Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
@weltschmerz: So he has his pants around his ankles before the attack or completely off? So two legs lose to one leg now? I understand there is a strength difference. However its still two limbs vs one limb. The legs can be locked together. Minervah even stated that she was able to avoid being raped instantaneously like you are trying to describe. Furthermore, you omitted the part where he gets her pants/underwear off. Finally, and most importantly, what is your "best way" to prevent that attack? If you can employ a gun its going to be far better at stopping the attack than trying to use brute strength. You don't lose anything if you have a gun and can't employ it. But, you become a significant threat to people that are far stronger than you if you do manage to employ the gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Lol! You're not a parent, are you? I'm supposed to be safely ensconsed behind a locked door while my kids have the run of the house? What's wrong with you? Maybe I should lock them in their bedrooms as well. If there's a fire, too bad, so sad.
The house is locked. Nothing stops you from opening your bedroom door from the inside in order to check on your children. At night you will be sleeping so I'm not sure what you would be doing about supervising your children whether the door was locked or not. What do you mean by "run of the house"? What is the issue? I never said to lock your children in their bedroom. Are the only arguments you have strawman arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
So, I'm supposed to load it while he's on top of me? Call a time out? You're not making a lick of sense.
Your cognitive dissonance has to be intentional. My counter-point to people complaining about their children obtaining the firearm and injuring themselves and others is to unload the gun when you can not personally secure the firearm. When you are home you can personally secure the firearm because you are there. And, I suggested that you can lock your bedroom door so your children can't sneak into your room while you are sleeping and get the firearm even if they figure out where you keep it (and this makes it harder for the rapist to be on top of you before you are awake also). If there is a problem you can grab the loaded gun and search the house. I'm making all the sense in the world. Just because you are intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying so that you can argue against something I never asserted doesn't mean I'm not making sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
So, how do you feel about parents keeping a loaded gun in the nightstand with kids around?
How do you feel about loading the gun when you are home and you can supervise your children so they don't obtain the gun? How do you feel about unloading the gun when you aren't home? How do you feel about locking your bedroom so your children can't get the gun while you sleep but you can keep it loaded? This is my argument. Try not to make up a different one to argue against.
@BruSan:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Take that last little bit about the "worth of women......" here you went completely off the reservation and attributed my sentence to mean I was somehow describing the worth of women themselves when indeed I was castigating the idea of the worth of this debate about women carrying arms to prevent rapes in the year 2013.
Then I kindly ask you to clarify what you are saying. Are you trying to assert that it isn't worth women carrying arms to protect themselves from rape just because there is something special about the year 2013? Rapes are still happening in 2013? What isn't worthwhile about women using firearms to protect themselves from rape in 2013? Please be specific in what you are arguing. You are being ambiguous and you know it. Forcing me to try to decipher all the various implications of your statements and then jump on me for misunderstanding is pretty unfair on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Why don't you stop with the emotive overplaying your cards and cherry picking each word you read without taking them in the context with which they've been written. That is either a very deliberate ploy that fails miserably or you're just reading impaired to the point you miss the intended meaning entirely.
I'm trying to deal with as few emotions here as possible. I'm not playing any cards. I'm trying to debate this topic. I have had to work against a sea of people forming strawman after strawman, ad hominem after ad hominem, appeal to emotion after appeal to emotion, and straight up invalid logic just to get some people actually addressing what has been asserted with points that counter what has been asserted. If you have some problem with something that I'm not understanding about what you are saying, say it. Be specific. Then we can both come to an understanding and communication will occur. You are trying to criticize me instead of my arguments. If my arguments are wrong, then show it. If you are trying to criticize me, then understand that I am not my argument and leveling criticisms against me doesn't invalidate my argument. If you are being sincere, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you are saying. Please, bear with me, and help me understand what you really mean to say. I will seek to try to understand you and I will seek to express myself clearly to you in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Now some work on your deductive reasoning deficit would be fruitfull.
If either of us want communication to occur, we can't expect each other to play Sherlock Holmes in order to glean the "true meaning" of what the other person is saying. We need to be explicit and carefully distinct.
@Minervah: Okay. I wish you wouldn't try to win arguments by dropping a bunch of attacks against me instead of my arguments. I was pointing out all of the holes you left open in your argument. That is the point. To see whose argument holds more water. Nothing can be done if you don't want to debate. Calling the debate process "creepy" doesn't do anything except play on people's emotions. I never lied. I asked for clarification and pointed out flaws. I couldn't have lied because I didn't know all of the facts. You clarified what happened and I worked with what I was given. That is all I can do. I can't read your mind and know what actually happened.
I can't believe I have to explain it to YOU. Pulled down his pants before the attack. Held down her hands with his hands. Separated her legs with HIS leg. Plus he had a good 100 pounds on her.
Or, like in a video of an attack I saw (blurred out genitals, didn't show the actual rape) that a man took of his exploit - punch her out. While she's dazed, he can do what he wants. No need to wrangle with a struggling woman. Said video was on a crime program.
People need to THINK before they blame the victim for not having superhuman hearing, strength, and fighting ability, never mind a gun.
Then I kindly ask you to clarify what you are saying. Are you trying to assert that it isn't worth women carrying arms to protect themselves from rape just because there is something special about the year 2013? Rapes are still happening in 2013? What isn't worthwhile about women using firearms to protect themselves from rape in 2013? Please be specific in what you are arguing. You are being ambiguous and you know it. Forcing me to try to decipher all the various implications of your statements and then jump on me for misunderstanding is pretty unfair on your part.
I'm trying to deal with as few emotions here as possible. I'm not playing any cards. I'm trying to debate this topic. I have had to work against a sea of people forming strawman after strawman, ad hominem after ad hominem, appeal to emotion after appeal to emotion, and straight up invalid logic just to get some people actually addressing what has been asserted with points that counter what has been asserted. If you have some problem with something that I'm not understanding about what you are saying, say it. Be specific. Then we can both come to an understanding and communication will occur. You are trying to criticize me instead of my arguments. If my arguments are wrong, then show it. If you are trying to criticize me, then understand that I am not my argument and leveling criticisms against me doesn't invalidate my argument. If you are being sincere, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you are saying. Please, bear with me, and help me understand what you really mean to say. I will seek to try to understand you and I will seek to express myself clearly to you in return.
If either of us want communication to occur, we can't expect each other to play Sherlock Holmes in order to glean the "true meaning" of what the other person is saying. We need to be explicit and carefully distinct.
I have clarified it. The worth of the debate itself when it involves something you know nothing about, and never will, is what I'm stipulating to.
Ambiguity needs not be practiced for one such as yourself. You take words in isolation from their neighbours and deliberately warp them to fit your agenda needs. Now you presume to lecture me for being unfair to you? c'mon get real here.
What I really mean...
Your "desire to communicate" is acrediting a loftier attribute to your posts than it deserves. You cannot seem to understand that for women and many men to engage you in any discourse over this particular topic when the only thing you offer is another "guns will fix it" supposition is demeaning to those who have either been the victim or those who are intimate with one of them.
You dismissed one who presumed to offer her opinion without appreciating or even realizing the courage it must have taken for her to do so.
Males who presume to offer up any type of panacea towards this issue without addressing the source of the problem; that being the predominantly male lack of respect for many things involving individual personal rights are merely pizzing into the wind and it serves them right if all they get for their troubles is wet and smelly.
You could care less for the vicitms of rape and only care to further your agenda of gun discussions. I'm not going to give your arguments the time of day as the original premise is flawed from the outset.
The best protection for women that would probably be offered by the male species, were everyone to become armed, would either be to lock them up in a panic room or to force them to wear a full burkha.
Would you support such a thing? Of course not and that is why I think these discussions should rightly be held by the victims themselves and among themselves, with us as silent observers perhaps, but keeping our damn yaps the hell out of their trauma.
Instead of you talking about their problem and presuming to give some silly inane offering involving firearms, it should be us listening to their problem. Don't you get that?
Then I kindly ask you to clarify what you are saying. Are you trying to assert that it isn't worth women carrying arms to protect themselves from rape just because there is something special about the year 2013? Rapes are still happening in 2013? What isn't worthwhile about women using firearms to protect themselves from rape in 2013? Please be specific in what you are arguing. You are being ambiguous and you know it. Forcing me to try to decipher all the various implications of your statements and then jump on me for misunderstanding is pretty unfair on your part.
I'm trying to deal with as few emotions here as possible. I'm not playing any cards. I'm trying to debate this topic. I have had to work against a sea of people forming strawman after strawman, ad hominem after ad hominem, appeal to emotion after appeal to emotion, and straight up invalid logic just to get some people actually addressing what has been asserted with points that counter what has been asserted. If you have some problem with something that I'm not understanding about what you are saying, say it. Be specific. Then we can both come to an understanding and communication will occur. You are trying to criticize me instead of my arguments. If my arguments are wrong, then show it. If you are trying to criticize me, then understand that I am not my argument and leveling criticisms against me doesn't invalidate my argument. If you are being sincere, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you are saying. Please, bear with me, and help me understand what you really mean to say. I will seek to try to understand you and I will seek to express myself clearly to you in return.
If either of us want communication to occur, we can't expect each other to play Sherlock Holmes in order to glean the "true meaning" of what the other person is saying. We need to be explicit and carefully distinct.
I have clarified it. The worth of the debate itself when it involves something you know nothing about, and never will, is what I'm stipulating to.
Ambiguity needs not be practiced for one such as yourself. You take words in isolation from their neighbours and deliberately warp them to fit your agenda needs. Now you presume to lecture me for being unfair to you? c'mon get real here.
What I really mean...
Your "desire to communicate" is acrediting a loftier attribute to your posts than it deserves. You cannot seem to understand that for women and many men to engage you in any discourse over this particular topic when the only thing you offer is another "guns will fix it" supposition is demeaning to those who have either been the victim or those who are intimate with one of them.
You dismissed one who presumed to offer her opinion without appreciating or even realizing the courage it must have taken for her to do so.
Males who presume to offer up any type of panacea towards this issue without addressing the source of the problem; that being the predominantly male lack of respect for many things involving individual personal rights are merely pizzing into the wind and it serves them right if all they get for their troubles is wet and smelly.
You could care less for the vicitms of rape and only care to further your agenda of gun discussions. I'm not going to give your arguments the time of day as the original premise is flawed from the outset.
The best protection for women that would probably be offered by the male species, were everyone to become armed, would either be to lock them up in a panic room or to force them to wear a full burkha.
Would you support such a thing? Of course not and that is why I think these discussions should rightly be held by the victims themselves and among themselves, with us as silent observers perhaps, but keeping our damn yaps the hell out of their trauma.
Instead of you talking about their problem and presuming to give some silly inane offering involving firearms, it should be us listening to their problem. Don't you get that?
Don't expect rationality from someone so unreasonable. In his first response to my post, he told me "there were holes in my story" as if he believes he has the right to pass judgement on its validity. He can call me a liar all he wants. His opinion is meaningless. There are police records but I do not have to prove myself to him and I would not give him my name to do so.
I do think he does not live in the real world. Notice he has an answer to everything and everyone twisted into his own weird logic. And those answers are often thoughtless and cruel. I think it is more than just a gun issue. I think it's a matter of misogynistic issues along with a very misguided imagination.
Don't expect rationality from someone so unreasonable. In his first response to my post, he told me "there were holes in my story" as if he believes he has the right to pass judgement on its validity. He can call me a liar all he wants. His opinion is meaningless. There are police records but I do not have to prove myself to him and I would not give him my name to do so.
I do think he does not live in the real world. Notice he has an answer to everything and everyone twisted into his own weird logic. And those answers are often thoughtless and cruel. I think it is more than just a gun issue. I think it's a matter of misogynistic issues along with a very misguided imagination.
I have clarified it. The worth of the debate itself when it involves something you know nothing about, and never will, is what I'm stipulating to.
I'm going to paraphrase this ^, 'You don't know anything about this topic. So you can't be correct.'
Let me be as clear as possible. If an idiot who knows nothing about anything guesses and just says, "2+2=4." It doesn't matter if that person is an idiot who has no understanding of mathematics. He still said, "2+2=4". So he is correct even though he doesn't know anything about mathematics. Whether someone is Einstein or a moron doesn't automatically invalidate anything they say. They actually have to be wrong to be wrong. I have had to combat identical arguments like this throughout the entire thread. I have demonstrated them to be false over and over. Stop making these types of arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Your "desire to communicate" is acrediting a loftier attribute to your posts than it deserves.
Don't accredit lofty attributes to my posts that they don't deserve. I didn't do that. You did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You cannot seem to understand that for women and many men to engage you in any discourse over this particular topic when the only thing you offer is another "guns will fix it" supposition is demeaning to those who have either been the victim or those who are intimate with one of them.
I am offering that guns are the best way to protect yourself from rape. That is my position. You can't deny me from my position by default. You are telling me to just abandon my position. That isn't how a debate works. People, in a debate, necessarily must support their position. Otherwise its a default win for the other person. It isn't demeaning. Supporting my position is not demeaning. Nobody is a lesser person just because I assert that guns are the best way to protect yourself from rape. You are appealing to emotions. You aren't invalidating my assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You dismissed one who presumed to offer her opinion without appreciating or even realizing the courage it must have taken for her to do so.
I didn't dismiss anyone. She left. It isn't my fault that I was supporting my position and she decided to debate against me. I did realize her courage. Her courage is irrelevant in the scope of this debate. You are appealing to emotions again. Just because it took massive amounts of courage for her to share her story doesn't mean we aren't still having a debate. What should I have done?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Males who presume to offer up any type of panacea towards this issue without addressing the source of the problem; that being the predominantly male lack of respect for many things involving individual personal rights are merely pizzing into the wind and it serves them right if all they get for their troubles is wet and smelly.
Look, you are clearly being sexist. Please stop. This thread is about rape. This thread isn't about female rape. This threat isn't about male rape. This thread isn't even about why women get raped by men more than men get raped by women. So, none of this has any relevance when we are trying to determine the best way to protect yourself against rape. So, please take your male-bashing elsewhere. You know what? It is absolutely and completely horrible that males are the vast majority of the rapists. This is because it is really easy for males who are genetically stronger than women on average to take advantage of females that are genetically weaker than men on average. It sucks. Its abominable, to make a gross understatement. But, this is way besides the point. PM me if you want to talk about this. But, it is outside the scope of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You could care less for the vicitms of rape and only care to further your agenda of gun discussions. I'm not going to give your arguments the time of day as the original premise is flawed from the outset.
I care about all the victims of rape. This is why I am wasting my time arguing with people on the internet in defense of a way to protect yourself against rape that has been demonized by the media and pacifists. I think that if more people had firearms, learned how to use them, learned how to maintain them, and carried them they would be better protected against the scum of the earth. I think it is very important for people to be able to prevail over the lowest, most despicable beings on the planet. I am not willing to sit idly by and let more people get raped because they have assigned an unreasonably large stigma to firearms. Some people don't believe in medicine. I'm not willing to sit idly by to let people die or let their loved ones die just because they think medicine is evil. Thankfully many people embrace modern medicine so I don't have to fight so vigorously for it. If the premise is flawed then you should be able to state how/why the premise is flawed. Please do this. If you aren't going to give my arguments the time of day then you just admitted that you aren't interested in the debate. If you aren't interested then leave. It is completely unfair for us to drop the debate just because you have no interest in the debate. If you have something else you want to discuss with me then PM me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
The best protection for women that would probably be offered by the male species, were everyone to become armed, would either be to lock them up in a panic room or to force them to wear a full burkha.
Males and females are both the same species. More sexism, great.
Okay, its good to know that you assert the "male species" can best protect women by locking them in a panic room or forcing them to wear a full burkha.
I disagree because if the women are locked in the panic room they are now reliant on the men to give them food, water, et cetera. The women aren't independent so the men can manipulate the women to do whatever they want. I don't see how a full burkha protects a woman from rape. They are articles of clothing, so they don't pose any more of a barrier than any other article of clothing has posed in the massive number of rapes that have occurred in the past. I think a chastity belt could prevent rape better than other articles of clothing. But, I still don't think that is the best because it doesn't save you from being beaten to a pulp, abducted, or the lock being cut off with bolt-cutters/smashed open with a hammer, et cetera. A gun can be employed to protect you against all forms of violence, not just rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Would you support such a thing? Of course not and that is why I think these discussions should rightly be held by the victims themselves and among themselves, with us as silent observers perhaps, but keeping our damn yaps the hell out of their trauma.
Why do I have to be silent? Because you came up with a bad way to protect women? I don't follow. I'm sorry if you are offended for me not understanding. Our words and advice can console and help the victims and potential victims. Why should we abandon them by letting them figure it out by themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Instead of you talking about their problem and presuming to give some silly inane offering involving firearms, it should be us listening to their problem. Don't you get that?
Rape is my problem. I am a person on this planet that can be raped. You are trying to claim that my assertions are invalid just because I haven't been raped. I have listened to their problem. I have been striving to assess their problem and find a solution. It is true that my position is that firearms are the best way to protect yourself against rape. So, that is what I'm going to be asserting and defending. What is the problem with that? Why is using firearms to protect yourself "silly and inane"? Why? Because you said so? Please try to support your arguments, please.
@Minervah: 'I'm going to make ad hominem attacks because that is all I can come up with. I can't be an adult and have a debate and withdraw peacefully. I have to leave whining about how my opponent is unreasonable and a liar instead of addressing his arguments.'
@Ringo1: Sorry. I do have a problem with being concise. I am attempting to address everything that has been said.
Last edited by iMagUdspEllr; 09-10-2013 at 05:39 PM..
Well, the original statement was "the best way to prevent rape is to have a gun" and that began the debate. Some decided to create arguments where there weren't arguments. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever expect anyone to "argue" or challenge my telling of the worst event that ever took place in my life. On the one hand I regretted telling it when I found myself experiencing the accusing comment "your story has holes in it" when it comes to a woman telling of her experience with rape. On the other hand as both the police and counselors all those many years ago told my sister and me, sharing encourages others to tell their stories which can only be of help to them.
So onto the original premise. Maybe in some instances a gun would help prevent a rape. Prior to my experience I would have said I could never have taken a life. Now I know if someone came at me threatening harm, I could. But that's just the point, they would have to be coming at me and I would have to be consciously knowing they were about to do me harm. There are just situations in which a gun on the premises would not be helpful and could be harmful if it could be turned against a victim.
I am going to do out on a limb here and just say that it depends upon the circumstances.
In the situation of rape, I think it will take a lot of education help prevent it. Telling women how to dress, speak and act is not going to do much good. It may save one or two people but when you look at the statistics, the majority of women who are raped are not in these places. For the most part they are not
wearing provocative clothes or "asking for it " but are as in my case, peacefully sleeping in their own beds in their own homes. They may be walking home from the grocery store in broad daylight and dressed modestly. They can be of any age. Telling your daughter she will be safe by behaving or dressing modestly or not attending parties is only going to give her a false sense of security.
To keep women safe from rape, is what I have been saying time and time again, stop blaming the victim. Start putting harsher blame and punishment on the criminals. I don't think people have any idea the pages upon pages of perpetrators the police have of repeat offenders on file. I do. My sister and I went through thousands of pictures trying to identify the man who attacked me on police file. Most of those were repeater offenders who had either been let go in a joke of a trial or who had served some time and then release to strike again.
According to the detectives, many of them had used the defense of "she provoked it." They used it because in our Society, they knew it would carry weight. And it does.
And as remodahouse stated, many women know their assailants who gain their trust before attacking them. Those are usually the criminals who most easily get dismissed. Knowing your assailant beforehand doesn't make the crime any less heinous but somehow people seem to believe it does. If you trust someone, you usually won't carry a gun with you when you are with him especially if it's a family member. In the ugly case of incest, it's even more difficult.
In another scenario, when a man is walking down the street and is assaulted do people immediately get on his case telling him how he could have avoided his attackers? If his assailant is caught, all that needs to be proven is he was attacked in order to put his assailant away. I don't think provocation comes into the picture. When a woman is raped she is assaulted as well. Why should she have to prove it was not her fault?
As stated before, rape is an act of showing dominance over the woman, the sex is secondary. This could explain why the rapist often makes statements like "I am trying to help you." Or "I am doing this for you." In his way he is showing dominance over her. If this sounds strange, look it up in any psychology book. Better understanding of the crime is what is needed to help stop it.
So you can't simple say "carry a gun, case closed." There are too many variables.
Well, the original statement was "the best way to prevent rape is to have a gun" and that began the debate. Some decided to create arguments where there weren't arguments. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever expect anyone to "argue" or challenge my telling of the worst event that ever took place in my life. On the one hand I regretted telling it when I found myself experiencing the accusing comment "your story has holes in it" when it comes to a woman telling of her experience with rape. On the other hand as both the police and counselors all those many years ago told my sister and me, sharing encourages others to tell their stories which can only be of help to them.
So onto the original premise. Maybe in some instances a gun would help prevent a rape. Prior to my experience I would have said I could never have taken a life. Now I know if someone came at me threatening harm, I could. But that's just the point, they would have to be coming at me and I would have to be consciously knowing they were about to do me harm. There are just situations in which a gun on the premises would not be helpful and could be harmful if it could be turned against a victim.
I am going to do out on a limb here and just say that it depends upon the circumstances.
In the situation of rape, I think it will take a lot of education help prevent it. Telling women how to dress, speak and act is not going to do much good. It may save one or two people but when you look at the statistics, the majority of women who are raped are not in these places. For the most part they are not
wearing provocative clothes or "asking for it " but are as in my case, peacefully sleeping in their own beds in their own homes. They may be walking home from the grocery store in broad daylight and dressed modestly. They can be of any age. Telling your daughter she will be safe by behaving or dressing modestly or not attending parties is only going to give her a false sense of security.
To keep women safe from rape, is what I have been saying time and time again, stop blaming the victim. Start putting harsher blame and punishment on the criminals. I don't think people have any idea the pages upon pages of perpetrators the police have of repeat offenders on file. I do. My sister and I went through thousands of pictures trying to identify the man who attacked me on police file. Most of those were repeater offenders who had either been let go in a joke of a trial or who had served some time and then release to strike again.
According to the detectives, many of them had used the defense of "she provoked it." They used it because in our Society, they knew it would carry weight. And it does.
And as remodahouse stated, many women know their assailants who gain their trust before attacking them. Those are usually the criminals who most easily get dismissed. Knowing your assailant beforehand doesn't make the crime any less heinous but somehow people seem to believe it does. If you trust someone, you usually won't carry a gun with you when you are with him especially if it's a family member. In the ugly case of incest, it's even more difficult.
In another scenario, when a man is walking down the street and is assaulted do people immediately get on his case telling him how he could have avoided his attackers? If his assailant is caught, all that needs to be proven is he was attacked in order to put his assailant away. I don't think provocation comes into the picture. When a woman is raped she is assaulted as well. Why should she have to prove it was not her fault?
As stated before, rape is an act of showing dominance over the woman, the sex is secondary. This could explain why the rapist often makes statements like "I am trying to help you." Or "I am doing this for you." In his way he is showing dominance over her. If this sounds strange, look it up in any psychology book. Better understanding of the crime is what is needed to help stop it.
So you can't simple say "carry a gun, case closed." There are too many variables.
Yes, it is a cultural thing obviously. I just read that in the Asia Pacific region 1 in 4 men admit to already having raped someone, 1 in 4, imagine that
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
