Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:00 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,843,028 times
Reputation: 6556

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
This. Way back in the late 90s when I still smoked, I went to a convenience store near my house to buy cigarettes. It was snowing like crazy and hardly anyone was able to get out, and the city was basically abandoned. I arrived at the convenience store wearing sweats with huge muddy dog prints all over them, courtesy of my two Great Danes' enthusiastic displays of affection.

I went inside intending to just buy the smokes and check out and received persistent unwanted attention from a stranger who was determined to find a warm hook up. I could not have been dressed less attractively had I tried. After saying no nicely failed, it took raising my voice and a few choice words to get him to stop.
The irony is the sexier a woman is dressed and better looking sometimes the less attention she gets because she intimidates men especially the bottom feeders who do sort of pester women.

 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:05 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,843,028 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
I understand all that, and it was horrible what victims had to go through. There was even an episode of "All in the Family" circa 1973 that dealt with Gloria in an attempted rape scenario. She reported it, but the police officer who came to the house grilled her on what she wore, how friendly she was with other men, how she probably enjoys the attention, etc. She ended up not taking any action because of what the cop said.
I thought it was Edith was the attempted rape victim for maximum impact that even an old, ugly married woman could be a target of rape. As I vaguely remember it, Edith didn't tell Archie because she didn't want to upset him or something. Did they do one with Gloria too?
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:06 PM
 
46,892 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Well put. Don't act consistent with someone engaging in a sexual encounter then wonder why others might doubt you did not want a sexual encounter to happen.
Oh dear Lord. The old "She was giving me all the signals" excuse?
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:15 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,843,028 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Oh dear Lord. The old "She was giving me all the signals" excuse?
No I mean if you appear to be an accessory to the alleged crime, then you might not be perceived as a victim of a crime.
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:37 PM
 
19,492 posts, read 12,122,052 times
Reputation: 26264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The pinto was just a reference to the safety of a small/cheap car relative to the safety of a Mack Truck. Basically we know that some things are safer than other things. And if the actual goal of everyone was to reduce their possibility of being harmed as close to zero as possible, they could do many things to protect themselves.


There are about 40,000 people who die in automobile-related accidents every year, and many more than that get seriously-injured. Everyone knows it is less safe to be drive a car than sit in a house. But yet, you still get in your car and drive it all over the place.

Hell, because of the existence of cars, it is less-safe for me to just be outside. I have seen countless videos of people standing on the sidewalk and getting smashed by a car. I have seen car/truck tires come off and barrel down a road and kill someone who didn't even see it coming. I have seen videos of cars running into restaurants/offices/and other buildings, killing people.


If we got rid of cars tomorrow, literally tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year, and many more serious injuries would have been prevented. But it would come at a cost. And the vast-majority of people are simply unwilling to pay that cost.


Women know that going to a bar is less safe than staying at home. Women know that drinking excessively puts them in greater danger than staying sober. And everyone realizes that behaving a certain way, or dressing a certain way, increases your odds that something bad might happen to you.


So why do they do it? Because just as in the case of the Pinto, even if they know the danger is higher, they would still rather take the risk.

What irritates me is when they know the risk and they do it anyway, then they turn around and cry because what they knew might happen, did happen.


Gee I wonder if you would cry if you were run over by a DWI while you took the risk of walking outside. I mean you knew it might happen.
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:42 PM
 
Location: So Cal
52,011 posts, read 52,457,444 times
Reputation: 52522
Common sense would dictate that women who have historically been abused by men and are physically smaller and have less strength, you better believe that if I had daughters I'd pound into their heads to use as much caution is possible..

Does things still happen, of course they can, but let's lower the chances if we can at all.

Saying this now equates to victim blaming and it really isn't if we're 100% honest about it. Taking precautions is better than not taking precautions that sentiment is in no way shape or form blaming the victim.
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,304,172 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The pinto was just a reference to the safety of a small/cheap car relative to the safety of a Mack Truck. Basically we know that some things are safer than other things. And if the actual goal of everyone was to reduce their possibility of being harmed as close to zero as possible, they could do many things to protect themselves.


There are about 40,000 people who die in automobile-related accidents every year, and many more than that get seriously-injured. Everyone knows it is less safe to be drive a car than sit in a house. But yet, you still get in your car and drive it all over the place.

Hell, because of the existence of cars, it is less-safe for me to just be outside. I have seen countless videos of people standing on the sidewalk and getting smashed by a car. I have seen car/truck tires come off and barrel down a road and kill someone who didn't even see it coming. I have seen videos of cars running into restaurants/offices/and other buildings, killing people.


If we got rid of cars tomorrow, literally tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year, and many more serious injuries would have been prevented. But it would come at a cost. And the vast-majority of people are simply unwilling to pay that cost.


Women know that going to a bar is less safe than staying at home. Women know that drinking excessively puts them in greater danger than staying sober. And everyone realizes that behaving a certain way, or dressing a certain way, increases your odds that something bad might happen to you.


So why do they do it? Because just as in the case of the Pinto, even if they know the danger is higher, they would still rather take the risk.

What irritates me is when they know the risk and they do it anyway, then they turn around and cry because what they knew might happen, did happen.
But there's a difference between accidents and intentional acts.

I exercise free will and an accident befalls me...so be it. I exercise free will and a negative intentional act befalls me...that's the fault of another.

Sure, I have to live with both (if I survive) but the negative intentional act was preventable. The prevention measure is quite clear: someone chooses not to break the non-aggression principle.
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:53 PM
 
5,315 posts, read 2,103,905 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
I thought it was Edith was the attempted rape victim for maximum impact that even an old, ugly married woman could be a target of rape. As I vaguely remember it, Edith didn't tell Archie because she didn't want to upset him or something. Did they do one with Gloria too?
There was an episode for each of them, it looks like. Gloria's was first, then later one with Edith on her 50th birthday. Gloria's was her telling about it when she came home. Edith's was apparently one of the first times where they ever showed a portrayal of it happening on TV

Gloria the Victim | All in the Family TV show Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith%27s_50th_Birthday
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:54 PM
 
19,492 posts, read 12,122,052 times
Reputation: 26264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound View Post
Common sense would dictate that women who have historically been abused by men and are physically smaller and have less strength, you better believe that if I had daughters I'd pound into their heads to use as much caution is possible..

Does things still happen, of course they can, but let's lower the chances if we can at all.

Saying this now equates to victim blaming and it really isn't if we're 100% honest about it. Taking precautions is better than not taking precautions that sentiment is in no way shape or form blaming the victim.
Then let's make it a separate issue and never bring it up to guilt or shame a victim. The problem is it still comes up after a woman reports sexual harassment or assault.

Now that men are being accused they also should have rules of caution for themselves.
 
Old 10-05-2018, 02:56 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,843,028 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
But there's a difference between accidents and intentional acts.

I exercise free will and an accident befalls me...so be it. I exercise free will and a negative intentional act befalls me...that's the fault of another.

Sure, I have to live with both (if I survive) but the negative intentional act was preventable. The prevention measure is quite clear: someone chooses not to break the non-aggression principle.
Does the non-aggression principle apply to not divulging proprietary crash test and design information to a customer? If the non-aggression principle extends to things of that nature, then people violate it all day and every day and it's a worthless principle.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:09 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top