Schrödinger Rapist, once again.

Gaahh... you're still talking about "catcalls" solely. Come on. Don't make me get all shouty and abusive again...

Looks like we have a few aspiring novelists among us!

rEvolutionist wrote:
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?

Jesus fucking christ. How many times do I need to state that I am not comparing the SITUATIONS. I am comparing the LOGIC.

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

rEvolutionist wrote: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?

Sexual harassment of a non-physical nature was the statement I originally brought up. You brought up catcalls. My sentiments stand for dirty jokes, leering, or other forms of none physical sexual harassment. You seem to have forgotten the original topic and are trying to broaden it. Sorry, not going to do that.

rEvolutionist wrote:

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.

It's about sexual harassment.

rEvolutionist wrote:

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.

Uh, dude, you made the post, I responded disagreeing. So no, the burden of proof is on you. I do not need to prove that sexual harassment of a non-physical nature is generally not harmful to women. You claimed women had reason to fear it.

rEvolutionist wrote: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.

Based on my own personal experience. It is not wrong to disagree with some one else's baseless opinion based on my own personal experience. It's also not logically fallacious to do so. We don't have evidence for everything but must still formulate opinions. So please, feel free to provide evidence that my experience and opinion is wrong. Show me that verbal sexual harassment is something that women need to FEAR and that fear is not irrational.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

Nice try slipping in the word suffering :-P

I understand what you are talking about and I am talking about the same thing. Sorry that I keep referring to the example you provided as a ready example. I have never stated that it's all that women suffer or that it only happens once.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

Once again, you believe in freedom of speech for those who agree with you and not for those who don't agree with you.
Who is to determine what is "enlightened"? You? Ok, I don't have to appeal to minority discrimination. How about women being insulting or objectifying towards men? As I have already showed, that does occur fairly frequently

Prohibited by law and prohibited by society is a very different matter. There is a reason why there's a gay rights movement in America and there is a reason why I support it, despite having no vested interest in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
It took the supreme court to make sodomy legal.

I did state that I am only discussing the US. Multiple times.

rEvolutionist wrote:
No shit. But how does that support your argument?

Well, men are sexually harassed at a higher rate than you thought, correct? Men are 25% as likely to report sexual harassment. Men are also less likely to report sexual harassment.
http://www.workharassment.net/index.php/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace.html
Says men are about 50% as likely to be sexually in the US.

What I find funny is your constant ranting about America being more socially backwards yet we have less problems with racism and sexism than you do in Australia.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

Jesus christ. What the fuck do you not understand about making an estimation? In fact, it is correct, according to studies done in the link I provided above. I am NOT trying to "poison the well". In fact, your stating this makes you look retarded. Please learn wtf a fallacy is before stating it. I never stated that and never implied it. I stated that men are victims of sexual harassment as well as the disparity is not as large as you think. I have provided references to support that. I did not cherry pick the references but simply linked the first ones I could find.

"in a 2004 study by Lawyers.com and Glamour Magazine, 17% of men said they had experienced sexual harassment, and vs. 35% of women."

So I stand by estimation of men being 20% to 50% as likely to be sexually harassed as women are. Most women shrug off the vast majority of sexual harassment they receive as well. I don't condone sexual harassment but I think what some people consider to be sexual harassment is not. I am of the opinion that people can say what ever they want.

rEvolutionist wrote: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.

So being sexually harassed more by default means more oppressed? Sorry, but I'd rather be objectified and belittled than systematically enslaved through alimony and child support. I'd rather have social pressures against me than legal bias against me. I'd rather have some woman grab my junk on occasion than have 60% of my income garnered and given to a woman who betrayed me.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

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

I may agree with some aspects of libertarians. I am not well versed on their ideology. My limited exposure to them is that they are idiots.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

I disagree. Go to countries where people are not able to openly express dissenting views. Try Saudi Arabia, here in Indonesia, to a lesser extent China, etc. Then go to places where people are more free to express their views, such as Denmark, America, etc. Tell me which you believe has a better functioning society.

Society is a collection of individuals. We must live and interact with each other. There must be a balance in our ability to express ourselves and be who we are and our need to conform to societies needs and expectations. If it is excessively liberal, then anarchy reigns. If it is excessively conservative, then society is oppressed and individuality, progression, innovation, etc., are stifled.

I agree that assault can not be allowed. Society would not function well if threat of violence was drastically increased. However, society does function quite well with freedom of expression. I believe, given what I have read and witnessed, that freedom of speech is far greater than the harm caused by occasional jerks.

So once again, you are presenting a false dichotomy. More specifically, it's a black/white fallacy. It's not all or none.

[/quote]

rEvolutionist wrote:
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 never said people don't have a right to be offended. In fact, I said the opposite. People have the right to offend them.
Your use of the word harm is quite vague and I don't agree with its usage. I have explained why already.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

Rather than assuming I am idiotic or trolling, why not ask me why I would take such a stance? I can quite easily explain it and mentioned a bit of it above.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

For instance, you stated that it was ok to insult bigots because they were undesired by society. I pointed out that homosexuals are undesired in American society and (I assumed) that you wouldn't support insulting them for their homosexuality.

I am sorry that you don't see how your belief on freedom of speech is hypocritical, given the justifications you have given.

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

Uh, no? I am not stating anything inappropriate by pointing out your failed reasoning.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

Who is to state what is and is not enlightened? For instance, many of the people condemn those who attacked Rebecca Watson. While I don't condone their the method many took, I don't condemn the attack as I believer her statement was unwarranted.

When you restrict what people can and can not say, you restrict peoples abilities to point out flaws in the logic of others. My statements are not wide of the mark. My statements are accurate to what you are stating. You have conceded it. It is ok to attack people who hold views you disagree with but it's not ok for those people to attack people who hold views you agree with. What the fuck gives you the right to determine what is and is not the correct view?

Yet you have the audacity to call me arrogant.

rEvolutionist wrote:
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.

Ah, so if I don't agree with your dogma, then you do not have to defend your dogma. I am not going to get in to a pissing contest but I am fairly confident that I can understand anything you are able to. While it is completely possible I have not been exposed to a particular concept or point of view that could change my views, I will not simply concede the point because you want to be condescending.

Ok, I'm not going to address all that. Maybe we need to start over again. I need to apologise to you for fucking up the 50% thing. I see what you mean, now. I think my anger at your ridiculous statement about men being more sexually harassed than women clouded my thinking. Perhaps we go back to that point and you explain what you meant by that statement. If you can convince me that there's a genuine reason to believe that, then i'll respond. If you can't, then I won't waste any more of my time.

The other issue we need to touch on is the concept of psychological harm. Until we can come to some sort of understanding of each other's views of that, then there's not much point mixing it in with gender issues.

One other issue you've raised a bit is my reference to 'enlightened thinking/societies', and issues of 'freedom of speech'. I don't think that is really relevant to this thread, but if you want to start another thread to discuss it there, I'll join in there.

cheers.

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, I'm not going to address all that. Maybe we need to start over again. I need to apologise to you for fucking up the 50% thing. I see what you mean, now. I think my anger at your ridiculous statement about men being more sexually harassed than women clouded my thinking. Perhaps we go back to that point and you explain what you meant by that statement. If you can convince me that there's a genuine reason to believe that, then i'll respond. If you can't, then I won't waste any more of my time.

The other issue we need to touch on is the concept of psychological harm. Until we can come to some sort of understanding of each other's views of that, then there's not much point mixing it in with gender issues.

One other issue you've raised a bit is my reference to 'enlightened thinking/societies', and issues of 'freedom of speech'. I don't think that is really relevant to this thread, but if you want to start another thread to discuss it there, I'll join in there.

cheers.

I NEVER stated that men are more sexually harassed than women. I said men (and later qualified to men in America) are more oppressed than women; I stand by this statement. Sexual harassment is not synonymous with oppression. Please do not strawman me. Since I did not state what you said I did, I have no obligation what so ever to support it. Doubly so since I don't believe what you said I stated.

You said that women were right to fear sexual harassment. I cited men getting sexually harassed to to illustrate that men are, generally, not concerned with this, despite a lesser but comparable risk of it occurring. Yes women are harassed 2-4 times as much (victimization surveys say 2 and report rates say 4). However, I don't consider that such a drastic difference in rates as to justify such a drastic difference in perceptions of fear.

Basically, yes, if ANYONE leaves their house, there's a chance that some one will say something that offends them. There's 2 ways to approach this. 1, they can accept this aspect of society (studies show this is the healthier response http://blogs.cornell.edu/theessentials/2012/05/01/hollaback-to-catcalls/) or they can get upset and offended anytime some one says something they don't like (which will do nothing but cause more harm for them).

Also, I do not see it as being remotely inappropriate to state "if you don't like the environment, don't go there". No, I don't believe that all people should feel comfortable in all situations. For example, I don't go to gay bars because I don't feel comfortable in the environment. I won't go to gay bars and then get upset at their behavior. I won't go to a bridal shower and demand that they change the decor to accommodate my gender preferences. Etc. People tend to go to social gatherings with people that are similar in character with themselves.

When I go to social gatherings, I am surrounded by other nerds, gamers, skeptics, etc. I don't feel comfortable around conspiracy theorists, jocks, or stupid people. As such, I avoid going to places where I am more likely to encounter such people. Since that means most places, yes, I am not particularly social because I don't feel particularly comfortable in most social situations. That's MY issue. It is completely unreasonable to expect society to change to accommodate me.

Now, before you say "women are half the population", not all women have the same issues, desires, etc.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, I'm not going to address all that. Maybe we need to start over again. I need to apologise to you for fucking up the 50% thing. I see what you mean, now. I think my anger at your ridiculous statement about men being more sexually harassed than women clouded my thinking. Perhaps we go back to that point and you explain what you meant by that statement. If you can convince me that there's a genuine reason to believe that, then i'll respond. If you can't, then I won't waste any more of my time.

The other issue we need to touch on is the concept of psychological harm. Until we can come to some sort of understanding of each other's views of that, then there's not much point mixing it in with gender issues.

One other issue you've raised a bit is my reference to 'enlightened thinking/societies', and issues of 'freedom of speech'. I don't think that is really relevant to this thread, but if you want to start another thread to discuss it there, I'll join in there.

cheers.

I NEVER stated that men are more sexually harassed than women. I said men (and later qualified to men in America) are more oppressed than women; I stand by this statement. Sexual harassment is not synonymous with oppression. Please do not strawman me. Since I did not state what you said I did, I have no obligation what so ever to support it. Doubly so since I don't believe what you said I stated.

FFS, just answer the question. Yes, you said oppression, not sexual harassment. I'm not making that mistake on purpose. Regardless it makes NO difference to the shear ridiculousness of your views. In fact, 'oppression' is worse than 'harassment', so your faux indignation doesn't wash. And given it takes you half a day + to compose a reply, I'm really not interested in having a debate with you if you are going have a hissy fit about something that doesn't change the substance of what you said for the worse. Now, are you going to answer the fucking question?

You said that women were right to fear sexual harassment. I cited men getting sexually harassed to to illustrate that men are, generally, not concerned with this, despite a lesser but comparable risk of it occurring. Yes women are harassed 2-4 times as much (victimization surveys say 2 and report rates say 4). However, I don't consider that such a drastic difference in rates as to justify such a drastic difference in perceptions of fear.

Ok, couple of points - Does "sexual harassment" include actual physical assault in those figures/reports?; and second question is what are you basing this view of yours on that the differences in perceptions of fear (how are you determining this?) are not "justif[ied]"? Is it just a personal feeling? If so, don't you think it is more appropriate to ask the women who are feeling this fear to explain their justifications for it?

Basically, yes, if ANYONE leaves their house, there's a chance that some one will say something that offends them. There's 2 ways to approach this. 1, they can accept this aspect of society (studies show this is the healthier response http://blogs.cornell.edu/theessentials/2012/05/01/hollaback-to-catcalls/) or they can get upset and offended anytime some one says something they don't like (which will do nothing but cause more harm for them).

But doing essentially nothing about the problem (of men acting inappropriately) will never address the problem. I think the women concerned about this want to address the problem.

Also, I do not see it as being remotely inappropriate to state "if you don't like the environment, don't go there". No, I don't believe that all people should feel comfortable in all situations. For example, I don't go to gay bars because I don't feel comfortable in the environment. I won't go to gay bars and then get upset at their behavior. I won't go to a bridal shower and demand that they change the decor to accommodate my gender preferences. Etc. People tend to go to social gatherings with people that are similar in character with themselves.

We are talking about society here, not bars or private functions.

When I go to social gatherings, I am surrounded by other nerds, gamers, skeptics, etc. I don't feel comfortable around conspiracy theorists, jocks, or stupid people. As such, I avoid going to places where I am more likely to encounter such people. Since that means most places, yes, I am not particularly social because I don't feel particularly comfortable in most social situations. That's MY issue. It is completely unreasonable to expect society to change to accommodate me.

They are expecting society to change to accommodate more than 50% of the population. Not particular specific social gatherings, nor for the benefit of individuals only.

Now, before you say "women are half the population", not all women have the same issues, desires, etc.

True. But that's not an argument against improving rights for women. Many slaves didn't want emancipation. Many muslim women are happy with their place (and dress codes) in Islamic society. This gets back to the enlightened thinking thing.

The other thing to talk about was your view that the physical doesn't necessarily manifest in the psychological. I reckon we must be misunderstanding each other, as the very statement/view itself is semantically incoherent. Can you talk about this?

rEvolutionist wrote:
FFS, just answer the question. Yes, you said oppression, not sexual harassment. I'm not making that mistake on purpose. Regardless it makes NO difference to the shear ridiculousness of your views. In fact, 'oppression' is worse than 'harassment', so your faux indignation doesn't wash. And given it takes you half a day + to compose a reply, I'm really not interested in having a debate with you if you are going have a hissy fit about something that doesn't change the substance of what you said for the worse. Now, are you going to answer the fucking question?

Pose the question correctly and I will answer it. As it is, I am not entirely sure which of the interpretations of that question you want answered.

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, couple of points - Does "sexual harassment" include actual physical assault in those figures/reports?; and second question is what are you basing this view of yours on that the differences in perceptions of fear (how are you determining this?) are not "justif[ied]"? Is it just a personal feeling? If so, don't you think it is more appropriate to ask the women who are feeling this fear to explain their justifications for it?

No, I do not. Asking if some one fears something does not address whether or not it is a reasonable fear. For instance, many people are irrationally afraid of Islamic terrorism. I don't need to ask the people who are afraid of Muslims to know that their fear is irrational.

rEvolutionist wrote:
But doing essentially nothing about the problem (of men acting inappropriately) will never address the problem. I think the women concerned about this want to address the problem.

I don't see it as necessarily acting inappropriately. I have explained this. In work environments, government institutions, educational environments, etc., I approve of sexual harassment laws. I do not support such laws applied at all times though.

rEvolutionist wrote:
We are talking about society here, not bars or private functions.

Well, where else are these actions common enough to be problematic and not illegal? You have mentioned a couple places and I don't believe it should be illegal to state what one wishes to state in a private establishment. I also do not condone censorship in public places for reasons I have already explained.

rEvolutionist wrote:
They are expecting society to change to accommodate more than 50% of the population. Not particular specific social gatherings, nor for the benefit of individuals only.

Once again, not all women have the same needs and desires. You, feminist organizations, etc., do not speak for all women. That's why there are so many women who are anti-feminists.

rEvolutionist wrote:
True. But that's not an argument against improving rights for women. Many slaves didn't want emancipation. Many muslim women are happy with their place (and dress codes) in Islamic society. This gets back to the enlightened thinking thing.

I am not arguing against improving woman's rights one iota. Once again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
FFS, just answer the question. Yes, you said oppression, not sexual harassment. I'm not making that mistake on purpose. Regardless it makes NO difference to the shear ridiculousness of your views. In fact, 'oppression' is worse than 'harassment', so your faux indignation doesn't wash. And given it takes you half a day + to compose a reply, I'm really not interested in having a debate with you if you are going have a hissy fit about something that doesn't change the substance of what you said for the worse. Now, are you going to answer the fucking question?

Pose the question correctly and I will answer it. As it is, I am not entirely sure which of the interpretations of that question you want answered.

Jesus christ! What is your problem? I've just explained what the question is. Stop obfuscating. Listen, not that I need to grant you permission to not answer the question - as you are doing fine on that regard all by yourself - but I just read another thread where you are discussing this thing with others, so I will watch along over in that thread.

rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, couple of points - Does "sexual harassment" include actual physical assault in those figures/reports?; and second question is what are you basing this view of yours on that the differences in perceptions of fear (how are you determining this?) are not "justif[ied]"? Is it just a personal feeling? If so, don't you think it is more appropriate to ask the women who are feeling this fear to explain their justifications for it?

No, I do not. Asking if some one fears something does not address whether or not it is a reasonable fear. For instance, many people are irrationally afraid of Islamic terrorism. I don't need to ask the people who are afraid of Muslims to know that their fear is irrational.

Couple of points - 1. Can you address the whole comment?; and 2, who says that women fearing harm from sexual harassment is irrational? Obviously you do, but what's your reasoning for this?

rEvolutionist wrote:
But doing essentially nothing about the problem (of men acting inappropriately) will never address the problem. I think the women concerned about this want to address the problem.

I don't see it as necessarily acting inappropriately. I have explained this. In work environments, government institutions, educational environments, etc., I approve of sexual harassment laws. I do not support such laws applied at all times though.

Yes, I know you don't (libertarianism, anyone?), but society does. You can't be racist or sexist (and that includes verbal abuse) in private organisations even in the US, as far as I know. In the rest of the enlightened world, society grants no special privileges to individuals to hide their bigotry behind private boundaries. In some cases there are practical reasons to exclude or treat certain groups differently, but that is not bigotry, which is really what we are talking about here.

rEvolutionist wrote:
They are expecting society to change to accommodate more than 50% of the population. Not particular specific social gatherings, nor for the benefit of individuals only.

Once again, not all women have the same needs and desires. You, feminist organizations, etc., do not speak for all women. That's why there are so many women who are anti-feminists.

Neither do you speak for all women (thank gawd). It would seem the best practice would be to use a combination of listening to the people this involves (i.e. women) and enlightened thinking. And science.

rEvolutionist wrote:
True. But that's not an argument against improving rights for women. Many slaves didn't want emancipation. Many muslim women are happy with their place (and dress codes) in Islamic society. This gets back to the enlightened thinking thing.

I am not arguing against improving woman's rights one iota.

Well that's a difference of interpretation between you and segment of the female population. Given what you've said and how much you seem to rely on your 'feelings' for deriving your beliefs, I'd be more inclined to value those females' (and sociologists') opinions over yours.

Once again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Just repeating it doesn't make it true. We started getting into this a bit before. If offence intersects with harm, then people absolutely DO have a right not to be harmed. The problem is that you imply that offence can never intersect with harm. You'd be better off saying it thus: "You don't have the right to not be offended, unless you are harmed". But then that wouldn't be as pithy and presumably as erudite looking, I suppose.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Jesus christ! What is your problem? I've just explained what the question is. Are you terminally stupid? Apparently so. Listen, not that I need to grant you permission to not answer the question - as you are doing fine on that regard all by yourself - but I just read another thread where you are discussing this thing with others, so I will watch along over in that thread.

Actually, you didn't. Sorry but you asked a question that was nonsensical as it wanted me to explain something that I don't agree with. Then when I ask for clarification, you get pissy. Is there any particular reason you can't simply ask the question correctly?

rEvolutionist wrote:
Couple of points - 1. Can you address the whole comment?; and 2, who says that women fearing harm from sexual harassment is irrational? Obviously you do, but what's your reasoning for this?

1. The surveys stated sexual harassment. It did not distinguish between physical and non-physical sexual harassment.
2. It depends the type of sexual harassment. We were talking about non-physical sexual harassment. I just want to clarify that is the type of sexual harassment you are still referring to, correct?
As for my my reasoning, it is based on the actions of people to other forms of verbal abuse. Yes, people of course don't enjoy verbal abuse. However, unless the harm is significant, why would you fear it? I have given examples of this already.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Yes, I know you don't (libertarianism, anyone?), but society does. You can't be racist or sexist (and that includes verbal abuse) in private organisations even in the US, as far as I know. In the rest of the enlightened world, society grants no special privileges to individuals to hide their bigotry behind private boundaries. In some cases there are practical reasons to exclude or treat certain groups differently, but that is not bigotry, which is really what we are talking about here.

No, you can't state that society supports those laws when those laws are not in place. Yes, you can be racist and sexist in the US. The state can not be and there have been laws against such actions in employment (equal opportunity). Also, certain private places that are considered purely public in nature, such restaurants, also have such laws (a topic I have mixed opinions about but still believe the laws are warranted). However, private organizations, businesses, etc. can deny access based on what ever criteria they wish. For instance, most shelters deny access to men. Many minority organizations deny access to people who aren't part of that minority. There is a difference between public and private. This is one of the reasons why I had

That's your OPINION. How many times do I have to tell you that? I disagree with your opinion on what an enlightened society means. I have the right to say and think what ever I wish to. Simply because you disagree with some one does not give you the right to deny their right to free speech. Sorry but suppressing free speech is NOT what an "enlightened" society does. It's what and theocratic dictatorships do.

Treating one group differently is not necessarily bigotry but it is discriminatory.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Neither do you speak for all women (thank gawd). It would seem the best practice would be to use a combination of listening to the people this involves (i.e. women) and enlightened thinking. And science.

No, not enlightened thinking as that's apparently really subjective. Science and reasoning only.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Well that's a difference of interpretation between you and segment of the female population. Given what you've said and how much you seem to rely on your 'feelings' for deriving your beliefs, I'd be more inclined to value those females' (and sociologists') opinions over yours.

What right am I trying to deny women?

rEvolutionist wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true. We started getting into this a bit before. If offence intersects with harm, then people absolutely DO have a right not to be harmed. The problem is that you imply that offence can never intersect with harm. You'd be better off saying it thus: "You don't have the right to not be offended, unless you are harmed". But then that wouldn't be as pithy and presumably as erudite looking, I suppose.

Christians who have their beliefs destroyed generally suffer depression and often commit suicide. I guess we should ban pointing out the flaws in Christians beliefs since it causes harm to Christians.

Rights only exist if society says they exist. I view laws only on their utility. If it's beneficial for society, I support it. If it's not beneficial for society, I don't support it. I don't believe that censoring offensive speech is good for society and sociologists agree with me.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/sumner405.htm (especially liked this one)
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1698&context=auilr
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/277367/original/bleich_2011_jems_hate_speech_crime_laws.pdf (this is another one).

3 pages in on google and I haven't found a single study or academically published paper (sociologist or otherwise, although that's what my search entailed) that actually supports censoring on the basis of offensive speech. Everyone I have read advocates some restrictions on hate speech that incites violence or causes significant harm but they all explicitly state that they do not advocate censuring hate speech simply on the grounds that it is offensive.

So sorry, but since every single study and academic reference I have looked up says your views are not in line with the opinions of sociologists and are not in line with the results of the studies, I am going to stick with my views, which has consistently matched the opinions of sociologists that I have been able to reference and has fairly accurately matched the results of studies.

So yeah, evidence?

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Jesus christ! What is your problem? I've just explained what the question is. Are you terminally stupid? Apparently so. Listen, not that I need to grant you permission to not answer the question - as you are doing fine on that regard all by yourself - but I just read another thread where you are discussing this thing with others, so I will watch along over in that thread.

Actually, you didn't. Sorry but you asked a question that was nonsensical as it wanted me to explain something that I don't agree with. Then when I ask for clarification, you get pissy. Is there any particular reason you can't simply ask the question correctly?

Man, I told you I made a mistake using "sexual harassment" in place of "oppression". All you have to do is substitute in "oppression" for "sexual harassment". You know this, as you know the exact statement that I originally choked on my wheaties on. It's seems obvious you aren't here in an honest fashion. I'm not sure why I keep debating with you, but understand that I will treat you with greater and greater disdain if you keep playing silly games. Oh, and I'd like to direct you to my previous reply and you'll see that I had a moment of niceness ( ) and rewrote my first paragraph to remove the insults. You must have replied to a cached version as I changed that hours ago.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Couple of points - 1. Can you address the whole comment?; and 2, who says that women fearing harm from sexual harassment is irrational? Obviously you do, but what's your reasoning for this?

1. The surveys stated sexual harassment. It did not distinguish between physical and non-physical sexual harassment.

Man, you're doing the fucked quoting thing again.

Actually, fuck this. You are a waste of time. You have continually failed to grasp what concept is being discussed here. You can't quote properly. You play stupid games. Over ya.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Jesus christ! What is your problem? I've just explained what the question is. Are you terminally stupid? Apparently so. Listen, not that I need to grant you permission to not answer the question - as you are doing fine on that regard all by yourself - but I just read another thread where you are discussing this thing with others, so I will watch along over in that thread.

Actually, you didn't. Sorry but you asked a question that was nonsensical as it wanted me to explain something that I don't agree with. Then when I ask for clarification, you get pissy. Is there any particular reason you can't simply ask the question correctly?

Man, I told you I made a mistake using "sexual harassment" in place of "oppression". All you have to do is substitute in "oppression" for "sexual harassment". You know this, as you know the exact statement that I originally choked on my wheaties on. It's seems obvious you aren't here in an honest fashion. I'm not sure why I keep debating with you, but understand that I will treat you with greater and greater disdain if you keep playing silly games. Oh, and I'd like to direct you to my previous reply and you'll see that I had a moment of niceness ( ) and rewrote my first paragraph to remove the insults. You must have replied to a cached version as I changed that hours ago.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Couple of points - 1. Can you address the whole comment?; and 2, who says that women fearing harm from sexual harassment is irrational? Obviously you do, but what's your reasoning for this?

1. The surveys stated sexual harassment. It did not distinguish between physical and non-physical sexual harassment.

Man, you're doing the fucked quoting thing again.

Actually, fuck this. You are a waste of time. You have continually failed to grasp what concept is being discussed here. You can't quote properly. You play stupid games. Over ya.

What fucked quote thing?

I am not playing any games. You can't defend your stance so you are coping out.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Once again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Just repeating it doesn't make it true. We started getting into this a bit before. If offence intersects with harm, then people absolutely DO have a right not to be harmed. The problem is that you imply that offence can never intersect with harm. You'd be better off saying it thus: "You don't have the right to not be offended, unless you are harmed". But then that wouldn't be as pithy and presumably as erudite looking, I suppose.

Then it seems that there must an objective way to determine harm. I know that some people like to equate people claiming they're being harmed with actual harm. I don't, as I've heard the same from homophobes and racists. So, again, how do we determine harm?

Moshi_moshi wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Once again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Just repeating it doesn't make it true. We started getting into this a bit before. If offence intersects with harm, then people absolutely DO have a right not to be harmed. The problem is that you imply that offence can never intersect with harm. You'd be better off saying it thus: "You don't have the right to not be offended, unless you are harmed". But then that wouldn't be as pithy and presumably as erudite looking, I suppose.

Then it seems that there must an objective way to determine harm. I know that some people like to equate people claiming they're being harmed with actual harm. I don't, as I've heard the same from homophobes and racists. So, again, how do we determine harm?

A good place to start is with the legal definition of injury- "a comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest."

Things tend to get very sticky with the legal system attempts to suss out a person's emotional injury/harm.