Jump to content

George Will Comes Under Fire For Rape Comments


Recommended Posts

good lord, you just don't get it, do you? his article is about the creation of a class of victims, and the current tendancy of some to elevate them to a status that (pay close attention here) absolves them of any and all responsibility they may have in anything that negatively effects them, ever. he could have easily made the same point by using an example of someone who grew up in a gang-infested ghetto who got arrested for stealing cars, and the tendancy of many to absolve them of their responsibility by blaming it on his upbringing and environment. you keep trying to argue the definition of rape, but that is not Will's point, and neither is it mine.

it's enough that many people find the example offensive and insulting. he chose it. he didn't choose one about gang members. what's the likelihood that a girl doing undergrad at a 45K per year elite school deisres victim status?. you chide gator for not having direct experience (and how you know that i don't know) but then show your ignorance of the general student culture at such school. here's a hint: such schools are competitve, both socially and academically. being a victim aint winning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it's enough that many people find the example offensive and insulting. he chose it. he didn't choose one about gang members. what's the likelihood that a girl doing undergrad at a 45K per year elite school deisres victim status?. you chide gator for not having direct experience (and how you know that i don't know) but then show your ignorance of the general student culture at such school. here's a hint: such schools are competitve, both socially and academically. being a victim aint winning.

 

So what do you believe George Will was implying in his article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's enough that many people find the example offensive and insulting. he chose it. he didn't choose one about gang members. what's the likelihood that a girl doing undergrad at a 45K per year elite school deisres victim status?. you chide gator for not having direct experience (and how you know that i don't know) but then show your ignorance of the general student culture at such school. here's a hint: such schools are competitve, both socially and academically. being a victim aint winning.

 

As I said earlier:

 

A consenting partner is not a victim. Sometimes, however, a consenting partner is regretful, or ashamed, or is a poor decision maker.

 

Sometimes young women, who may have been more careful of their selection of partners while still in high school, and living under the roofs of their parents, may become overcome with guilt over having broken what may have been a prior moral code. Some may be ashamed after having been called a "slut" by friends, or after developing a certain reputation, earned or otherwise.

 

Many, not liking living with the reality of their own poor decisions, instead choose the armor of victim-hood. A magic shield which restores their chastity, absolves them of sins, and transforms them into "courageous figures" for "coming forward in defense of women everywhere".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's enough that many people find the example offensive and insulting. he chose it. he didn't choose one about gang members. what's the likelihood that a girl doing undergrad at a 45K per year elite school deisres victim status?. you chide gator for not having direct experience (and how you know that i don't know) but then show your ignorance of the general student culture at such school. here's a hint: such schools are competitve, both socially and academically. being a victim aint winning.

 

I already said that Will could have used a better example to make his point. instead of acknowledging that point and either agreeing or disareeing with it, you and others choose instead to focus on the example, ignoring the point completely. you can choose to perceive it any way you want, but I don't see any wisdom in diverting yourself from the crux of the discussion.

 

my comment to Gator must have been too subtle. by calling him a 'victim of the public school system', I was using the topic of victimhood applied to the dismal record of most public schools, thereby granting him victim status as a reward for his inability to cogitate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just ridiculous. past actions have no bearing on saying "no". it doesn't matter if it's a stripper that says "no". her "no" carries no less authority than a nuns. "no" is "no".

What is the blue hell are you talking about? Certainly nothing that I wrote.

 

Read it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unconvinced that it was rape. I see nothing other than an example of negative consent, and six weeks of regret over that granting on negative consent.

 

Show me otherwise.

So, in everything else you want to be literal, literal reading of the law, or the Constitution, but when a guy is told no over and over again by a girl and bangs her anyway she really said yes? :doh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in everything else you want to be literal, literal reading of the law, or the Constitution, but when a guy is told no over and over again by a girl and bangs her anyway she really said yes? :doh:

 

Now this is either an example of real poor reading comprehension or a deliberate lie. Which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Go back and read my posts in this thread, then try responding intelligently.

 

You also might want to try and proceed without being libelous.

Oh stop, you are trying to have it both ways. You want the Constitution to be conservatively literal and women's "no" liberally interperated as meaning exactly the opposite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh stop, you are trying to have it both ways. You want the Constitution to be conservatively literal and women's "no" liberally interperated as meaning exactly the opposite.

 

It sounds like you're saying you want women to be interperated by the meaning of your intentions. Do you really want that? Can you cite examples of other people who have interperated women in exactly the opposite manner, or are you trying to have it both ways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh stop, you are trying to have it both ways. You want the Constitution to be conservatively literal and women's "no" liberally interperated as meaning exactly the opposite.

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Just an absurd mish-mash of non sequiturs and logical fallacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Just an absurd mish-mash of non sequiturs and logical fallacies.

Well, ok! But I'll remember this next time you say the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, needs to be taken absolutely literally. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, ok! But I'll remember this next time you say the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, needs to be taken absolutely literally. :)

You'll remember that you made a ridiculous comment that was totally unrelated, and then backed it up with logical fallacies?

 

OK, that's fairly consistent with your posting history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, ok! But I'll remember this next time you say the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, needs to be taken absolutely literally. :)

 

So you're saying you don't believe in the Constitution as it's written or that you can't remember the next time you said that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll remember that you made a ridiculous comment that was totally unrelated, and then backed it up with logical fallacies?

 

OK, that's fairly consistent with your posting history.

 

Forgetting every thing that was ever posted and making up random **** would be even more consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...