AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 8:20:47 GMT -5
Well ain't that sweet of her. We wouldn't want to inconvenience the accuser by doing some cursory examination of the facts before we trash the accused parties, the fraternity, and the university to the nation. That would just be mean spirited. She deserves to be outed. Preferably in a libel suit, along with her "campus rape activist" allies. The frat might do that, who knows? The university seems to have a not so good rep at this point on rape so I'm not sure how going after her would clean their image. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think the article had full names of the accused nor promised they were accurate, i.e. not made up.
The frat might have a case. Not sure what the university could sue for. What are you going to sue your so called campus rape activist allies for?
The accuser and her allies should face libel and slander suits- and whatever else a good attorney can find. Law enforcement should be looking into them as well, and into whether or not anyone else might have been falsely accused by them. Now that we know, they need to be exposed.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 8:24:51 GMT -5
Oops forgot all the children. I guess we just can't do anything about violent pedophiles either if the quote and reasoning is an absolute.
I'm trying to follow your logic here- is it that because not everyone can protect themselves, that no one should? Equal distribution of misery is a liberal principle, so I just wanted to clarify where you're going with all this?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2014 8:48:27 GMT -5
Oops forgot all the children. I guess we just can't do anything about violent pedophiles either if the quote and reasoning is an absolute.
I'm trying to follow your logic here- is it that because not everyone can protect themselves, that no one should? Equal distribution of misery is a liberal principle, so I just wanted to clarify where you're going with all this? The logic is that if we all have to arm ourselves in order to be able to go out into the world unmolested by evil doers, we're either going to have to arm all the children to keep them safe, to, or we'll have to start keeping them home, behind high walls, so that the evil doers can't get a crack at them in the first place.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2014 8:49:01 GMT -5
Wrong. I knew you thought so, which is why I asked. Sorry, but I never said it. You did say it, I remember very clearly, because I thought it was a terrible thing to say.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2014 8:55:09 GMT -5
The frat might do that, who knows? The university seems to have a not so good rep at this point on rape so I'm not sure how going after her would clean their image. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think the article had full names of the accused nor promised they were accurate, i.e. not made up.
The frat might have a case. Not sure what the university could sue for. What are you going to sue your so called campus rape activist allies for?
The accuser and her allies should face libel and slander suits- and whatever else a good attorney can find. Law enforcement should be looking into them as well, and into whether or not anyone else might have been falsely accused by them. Now that we know, they need to be exposed. First of all, we don't know for sure what happened. There needs to be an investigation into the facts of the case before you start slapping people with libel and slander suits. And I hope, if the investigation proves that a rape did occur, just not on the night this woman remembered, or with a different frat house, that you will be just as enthusiastic about putting the rapist behind bars for a good long time. I don't know UVA, but I do know my own college campus, and I know they routinely shrugged off rape claims - even though one of the frat houses was well known on campus for requiring new pledges to bring a woman back to the frat house, get her wasted, and then share her with all his fraternity brothers.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 9, 2014 9:35:28 GMT -5
Well, I went to college in the Stone Age and even then, you knew not to go to certain frat houses and to never be alone in one. This crap has been going on forever. My mom and aunts went to a high school where "good" girls didn't walk down a certain hallway. No one ever thought anything of it until I said "Why was this okay?"
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 11:04:04 GMT -5
I'm trying to follow your logic here- is it that because not everyone can protect themselves, that no one should? Equal distribution of misery is a liberal principle, so I just wanted to clarify where you're going with all this? The logic is that if we all have to arm ourselves in order to be able to go out into the world unmolested by evil doers, we're either going to have to arm all the children to keep them safe, to, or we'll have to start keeping them home, behind high walls, so that the evil doers can't get a crack at them in the first place. Interesting theory, but I'll wait for the poster to respond.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 11:08:45 GMT -5
Well, I went to college in the Stone Age and even then, you knew not to go to certain frat houses and to never be alone in one. This crap has been going on forever. My mom and aunts went to a high school where "good" girls didn't walk down a certain hallway. No one ever thought anything of it until I said "Why was this okay?" Highschool is mostly bullshit, but it is a place where human nature is pretty well allowed to run amok. I was sent to the principle's office, and nearly suspended from school for pointing out during an English class that "Lord of the Flies" isn't theory, it describes every day in high school, and I was actually surprised we hadn't made it to heads on stakes yet. Ahhh, what they and I didn't know when I said that in 1980-something.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 11:11:04 GMT -5
I'm trying to follow your logic here- is it that because not everyone can protect themselves, that no one should? Equal distribution of misery is a liberal principle, so I just wanted to clarify where you're going with all this? The logic is that if we all have to arm ourselves in order to be able to go out into the world unmolested by evil doers, we're either going to have to arm all the children to keep them safe, to, or we'll have to start keeping them home, behind high walls, so that the evil doers can't get a crack at them in the first place. For the sake of argument- OK. What relevance does this have? I still don't see the point? So, there are some people in society who are defenseless. They're weak, they're at a disadvantage, and it's unreasonable to suggest they arm up as the solution. Agreed. So, what? It doesn't make the point any less so. In fact, in pointing out there are victims criminals don't fear- it pretty well makes the point.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 11:25:45 GMT -5
I should have said high school AND college.
Maybe the real problem is our expectations of college. What one word describes a typical high school student's expectation of their first year of college? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "P".
The fact is that college partying is a right of passage. We teach kids first of all that they're still "kids"-- they should start being disabused of that notion as early as possible, like middle school / high school. We set an expectation that there's something magical about college partying. The mysticism is that at a college party normal life rules and consequences are a non-factor. You can have "fun" in the form of drinking, sex, drugs, and other excesses that healthy, normal, well-adjusted adults realize have deleterious consequences-- often long term, and even fatal consequences-- have no consequences.
Some of it is the natural feeling of invincibility that comes with being an 18 to 22 year old, but a lot of it is a cultural expectation. From Animal House to Back to School to Revenge of the Nerds to Old School, and Tommy Boy, Van Wilder, Road Trip, et al. College party life with it's drinking games, drug use, and casual sex-- it's an expectation, a right of passage.
The trouble is that there's NEVER a time in life when life's rules don't apply. Not in college, not at a night club, a concert, or anywhere else.
It's not so much a rape culture we've got going as it is a party culture and its attendant dogma that from time to time the rules are suspended.
But in the case of these college "culture of rape" stories- there's also a disturbing undercurrent of race and class warfare-- the Duke false rape accusations against the Lacrosse team by the black stripper; and the fact that these stories involve traditional institutions hated by the left- sports / jocks, college guys- especially rich, white, Greek Life college guys.
For the record- I never was one, and don't like a lot of them. But it's easy to see that these stories are institution and cultural assaults. They fit the prefabricated alternative worldview of the far left.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Dec 9, 2014 11:40:38 GMT -5
I'm a lefty that went to a small private college, was an athlete, and in the greek system.
Per Paul, I hate myself.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Dec 9, 2014 11:54:02 GMT -5
I must be really slow this morning, because I couldn't figure out what started with P until I read further. But, maybe men are different from women with that regard. I did my fair share of partying in college, but it wasn't on my radar at all when I was a high school student even when I got my early acceptance in the fall of my senior year. F would have been a better letter as far as my expectations- fear of the unknown, fear of failing , freedom, missing my old friends and family.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2014 12:00:39 GMT -5
Your opinion, but I believe its unlikely incorrect in some places. If there is a euphemism for rape as "bad experience", its quite likely there is some sort of rape culture happening.
Party culture is not rape culture. The former is more expansive and more common than the other. Its like trying to sell the idea that there isn't any pedophile culture either, that NAMBLA and similar are really just about consensual sex because they only interact with boys 18 years old and older in legal mutually agreed ways. There are rapists that think rape is OK. There are people that think rape isn't that bad or depending on who does it the rapee should just stay silent for the benefit of the rapist, school, etc. That's part of rape culture. Not casual drunken consensual sex. They are different.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 9, 2014 12:10:59 GMT -5
Wrong. I knew you thought so, which is why I asked. Sorry, but I never said it. You didn't say this? I know I Sean Connery did not say it. To play devil's advocate here: Do you leave room for the idea that yes, he was wrong but yes, she deserved it? Is it possible for those to be simultaneously true? There is little doubt that if she had instead been some random guy from a bar there would be no charge filed. Does equality only exist when it is convenient? And is that really equal? I can wrap my head around this thought. I think in general you never really hit a woman-- not just for being a hysterical beotch. However, I also don't think it's never OK to put your hands on someone to get their attention. Not every unfriendly physical contact is felony assault and battery or "domestic violence". Mind you, I'm smarter than to do it because you are precisely right- there is a huge double standard when it comes to the law in general, and any woman that wants to can blow the slightest thing out of proportion, so it's just best to know that and not provide her with the opportunity. But in my heart of hearts, I think it's fine to slap a woman now and then-- open handed-- when she deserves it. They'd certainly not think twice about slapping a man; and if circumstances were to permit-- my feeling is, turnabout is fair play. But again, for practical reasons it's just not a very good idea-- but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with slapping someone who needs to be slapped.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2014 12:12:02 GMT -5
Sometimes I love your posts because you can believe opposing views with such fervor. College is a bastion of all things liberal until of course it fits your narrative it is not.
There might be a preferred world view on some far left pundits like there is with far right pundits. There's been false allegations about rape, true. Not sure why if some are untrue that in your world it always seems to mean none of them can be true. That's just black and white silliness to me.
I don't know who the left is. I'm not a lefty but I am a liberal. Like Swamp I like sports as a participant and a viewer. All sorts of people like sports and there are some who do not. Unlike you, I don't think the entire experience of our lives can be divided into things we like or don't like just because of political views including the lack thereof.
I think you should spend the rest of the day writing all those liberal Hollywood celebs who love to show up at basketball games, etc. and explain to them why they really don't like sports.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2014 12:16:26 GMT -5
The logic is that if we all have to arm ourselves in order to be able to go out into the world unmolested by evil doers, we're either going to have to arm all the children to keep them safe, to, or we'll have to start keeping them home, behind high walls, so that the evil doers can't get a crack at them in the first place. For the sake of argument- OK. What relevance does this have? I still don't see the point? So, there are some people in society who are defenseless. They're weak, they're at a disadvantage, and it's unreasonable to suggest they arm up as the solution. Agreed. So, what? It doesn't make the point any less so. In fact, in pointing out there are victims criminals don't fear- it pretty well makes the point. Does it?
Because I don't see any stats saying its true or not. Just your opinion and that guy's opinion.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2014 12:38:10 GMT -5
Oops forgot all the children. I guess we just can't do anything about violent pedophiles either if the quote and reasoning is an absolute.
I'm trying to follow your logic here- is it that because not everyone can protect themselves, that no one should? Equal distribution of misery is a liberal principle, so I just wanted to clarify where you're going with all this? ALL I DID WAS POINT OUT THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN NOT FOLLOW THAT PARTICULAR BRAND OF ABSOLUTIST "WISDOM".
You aren't trying to follow my logic. You are trying to follow your assumptions. If your goal is to distribute misery, you are doing a good job.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 12:48:26 GMT -5
I'm a lefty that went to a small private college, was an athlete, and in the greek system.
Per Paul, I hate myself. You probably do.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 12:49:28 GMT -5
I'm trying to follow your logic here- is it that because not everyone can protect themselves, that no one should? Equal distribution of misery is a liberal principle, so I just wanted to clarify where you're going with all this? ALL I DID WAS POINT OUT THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN NOT FOLLOW THAT PARTICULAR BRAND OF ABSOLUTIST "WISDOM".
You aren't trying to follow my logic. You are trying to follow your assumptions. If your goal is to distribute misery, you are doing a good job.
The principle applies. The fact that criminals fear some victims, and don't fear others establishes the principle's absolute application.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 12:51:24 GMT -5
Wrong. I knew you thought so, which is why I asked. Sorry, but I never said it. You didn't say this? I know I Sean Connery did not say it. I can wrap my head around this thought. I think in general you never really hit a woman-- not just for being a hysterical beotch. However, I also don't think it's never OK to put your hands on someone to get their attention. Not every unfriendly physical contact is felony assault and battery or "domestic violence". Mind you, I'm smarter than to do it because you are precisely right- there is a huge double standard when it comes to the law in general, and any woman that wants to can blow the slightest thing out of proportion, so it's just best to know that and not provide her with the opportunity. But in my heart of hearts, I think it's fine to slap a woman now and then-- open handed-- when she deserves it. They'd certainly not think twice about slapping a man; and if circumstances were to permit-- my feeling is, turnabout is fair play. But again, for practical reasons it's just not a very good idea-- but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with slapping someone who needs to be slapped. I do agree with Sean Connery- I don't think he says anything particularly controversial here.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 9, 2014 12:53:57 GMT -5
You didn't say this? I know I Sean Connery did not say it. I do agree with Sean Connery- I don't think he says anything particularly controversial here. Stop deflecting, paul. Did you or did you not write what I quoted.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2014 12:57:55 GMT -5
ALL I DID WAS POINT OUT THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN NOT FOLLOW THAT PARTICULAR BRAND OF ABSOLUTIST "WISDOM".
You aren't trying to follow my logic. You are trying to follow your assumptions. If your goal is to distribute misery, you are doing a good job.
The principle applies. The fact that criminals fear some victims, and don't fear others establishes the principle's absolute application. Ah the usual belief as proof method. Carry On.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Dec 9, 2014 13:18:05 GMT -5
I'm a lefty that went to a small private college, was an athlete, and in the greek system.
Per Paul, I hate myself. You probably do. Actually, I think I'm da bomb.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 13:52:10 GMT -5
I don't know if you're a good liberal then. Are you white? If you're a white and a liberal, self-loathing is kinda required. How else do you guilt yourself into supporting higher taxes on yourself, racial and gender based hiring quotas, etc?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 13:54:24 GMT -5
The principle applies. The fact that criminals fear some victims, and don't fear others establishes the principle's absolute application. Ah the usual belief as proof method. Carry On.
You realize your objection is rather convoluted, right? I state my agreement with the general premise that the criminal must be taught to fear their victim, and your rebuttal is that not every victim can carry a firearm? I don't really need to support my argument because technically, it hasn't been challenged. Just sort of weirdly implied to have been false because kids and the mentally ill can't carry firearms.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2014 14:03:19 GMT -5
Paul I am literal with my words and you are anything but. So I'm going to stop replying. The premise as stated was violent crime could only be lessened by criminals fearing their victims.
I am commenting on what it actually said. You are discussing what you believe it means and even discussing what you think I have "said".
Its like a bad miscommunications play. Opti: X statement isn't always true. Paul: What do you mean Y and Z shouldn't happen. Opti: Long explanation that will be misunderstood. Proper response
exit thread
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 15:16:42 GMT -5
"I was sent to the principle's office, and nearly suspended from school for pointing out during an English class that "Lord of the Flies" isn't theory, it describes every day in high school, and I was actually surprised we hadn't made it to heads on stakes yet. "
Gotta say that sounds like bullshit. You must have been home schooled.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 9, 2014 15:22:19 GMT -5
? I didn't say that.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 9, 2014 15:27:20 GMT -5
Well, we certainly know the head of the school wasn't his "pal".
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 15:31:31 GMT -5
I know- PBP said it and the stupid editing would not let me quote it without making it look like you did- was the best I could do.
Only PBP would be threatened with school suspension for giving his thoughts on a book Which is why assumed he was home schooled and really just grounded.
|
|