the leap from sexy to confident still requires an explanation. And whether this happens consciously or subconsciously, whether women are aware of this or it's just rudimentary outdated instinct, I'd posit that positive male attention is the reason women feel confident when they feel sexy.

Perhaps it is some of the time, but it isn't all of the time.

I have sisters. I've seen them get ready to go out for a girls night, where no male contact was possible. I seriously doubt they were going through the trouble they went to preparing for the benefit of the males that they were not going to encounter.

Perhaps this is a privilege issue. I suppose the only way you could possibly know how an outfit makes you feel is to wear it. If you are interested, I'm sure you can find many sexy women's outfits in your size.

rEvolutionist wrote:

AliRadicali wrote:I'd also like to add that although it's currently viewed as sexist and possibly misogynist to objectify women based on their looks, it's a perfectly natural biological imperative. Males of any species select their mates by looking at signs of fertility. For humans, that happens to be youth, wide hips, healthy skin and large breasts.
Females objectify men based on their ability to provide for- and protect them. We find it abhorrent and superficial when men like a woman for her looks, but when women objectify men based on wealth, status, accomplishments, that's not really seen as a problem.
I'm not saying we should excuse everyone for being lewd sexists, but I'm wondering if it's healthy for society to view male objectification of women as something inherently sinful, when it seems to be a natural part of our sexual instincts.

While I kind of agree with what you are saying here... I think i've mentioned before that you need to be careful of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. That is, just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But of course, we can't go totally the other way either and claim that we should ignore our biological instincts. The right place is probably somewhere in the middle.

How's that for sitting on the fence?

Styles of behavior are taught, not springing forth from our genes.
Catcalling is no more an instinctive behavior as far as I can tell than is exposing oneself.

dancer_rnb wrote:
Styles of behavior are taught, not springing forth from our genes.
Catcalling is no more an instinctive behavior as far as I can tell than is exposing oneself.

While this is partially true, it's not wholly the case.

Feminists would love to have us think that gender differences are only physically expressed, that differences in behaviour and thought are cultural. This presents us with multiple problems:
1. The data. The studies that show men and women to have a "remarkable overlap" in psychology selectively choose how they count the measures in such a way that the results present a minimal difference. There are five major categories, each divided into two quite distinct subcategories:
Openness (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)
Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind)
Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

The big hoax is that feminist studies add up the scores for, say, curious and cautious, and conclude that boys and girls score the same in the category "Openness".
When you compare the data for the subdivisions, the difference shoots from 10% to 90%. The reason feminists have a vested interest in propagating the myth that boys and girls really are just the same, is that it makes such a great argument why the patriarchy must exist since something must be causing all these differences between boys and girls.
Also, children, boys and girs alike, learn gender attitudes and roles primarily from their mothers. If feminists were really so keen on abolishing gender roles, you'd think the current generation of <30 would reflect those values.

2.When certain types of behaviour are prevalent in societies worldwide and throughout history, assuming that it's inherent to human nature makes more sense than to assume all of humanity decided this would be a cool cultural feature.

3. The hypocrisy of claiming to be equal whilst claiming to be different. You can't say boys are just like girls, and then with a straight face say boys should be more sensitive to girls' emotions/feelings, because you've just pointed out that boys and girls aren't (or ought not) be different.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Once again, the examples you give are not analogous to the situation of women being sexually harassed. Why you keep failing to get this has me wondering exactly what you are on about. I'll break it down for you with your examples: Not telling someone you are an atheist is not the same as calling a women a slut or touching up her tits; Bigots and homophobes are, well, bigots and homophobes. Social mores are pretty set that these types are undesirable in a civilised society. Are women undesirable in a civilised society? Of course not, hence why your analogy fails.

The examples do not need to be analogous to be sexually harassed. They are examples of people being offended. You said that you disagree with the statement that people do not have the right to not be offended. You agree with censuring what people say; I do not.

rEvolutionist wrote:
In your opinion. How do you know this is true?

I assume that people are adults and aren't immature children who get upset when some one on the schoolyard teases them. Further, I actually don't have to show that it is harmless. You stated it is harmful and I disagree. Since you made the initial claim, one that I find incredulous, the burden of proof is on you. Please show me something that indicates that some one yelling "show me your tits" is harmful for most women.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Or men could just stop acting that way.

Once again, you can't go to a particular place where you know people behave a certain way and then get upset about it. Now yes, I agree that if it occurs on the street, at work, etc., it would be inappropriate. However, we do have laws against sexual harassment of that sort (in America, where I referring to in for the purpose of this discussion).

rEvolutionist wrote:
I think you're right. They should just stay at home in the kitchen where they belong.

Right. Dismiss my statement as being sexist when it is not. I do not go to areas where I do not feel comfortable. I see no reason to expect Pattaya, clubs, bars, etc. to change for my particular tastes and demeanor. I find a woman feeling otherwise to be completely unreasonable. Don't like it, don't go there.

rEvolutionist wrote:
What? No it doesn't. You just pulled 50% out of your arse.

Yes, I stated in both posts that I pulled the 20%-50% out of my ass. Please learn to read. I posted that link about sexual harassment in Australia to show that you are blind to what happens to men. Men are 25% as likely to report sexual harassment. Do you really believe men are as likely to report harassment as men? I, reasonably from my perspective, believe the figure to be higher than the 25%. In any event, the 20%-50% estimation I gave was correct. Please reread what I stated so that you can understand it.

rEvolutionist wrote:
[my emphasis]

What a load of fucking bollocks. Sorry, but you've lost any credibility that you might have had.

You are correct to call me on my statement as I did not clarify it enough. I tend to have the same problem that most Americans do and simply assume everything is in the context of America. Yes, outside of America, women are far more oppressed than women. The same is not true in America. If you wish, we can discuss this but given your initial response, I am fairly certain you will simply dismiss this out of hand and disregard any reasoning and evidence I provide.Furthermore, you do not get to determine my credibility, only my credibility with you.

rEvolutionist wrote:
I think it's pretty clear you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. I drove taxis at nights for years and saw exactly how the social dynamics at bars and clubs work. You are simply flat out wrong. And besides, this issue is about more than just going out drinking at night.

You are correct in that I can not speak about Australia with any significance. My only experience there was as a sailor. Having 5000 sailors swamping the bar scene likely does skew the numbers quite a bit. However, my statements do hold from my experience in America. Men go to bars in America more than women do.

What other areas besides bars, clubs, and other drunken celebrations do men frequently yell "show me your tits"?

rEvolutionist wrote:
I don't know what century this was in, but in the current one, in Australia, the mix is in women's favour (i.e. there's more women out than men).

My last trip to Australia was in 2006. I went to Perth and Sydney. However, I will defer to your statements about Australia and actually do not wish to discuss Australia for that particular reason. My experience and knowledge of Australia is much more limited. I am generally speaking about America. For instance, I think Indonesia, where I currently reside, needs a lot more feminist activists as the women here are treated little better than property.

rEvolutionist wrote:
I know you said it, and I explained why it is a stupid position to hold. And you didn't respond to that, so I'm not sure why you are just bleating out the same shit over again. Well, actually, I have a fairly good idea, going by some of your ridiculous statements above.

No, you did not explain why it's a stupid position to hold. You asserted it. As I regularly have to explain to my students, asserting and explaining are not the same. I then tried to show you why your reasoning as flawed by showing that it wouldn't hold water in other situations. You do not actually believe your own line of reasoning.

For instance, you said that society generally doesn't want those people. That's not true. That depends entirely on the society in which you live in. Our current doesn't generally want bigots. However, in America at least, atheists are the least desirable demographic. Rapists were ranked equally with atheists. So using your reasoning, athiests should not be upset about being insulted and austracized. Of course, you don't actually hold these beliefs. You only hold them when the statements being stated are against your particular beliefs. If you find them insulting, then they should be censored.

I hold freedom of expression as vitally important for social progression.

dancer_rnb wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

AliRadicali wrote:I'd also like to add that although it's currently viewed as sexist and possibly misogynist to objectify women based on their looks, it's a perfectly natural biological imperative. Males of any species select their mates by looking at signs of fertility. For humans, that happens to be youth, wide hips, healthy skin and large breasts.
Females objectify men based on their ability to provide for- and protect them. We find it abhorrent and superficial when men like a woman for her looks, but when women objectify men based on wealth, status, accomplishments, that's not really seen as a problem.
I'm not saying we should excuse everyone for being lewd sexists, but I'm wondering if it's healthy for society to view male objectification of women as something inherently sinful, when it seems to be a natural part of our sexual instincts.

While I kind of agree with what you are saying here... I think i've mentioned before that you need to be careful of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. That is, just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But of course, we can't go totally the other way either and claim that we should ignore our biological instincts. The right place is probably somewhere in the middle.

How's that for sitting on the fence?

Styles of behavior are taught, not springing forth from our genes.
Catcalling is no more an instinctive behavior as far as I can tell than is exposing oneself.

There's a difference between looking at catcalling. I don't actually condone catcalling. It's crude and intrusive.

Ok, to start... I appreciate that your quoting is getting better from your first few attempts, but could I ask that you include more than just my comment that you are responding to? By that I mean, can you include your comment that I was responding to, so I don't have to flick back and forth to another tab to see what it was you said that I was responding to. Cheers.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Once again, the examples you give are not analogous to the situation of women being sexually harassed. Why you keep failing to get this has me wondering exactly what you are on about. I'll break it down for you with your examples: Not telling someone you are an atheist is not the same as calling a women a slut or touching up her tits; Bigots and homophobes are, well, bigots and homophobes. Social mores are pretty set that these types are undesirable in a civilised society. Are women undesirable in a civilised society? Of course not, hence why your analogy fails.

The examples do not need to be analogous to be sexually harassed. They are examples of people being offended. You said that you disagree with the statement that people do not have the right to not be offended. You agree with censuring what people say; I do not.

What you are failing to understand is that "offence" and "harm/harassment" aren't mutually exclusive. You are acting as if they are, and I am trying to explain to you that they are not. I have no problem agreeing with you that people don't have the right to get offended over every little thing. But there are somethings that people can get offended by, that can ALSO cause them harm. As I explained to you in my first or second reply, you can't logically make a clear distinction between the mental and the physical in terms of some harm. If you think you can, you need to school yourself in some psychology and neurology.

rEvolutionist wrote:
In your opinion. How do you know this is true?

I assume that people are adults and aren't immature children who get upset when some one on the schoolyard teases them.

Well you'd be wrong. There's a century at least of psychological studies that show otherwise. You just wanting it to be not true isn't going to make it so. Educate yourself.

Further, I actually don't have to show that it is harmless. You stated it is harmful and I disagree. Since you made the initial claim, one that I find incredulous, the burden of proof is on you.

You implied that it was harmless by stating that no one has a right to be not offended. Unless you believe that no one has the right to be not harmed. I assume you don't believe that, therefore you don't equate offensive behaviour to harm. Back your shit up.

Please show me something that indicates that some one yelling "show me your tits" is harmful for most women.

Stop being disingenuous. You know damn well that the issue here is about more than one instance of "show us your tits", as has been explained to you twice now.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Or men could just stop acting that way.

Once again, you can't go to a particular place where you know people behave a certain way and then get upset about it.

Yes you can, if that behaviour is considered undesirable or illegal by society.

rEvolutionist wrote:
What? No it doesn't. You just pulled 50% out of your arse.

Yes, I stated in both posts that I pulled the 20%-50% out of my ass. Please learn to read. I posted that link about sexual harassment in Australia to show that you are blind to what happens to men. Men are 25% as likely to report sexual harassment. Do you really believe men are as likely to report harassment as men? I, reasonably from my perspective, believe the figure to be higher than the 25%. In any event, the 20%-50% estimation I gave was correct. Please reread what I stated so that you can understand it.

What malfunction are you suffering from? Nowhere in any thing you posted does anything mention anything about 50% or even close to that. You pulled that figure from your arse!. Now if we accept your figure of 20% or whatever the fuck it was, then that validates my argument that women suffer more sexual harassment than men, even if you figure in a level of under-reporting. But please continue to post stats that undermine your own argument.

rEvolutionist wrote:
[my emphasis]

What a load of fucking bollocks. Sorry, but you've lost any credibility that you might have had.

You are correct to call me on my statement as I did not clarify it enough. I tend to have the same problem that most Americans do and simply assume everything is in the context of America. Yes, outside of America, women are far more oppressed than women. The same is not true in America.

This doesn't make sense. Can you parse it into English, please?

What other areas besides bars, clubs, and other drunken celebrations do men frequently yell "show me your tits"?

Well, in Australia, pretty much everywhere. Most commonly at sporting events or building sites. Although "show us your cunt" is becoming more popular these days.

rEvolutionist wrote:
I know you said it, and I explained why it is a stupid position to hold. And you didn't respond to that, so I'm not sure why you are just bleating out the same shit over again. Well, actually, I have a fairly good idea, going by some of your ridiculous statements above.

No, you did not explain why it's a stupid position to hold. You asserted it. As I regularly have to explain to my students, asserting and explaining are not the same.

Once again, you seem to have a problem with the concepts of 'mutual exclusivity' and generally set theory. If you have students, that means you are a teacher of some sort. Surely you had to learn basic maths and logic to become a teacher, yes? I explained why it is not a functional position to take because it relies on the premise that every man is an island. It ignore society all together. As we live in a society, it is clearly a ridiculous assertion and totally unworkable. I'm guessing you are some sort of Libertarian? If so, that explains a lot of your views of human nature and social interaction. And like a libertarian, you also appear to have a woeful understand of human psychology. I'm sorry if I am being harsh to you, but when I see some stupid comments like "men are more oppressed than women", it's hard to not picture my interlocutor with either a serious mental disability, or sitting in his mom's basement with a troll mask on.

I then tried to show you why your reasoning as flawed by showing that it wouldn't hold water in other situations. You do not actually believe your own line of reasoning.

Arrogance, much? Lol. That's not going to save you from your own stupidity. You didn't even come close to addressing my point, as I showed you by pointing out how idiotic your analogies were.

For instance, you said that society generally doesn't want those people. That's not true. That depends entirely on the society in which you live in. Our current doesn't generally want bigots. However, in America at least, atheists are the least desirable demographic. Rapists were ranked equally with atheists. So using your reasoning, athiests should not be upset about being insulted and austracized. Of course, you don't actually hold these beliefs. You only hold them when the statements being stated are against your particular beliefs. If you find them insulting, then they should be censored.

Stop telling me about what beliefs I supposedly do and don't hold, and start thinking a bit more about your responses. Once again, your analogies here fail. There is a continuum of unelightened to enlightened social/political justice. Bigots and atheists are on opposites sides of that continuum. Tolerance for atheists is enlightened. Tolerance for bigots is unenlightened. The fact that the US is so socially backwards and always playing catchup with the rest of the world, doesn't support your argument in the slightest.

I hold freedom of expression as vitally important for social progression.

I think you need to spend more time studying the concepts of political enlightenment and the whole history of "rights". If you are indeed a libertarian, you will have a thoroughly fucked up view of "rights" via the unsupported concept of "natural rights". And unless you are a younger person (who usually grow out of this backwards ideology when they gain more knowledge as the grow up), then I find that most Libertarians can't shed their ridiculous ideology.

If you are not a libertarian, then feel free to ignore the bits about libertarians.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

dancer_rnb wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
While I kind of agree with what you are saying here... I think i've mentioned before that you need to be careful of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. That is, just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But of course, we can't go totally the other way either and claim that we should ignore our biological instincts. The right place is probably somewhere in the middle.

How's that for sitting on the fence?

Styles of behavior are taught, not springing forth from our genes.
Catcalling is no more an instinctive behavior as far as I can tell than is exposing oneself.

There's a difference between looking at catcalling. I don't actually condone catcalling. It's crude and intrusive.

Interesting. Can you expand on this a bit? Why are you concerned about "crude and intrusive" behaviour? You seemed to be implying that you didn't care whether people get offended or not.

Seems pretty clear to me. I would consider a catcall directed at a stranger "crude and intrusive" from the perspective of being similar to an invasion of personal space. Even if it is inoffensive it's impolite hence crude and potentially unwanted, hence intrusive.

I need to read this SR article and see what all the fuss is about.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Interesting. Can you expand on this a bit? Why are you concerned about "crude and intrusive" behaviour? You seemed to be implying that you didn't care whether people get offended or not.

I don't care if other people get offended and you don't have a right to not be offended.
That doesn't mean that I believe it is a good decision to go around intentionally offending people. There is a difference between stating something should be allowed and condoning it.

For instance, I don't condone getting wasted or doing drugs. However, I don't believe society benefits from either being illegal.

Ok, but there's still a bit of a disconnect there. I'm trying to understand how you can be concerned about being "crude" etc to someone else, but on the other hand not being concerned if other people get offended.

And extending that a bit, thinking it isn't a "good decision" to intentionally offend someone... It still doesn't gel with either your own expressed opinion that you don't care if someone is offended, or a further assessment of what exactly social mores and rights are. By the latter bit I mean, if it is 'bad', then why doesn't that translate into a societal "right"? After all, unless you are a libertarian, "rights" are nothing more than a reflection of social mores.

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, to start... I appreciate that your quoting is getting better from your first few attempts, but could I ask that you include more than just my comment that you are responding to? By that I mean, can you include your comment that I was responding to, so I don't have to flick back and forth to another tab to see what it was you said that I was responding to. Cheers.

The effort I put in to quoting depends on how much time I have to spend on the response. I generally try to avoid spending time on my computer at home as the little time I get at home is best spent with my family. So I generally am just on here when my students are otherwise preoccupied.

The reason I usually cut that portion out is that chain posts can get quite long. However, if you prefer it that way, I will try to remember that.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Once again, the examples you give are not analogous to the situation of women being sexually harassed. Why you keep failing to get this has me wondering exactly what you are on about. I'll break it down for you with your examples: Not telling someone you are an atheist is not the same as calling a women a slut or touching up her tits; Bigots and homophobes are, well, bigots and homophobes. Social mores are pretty set that these types are undesirable in a civilised society. Are women undesirable in a civilised society? Of course not, hence why your analogy fails.

The examples do not need to be analogous to be sexually harassed. They are examples of people being offended. You said that you disagree with the statement that people do not have the right to not be offended. You agree with censuring what people say; I do not.

What you are failing to understand is that "offence" and "harm/harassment" aren't mutually exclusive. You are acting as if they are, and I am trying to explain to you that they are not. I have no problem agreeing with you that people don't have the right to get offended over every little thing. But there are somethings that people can get offended by, that can ALSO cause them harm. As I explained to you in my first or second reply, you can't logically make a clear distinction between the mental and the physical in terms of some harm. If you think you can, you need to school yourself in some psychology and neurology.

Lets say that some one has gone through a tragic experience. Because of that tragic experience, he is emotionally traumatized and certain words trigger it. Should the rest of society not use those words in case it might cause harm?

Now yes, I agree that catcalls are a prick thing to do. Catcalls at women walking down the streets is inappropriate. However, not in bars, clubs, etc. If it's a private establishment, people can do what ever they feel is appropriate with in their social circle.

rEvolutionist wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
In your opinion. How do you know this is true?

I assume that people are adults and aren't immature children who get upset when some one on the schoolyard teases them.

Well you'd be wrong. There's a century at least of psychological studies that show otherwise. You just wanting it to be not true isn't going to make it so. Educate yourself.

Sorry but that's not a proper response in anyone remotely skeptical. I am educated. I have also did a modicum of research on the impact of catcalls. I have only found 1 study that has been conducted explicitly on it. The study was simply the opinions of 117 women volunteers from a feminist study class. They had the women watch videos of catcalls and then asked them how they would feel in those situation.

Sorry but it's called sample bias and does not actually support anything. If you have a better study, please, reference it.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Further, I actually don't have to show that it is harmless. You stated it is harmful and I disagree. Since you made the initial claim, one that I find incredulous, the burden of proof is on you.

You implied that it was harmless by stating that no one has a right to be not offended. Unless you believe that no one has the right to be not harmed. I assume you don't believe that, therefore you don't equate offensive behaviour to harm. Back your shit up.

Actually, it depends on your definition of harm.

Apparently you don't understand how skepticism works. You made a claim. I reject your claim as it disagrees with my perceptions. So please support it or I will continue to reject it. I have no problem if you don't agree with me but I will not concede a point I disagree with unless you can convince me that you are correct.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Please show me something that indicates that some one yelling "show me your tits" is harmful for most women.

Stop being disingenuous. You know damn well that the issue here is about more than one instance of "show us your tits", as has been explained to you twice now.

I am not being disingenuous. I am using the example you cited since you didn't like my "nice ass" example. I am not thinking of or speaking of a single act but the generalized act. I assumed that was apparent.

rEvolutionist wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Or men could just stop acting that way.

Once again, you can't go to a particular place where you know people behave a certain way and then get upset about it.

Yes you can, if that behaviour is considered undesirable or illegal by society.

This is where we disagree. Most of Americans consider homosexuality to be undesirable. Should we ban homosexuality? Most Americans consider atheism to be undesirable. Should we ban atheism? I agree that you can complain if the act is illegal. I don't agree that you can complain if you dislike the act and it's not illegal. Once again, you don't adhere to what you are claiming.

rEvolutionist wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
What? No it doesn't. You just pulled 50% out of your arse.

Yes, I stated in both posts that I pulled the 20%-50% out of my ass. Please learn to read. I posted that link about sexual harassment in Australia to show that you are blind to what happens to men. Men are 25% as likely to report sexual harassment. Do you really believe men are as likely to report harassment as men? I, reasonably from my perspective, believe the figure to be higher than the 25%. In any event, the 20%-50% estimation I gave was correct. Please reread what I stated so that you can understand it.

What malfunction are you suffering from? Nowhere in any thing you posted does anything mention anything about 50% or even close to that. You pulled that figure from your arse!. Now if we accept your figure of 20% or whatever the fuck it was, then that validates my argument that women suffer more sexual harassment than men, even if you figure in a level of under-reporting. But please continue to post stats that undermine your own argument.

*SIGH* Are you being intentionally obtuse?
I gave an estimated RANGE, 20% to 50%. 25% is with in my estimated range.

I think you misread what I stated. So please, go back and read it again. I said men are 20% to 50% as likely to be harassed. I never disagreed that women are harassed more. I stated that the difference was likely not as large as you think. Sorry but the problem here is with your ability to comprehend what I wrote and misinterpreting it to mean something I did not. So yeah... try again.

rEvolutionist wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
[my emphasis]

What a load of fucking bollocks. Sorry, but you've lost any credibility that you might have had.

You are correct to call me on my statement as I did not clarify it enough. I tend to have the same problem that most Americans do and simply assume everything is in the context of America. Yes, outside of America, women are far more oppressed than men. The same is not true in America.

This doesn't make sense. Can you parse it into English, please?

Corrected it. There was a typo.

rEvolutionist wrote:

What other areas besides bars, clubs, and other drunken celebrations do men frequently yell "show me your tits"?

Well, in Australia, pretty much everywhere. Most commonly at sporting events or building sites. Although "show us your cunt" is becoming more popular these days.

As I said, I can not speak of Australia. There are occasional catcalls in the street in some cities by crude men but they are not common and are generally considered bad form. I have never heard one outside of a movie.
However, at a sporting event, there are insults and derogatory comments of all types. If a woman does not wish to be subjected to that type of language, she is free to not go to that type of environment. While I don't condone it, I have no problem with it.

rEvolutionist wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
I know you said it, and I explained why it is a stupid position to hold. And you didn't respond to that, so I'm not sure why you are just bleating out the same shit over again. Well, actually, I have a fairly good idea, going by some of your ridiculous statements above.

No, you did not explain why it's a stupid position to hold. You asserted it. As I regularly have to explain to my students, asserting and explaining are not the same.

Once again, you seem to have a problem with the concepts of 'mutual exclusivity' and generally set theory. If you have students, that means you are a teacher of some sort. Surely you had to learn basic maths and logic to become a teacher, yes? I explained why it is not a functional position to take because it relies on the premise that every man is an island. It ignore society all together. As we live in a society, it is clearly a ridiculous assertion and totally unworkable. I'm guessing you are some sort of Libertarian? If so, that explains a lot of your views of human nature and social interaction. And like a libertarian, you also appear to have a woeful understand of human psychology. I'm sorry if I am being harsh to you, but when I see some stupid comments like "men are more oppressed than women", it's hard to not picture my interlocutor with either a serious mental disability, or sitting in his mom's basement with a troll mask on.

I know a bit of math and logic, yes ;-)
No, it does not rely on that premise. You keep asserting that it does and I keep saying it does not. Changing the manner in which you word something does not change what you state. I am not a libertarian. I am not a democrat, republican, etc. I simply make decisions based on information I have available at the time. I don't adhere to any particular ideology, except possibly skeptical humanism.

Don't not be afraid of being "harsh" with me. I join these forums as a means of learning what I do not know and also to help others see the holes in their own knowledge. If you believe I am incorrect and can actually show me that I am, I will thank you for it. I make a point of that.

So please, inform me why people have a right to be offended and others must change their behavior to avoid offending others in a functional society. You have not done so. You simply assert it as an obvious fact, one I fail to see.

I assure you, I have no mental or emotional deficiency. I am not trolling and do not troll, although I am occasionally accused of that as I generally only comment on statements I disagree with. So how about you drop the ad hominem's so we can discuss this honestly?

rEvolutionist wrote:

I then tried to show you why your reasoning as flawed by showing that it wouldn't hold water in other situations. You do not actually believe your own line of reasoning.

Arrogance, much? Lol. That's not going to save you from your own stupidity. You didn't even come close to addressing my point, as I showed you by pointing out how idiotic your analogies were.

They were not analogies for your situation but for your logic. I explained this.
Yes, I am arrogant, although I prefer the term confident. Once again though, can you stick to the topic and stop with the ad hominem's?
I showed that your logic would not apply in other situations. I have done this repeatedly.

rEvolutionist wrote:

For instance, you said that society generally doesn't want those people. That's not true. That depends entirely on the society in which you live in. Our current doesn't generally want bigots. However, in America at least, atheists are the least desirable demographic. Rapists were ranked equally with atheists. So using your reasoning, athiests should not be upset about being insulted and austracized. Of course, you don't actually hold these beliefs. You only hold them when the statements being stated are against your particular beliefs. If you find them insulting, then they should be censored.

Stop telling me about what beliefs I supposedly do and don't hold, and start thinking a bit more about your responses. Once again, your analogies here fail. There is a continuum of unelightened to enlightened social/political justice. Bigots and atheists are on opposites sides of that continuum. Tolerance for atheists is enlightened. Tolerance for bigots is unenlightened. The fact that the US is so socially backwards and always playing catchup with the rest of the world, doesn't support your argument in the slightest.

*SIGH* I don't know if your being intentionally dishonest here or if you really fail to understand logic. You support derogatory statements against those you disagree with but condemn those against those you agree with. That is, by the very definition of the term and it's common usage, hypocritical.

rEvolutionist wrote:

I hold freedom of expression as vitally important for social progression.

I think you need to spend more time studying the concepts of political enlightenment and the whole history of "rights". If you are indeed a libertarian, you will have a thoroughly fucked up view of "rights" via the unsupported concept of "natural rights". And unless you are a younger person (who usually grow out of this backwards ideology when they gain more knowledge as the grow up), then I find that most Libertarians can't shed their ridiculous ideology.

If you are not a libertarian, then feel free to ignore the bits about libertarians.

I am not a libertarian. Telling me to study something does not support your stance. Again, how about you address what I actually state rather than addressing me as an individual?

I'm sorting through some references now to present to you regarding psychological harm. I've still got a bit of reading to do to make sure the ones I present are actually relevant. So until then, I'll address your reply.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, to start... I appreciate that your quoting is getting better from your first few attempts, but could I ask that you include more than just my comment that you are responding to? By that I mean, can you include your comment that I was responding to, so I don't have to flick back and forth to another tab to see what it was you said that I was responding to. Cheers.

The effort I put in to quoting depends on how much time I have to spend on the response. I generally try to avoid spending time on my computer at home as the little time I get at home is best spent with my family. So I generally am just on here when my students are otherwise preoccupied.

The reason I usually cut that portion out is that chain posts can get quite long. However, if you prefer it that way, I will try to remember that.

Cheers. It's only really necessary to include your comment previous to mine that you are responding too.

rEvolutionist wrote:

What you are failing to understand is that "offence" and "harm/harassment" aren't mutually exclusive. You are acting as if they are, and I am trying to explain to you that they are not. I have no problem agreeing with you that people don't have the right to get offended over every little thing. But there are somethings that people can get offended by, that can ALSO cause them harm. As I explained to you in my first or second reply, you can't logically make a clear distinction between the mental and the physical in terms of some harm. If you think you can, you need to school yourself in some psychology and neurology.

Lets say that some one has gone through a tragic experience. Because of that tragic experience, he is emotionally traumatized and certain words trigger it. Should the rest of society not use those words in case it might cause harm?

Yet another analogy fail. We aren't talking about victims of trauma or a small segment of society. We are talking about 50% of society. Can you please try and focus on what the discussion actually is here?

Now yes, I agree that catcalls are a prick thing to do. Catcalls at women walking down the streets is inappropriate.

Why have you continually failed to realise this is about more than just "catcalls" or "show us your tits" remarks? How many more times does this have to be said to you?

rEvolutionist wrote:
Well you'd be wrong. There's a century at least of psychological studies that show otherwise. You just wanting it to be not true isn't going to make it so. Educate yourself.

Sorry but that's not a proper response in anyone remotely skeptical. I am educated. I have also did a modicum of research on the impact of catcalls. I have only found 1 study that has been conducted explicitly on it. The study was simply the opinions of 117 women volunteers from a feminist study class. They had the women watch videos of catcalls and then asked them how they would feel in those situation.

Once again, this is about so much more than a "catcall". Until you get this point, there's not much more point in continuing this discussion.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Further, I actually don't have to show that it is harmless. You stated it is harmful and I disagree. Since you made the initial claim, one that I find incredulous, the burden of proof is on you.

You implied that it was harmless by stating that no one has a right to be not offended. Unless you believe that no one has the right to be not harmed. I assume you don't believe that, therefore you don't equate offensive behaviour to harm. Back your shit up.

Actually, it depends on your definition of harm.

Apparently you don't understand how skepticism works. You made a claim.

As I showed you, you were the first one to make a claim through implication. You need to back your claim up if you expect support. For the purposes of fairness, since I did make an explicit claim, I am looking through some literature to find something appropriate to post here. That will come at some point.

I reject your claim as it disagrees with my perceptions. So please support it or I will continue to reject it. I have no problem if you don't agree with me but I will not concede a point I disagree with unless you can convince me that you are correct.

Your "perception" based on what? You're own personal experience? Or something wider than that. If it is the former, I have a fallacy I have coined for that - it's called the 'n=1' fallacy. Regardless, as an alleged skeptic, you should understand the silliness on relying on anecdotal evidence.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Stop being disingenuous. You know damn well that the issue here is about more than one instance of "show us your tits", as has been explained to you twice now.

I am not being disingenuous. I am using the example you cited since you didn't like my "nice ass" example.

Once again, stop being so disingenuous, and go back and actually read what I said. And then read my further replies to you. In ALL cases I made it clear that this wasn't just about a single instance of "nice ass" or "show us your tits". If you can't get the basics of this discussion right, then there's no point continuing.

I am not thinking of or speaking of a single act but the generalized act. I assumed that was apparent.

I'm not sure what you mean here? I'm talking about women suffering sustained (timeframe and frequency vary, of course) sexual harassment. I don't know what a "generalized act" has or hasn't to do with what I am saying.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Yes you can, if that behaviour is considered undesirable or illegal by society.

This is where we disagree. Most of Americans consider homosexuality to be undesirable. Should we ban homosexuality? Most Americans consider atheism to be undesirable. Should we ban atheism? I agree that you can complain if the act is illegal. I don't agree that you can complain if you dislike the act and it's not illegal. Once again, you don't adhere to what you are claiming.

Once again, you seem unable to distinguish between an argument based on enlightened principles and one not based on enlightened principles. Can you get this point? Females as a social group aren't equivalent to homosexuals or to bigots or to anything else. In the context of this discussion they are only equivalent to males as a social group for comparison purposes.

And regardless, how is homosexuality considered undesirable by American society? There are no laws against being a homosexual (I'm actually assuming this; but i suppose in the deep south, nothing would shock me), there's only laws about homosexuals doing certain things. It's not the homosexuality that is prohibited by society, it is certain actions (like marriage etc).

And even further to this, there is a whole western world outside of the US. The fact that the US is backwards in social progress, doesn't mean your argument has general applicability. If you want to argue just about the US, then clearly state that, and don't debate points from people speaking more generally.

rEvolutionist wrote:
What malfunction are you suffering from? Nowhere in any thing you posted does anything mention anything about 50% or even close to that. You pulled that figure from your arse!. Now if we accept your figure of 20% or whatever the fuck it was, then that validates my argument that women suffer more sexual harassment than men, even if you figure in a level of under-reporting. But please continue to post stats that undermine your own argument.

*SIGH* Are you being intentionally obtuse?
I gave an estimated RANGE, 20% to 50%. 25% is with in my estimated range.

No shit. But how does that support your argument?

I think you misread what I stated. So please, go back and read it again. I said men are 20% to 50% as likely to be harassed.

And I said you pulled that 50% figure out of your arse. Which you did! I really don't get what point you are trying to make by using that 50% figure. Well, I know you are trying to poison the well (or whatever the right fallacy is) by making it seem that the disparity in sexual harassment between men and women isn't as big as it seems, so we should just stop talking about how women are greater targets for sexual harassment. That's not going to wash.

I never disagreed that women are harassed more. I stated that the difference was likely not as large as you think. Sorry but the problem here is with your ability to comprehend what I wrote and misinterpreting it to mean something I did not. So yeah... try again.

My comprehension is fine, thanks. I comprehended your statement about men being more oppressed than women as you claiming men were more oppressed than women. I see you are now trying to say that they're not. So which is it? Someone needs to brush up their English skills here, and it's not me (any more so than usual).

And that aside, what is your point in trying to argue that the disparity in the figure between the sexes isn't as large as we might think, while apparently (despite your stupid remarks earlier in the thread) agreeing that women are more harassed than men? It seems to me as though you are attempting some sort of backpeddling away from your ignorant remarks of earlier.

rEvolutionist wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
[my emphasis]

What a load of fucking bollocks. Sorry, but you've lost any credibility that you might have had.

You are correct to call me on my statement as I did not clarify it enough. I tend to have the same problem that most Americans do and simply assume everything is in the context of America. Yes, outside of America, women are far more oppressed than men. The same is not true in America.

This doesn't make sense. Can you parse it into English, please?

Corrected it. There was a typo.

Ok, cheers. And I'm not trying to be an arsehole by saying this, but it is bad form to change someone else's quote. The proper procedure is to go back and edit your original quote, and then just reference that here.

However, at a sporting event, there are insults and derogatory comments of all types. If a woman does not wish to be subjected to that type of language, she is free to not go to that type of environment. While I don't condone it, I have no problem with it.

I find that attitude very anti-social/society. You sure you aren't a libertarian?

rEvolutionist wrote:
Once again, you seem to have a problem with the concepts of 'mutual exclusivity' and generally set theory. If you have students, that means you are a teacher of some sort. Surely you had to learn basic maths and logic to become a teacher, yes? I explained why it is not a functional position to take because it relies on the premise that every man is an island. It ignore society all together. As we live in a society, it is clearly a ridiculous assertion and totally unworkable. I'm guessing you are some sort of Libertarian? If so, that explains a lot of your views of human nature and social interaction. And like a libertarian, you also appear to have a woeful understand of human psychology. I'm sorry if I am being harsh to you, but when I see some stupid comments like "men are more oppressed than women", it's hard to not picture my interlocutor with either a serious mental disability, or sitting in his mom's basement with a troll mask on.

I know a bit of math and logic, yes ;-)
No, it does not rely on that premise. You keep asserting that it does and I keep saying it does not. Changing the manner in which you word something does not change what you state.

Man. The concept you are subscribing to (the 'no-offence' one), is incompatible with civil society, as the concept is premised on individuality - that is, nothing you say can be reasonably expected to harm another individual; hence it's an individualist philosophy. Society is the very antithesis of individualism. That's why they are incompatible and someone trying to assert that they are is being logically incoherent.

Put it another way. Let's say hitting people in the face was considered by you to be not harmful to another person. That is, no one can take offence at being punch in the face. If they don't like it, they can just stay home. Can you see how society couldn't function in such a way? It's the same principle.

Don't not be afraid of being "harsh" with me.

This makes me happy!

So please, inform me why people have a right to be offended and others must change their behavior to avoid offending others in a functional society. You have not done so. You simply assert it as an obvious fact, one I fail to see.

As i've said, when that offence intersects with harm, then people do have a right to be offended, as they would be if someone just came up and punched them in the face.

I assure you, I have no mental or emotional deficiency. I am not trolling and do not troll, although I am occasionally accused of that as I generally only comment on statements I disagree with. So how about you drop the ad hominem's so we can discuss this honestly?

You'll have to excuse me for thinking someone who claims that men are more sexually harassed than women (whether in the US or not) is not here in an honest capacity. And I don't think I am being unreasonable in that assessment.

rEvolutionist wrote:

I then tried to show you why your reasoning as flawed by showing that it wouldn't hold water in other situations. You do not actually believe your own line of reasoning.

Arrogance, much? Lol. That's not going to save you from your own stupidity. You didn't even come close to addressing my point, as I showed you by pointing out how idiotic your analogies were.

They were not analogies for your situation but for your logic. I explained this.

And you failed. I don't know what you mean by the distinction between "situation" and "logic", but all analogies make a logical statement of some sort. And yours didn't, because you based them on the wrong premises. You can't make logical inferences from assessments based on faulty premises.

Yes, I am arrogant, although I prefer the term confident. Once again though, can you stick to the topic and stop with the ad hominem's?

Drop the arrogance, and i'll give it a go.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Stop telling me about what beliefs I supposedly do and don't hold, and start thinking a bit more about your responses. Once again, your analogies here fail. There is a continuum of unelightened to enlightened social/political justice. Bigots and atheists are on opposites sides of that continuum. Tolerance for atheists is enlightened. Tolerance for bigots is unenlightened. The fact that the US is so socially backwards and always playing catchup with the rest of the world, doesn't support your argument in the slightest.

*SIGH* I don't know if your being intentionally dishonest here or if you really fail to understand logic. You support derogatory statements against those you disagree with but condemn those against those you agree with.

We are not talking about an individual's (i.e. me) assessment of what is right or wrong, we are talking about social mores, and social progression through enlightened thinking. So it's got nothing to do with what I "disagree with". It's got to do with what an enlightened society disagrees with. Enlightened societies disagree with bigotry and homophobia. They DON'T disagree with women being treated equally as men. For the love of god, please think a little more deeply about these points before you just reply with the same wide of the mark points.

rEvolutionist wrote:

I hold freedom of expression as vitally important for social progression.

I think you need to spend more time studying the concepts of political enlightenment and the whole history of "rights". If you are indeed a libertarian, you will have a thoroughly fucked up view of "rights" via the unsupported concept of "natural rights". And unless you are a younger person (who usually grow out of this backwards ideology when they gain more knowledge as the grow up), then I find that most Libertarians can't shed their ridiculous ideology.

If you are not a libertarian, then feel free to ignore the bits about libertarians.

I am not a libertarian. Telling me to study something does not support your stance. ?

But it does make the point that it is hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't understand the basic tenets underpinning the phenomenon we are discussing. If you can't somehow find your way around to understanding those tenets, then there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

Actually, before I do any more searching and reading of references relating to psychological harm, let's see if we can get an understanding of what you accept and don't accept. Can you tell me your views and knowledge on psychological harm (more so outside of the cases of PTSD)? Do you believe outside of PTSD people can experience psychological harm from the outside world? Do you accept that all physical phenomena are manifested psychologically, in addition to any actual physical effects of that harm?

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, but there's still a bit of a disconnect there. I'm trying to understand how you can be concerned about being "crude" etc to someone else, but on the other hand not being concerned if other people get offended.

And extending that a bit, thinking it isn't a "good decision" to intentionally offend someone... It still doesn't gel with either your own expressed opinion that you don't care if someone is offended, or a further assessment of what exactly social mores and rights are. By the latter bit I mean, if it is 'bad', then why doesn't that translate into a societal "right"? After all, unless you are a libertarian, "rights" are nothing more than a reflection of social mores.

To your first statement, I can disagree with some ones actions but still support their right to do it. For instance, I have no desire what so ever to have sex with another man but I will support the right of some one else who does wish to.

I don't do anything that I believe should be found offensive by a reasonable person. So if some one is offended by something I do, they are unreasonable. For instance, I once had a student tell me that she was offended when I said I didn't believe Mohammad was a prophet or in anything divine(for clarification, she had asked me why I don't accept Islam and that was my response). I was not wrong; she was. So yes, I do not care if I offend some one. I will not alter my behavior, which I deem reasonable and unoffensive to anyone else who is reasonable, simply because some one else gets pissy.

Your second statement creates a false dichotomy. It's not either I agree with you or believe that rights are inherent. Rights are social mores as are morals. Legality and morals are not equivalent nor should they be. For instance, I believe it is immoral to sell drugs to addicts. However, I would vote to legalize drugs as I believe the cost of drugs being illegal out weighs the cost of legalizing it.

I believe that free speech is paramount to social evolution and advancement. I will agree to infringements on that right in only extreme statements. Yes, that guy yelling "show your cunt" is a crude asshole. I would agree with social condemnation and social (but not legal) punishments.

Cheers for that reply. I detect that you might be reticent to keep debating with me on that other series of posts. I'm actually very tired and just today started dealing with some shit I really don't want to, so if you don't want to continue that discussion that's fine with me. If you do respond, I might not reply in depth as I am pretty burnt out now.

rEvolutionist wrote:Cheers for that reply. I detect that you might be reticent to keep debating with me on that other series of posts. I'm actually very tired and just today started dealing with some shit I really don't want to, so if you don't want to continue that discussion that's fine with me. If you do respond, I might not reply in depth as I am pretty burnt out now.

Not at all. I simply had a 6 hour break so I went home for a bit, watched the new bond movie and now back in class.
I probably won't respond to it tonight because it has gotten quite long. Tomorrow morning is more likely (we are similar time zones so morning for both of us :-P).

rEvolutionist wrote:Actually, before I do any more searching and reading of references relating to psychological harm, let's see if we can get an understanding of what you accept and don't accept. Can you tell me your views and knowledge on psychological harm (more so outside of the cases of PTSD)? Do you believe outside of PTSD people can experience psychological harm from the outside world? Do you accept that all physical phenomena are manifested psychologically, in addition to any actual physical effects of that harm?

To be honest, I never put much stock in a lot of the soft sciences. The studies tend to have a strong confirmation bias and very little predictive capability.

Of course I believe that outside of PTSD that people can experience psychological harm.
No, I do not accept that all physical phenomena are manifested psychologically. Your use of the word "all" is too extreme. I do believe that most of our experiences have a psychological impact, whether it is significant or slight. However, to state that an experience is harmful is simplistic.

For instance, when I was in high school, I saw my brother get stabbed. While this was a slightly traumatic experience, the end result of that experience is that I became less aggressive and I view it as being emotionally beneficial.

I don't think you can simply state that some one's experience is innately bad for that individual. Life is complicated and the way things play out is also quite complicated. Small things can have a huge impact and large things can have a small one.

I will agree that for SOME women, catcalls can be detrimental. However, that's irrelevant. Everything can be detrimental to some degree to some people. What matters is whether the risk of harm is significant and if society would benefit from curbing such action. Since societies in which people can express themselves more freely tend to also be more stable, enlightened, etc., I generally do not condone restricting peoples free speech unless I can see, or can be shown, through reasoning or evidence, justification for it. Cat calls, while generally, although not always, inappropriate are simply not something that I see as being inherently harmful enough to justify restricting.