Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Ä uest]

Hey Steers,

On that blog you linked to, http://anthonybsusan.wordpress.com/2013 ... mment-1284, I submitted the following post below. It was in moderation for at least a couple of hours.

http://i.imgur.com/ZAUxfPI.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/QPO22mj.jpg

[Steersman]

This doesn't excuse rape.
It also doesn't excuse willful stupidity.

Again, the stupidity of shooting oneself in the face is hardly analogous to the "stupidity" of drinking with people one hardly knows: the consequences of the former tend to be uniformly fatal and manifestly so even to the most clueless, those of the latter hardly ever, even if they can be somewhat painful. Actually, I think it's kind of a stupid analogy - you might want to check the link.

<snip>
You may not like my gun analogy but the point holds, Stephanie and 99% of all 15 year olds, even back in the sixties know that alcohol abuse is dangerous -- the "How can I be faulted for not knowing something I had no way of knowing?" excuse just can't hold up rationally.

Ok. Then either she was one of the 1% who fell through the cracks, or she was born and raised in another country. Or maybe she's bullshitting, and that story was just a rationalization to cover her culpability in engaging in something that she knew she shouldn't have been doing - I've run across some arguments that that is a common cause of false rape charges.

Kind of difficult to know for sure without a lot more details. But absent those I don't find it impossible to believe that she was unaware of the possible consequences of those actions of hers.

[debaser71]

lol welch is talking about his daddy again...fuck off prick

[Lsuoma]

Just a counterpoint to all the people who learned to drink responsibly at home. Where I grew up, binge drinking was the norm (mostly learnt by trial and error). Even so, I never experienced it as someone trying to "coerce" or trick me into getting too drunk in order take advantage of it (unless the advantage-taking was mutual!) I don't get blackouts, so that may have contributed to it as well.

(Of course there was an awareness of the possibility of sexual assault, but I don't remember there being a lot of fear about it - I remember more cautionary tales about people passing out and freezing to death in the snow!)

I'll admit that it's easier to get more drunk than intended when someone keeps "plying" you with drinks, even if the drinking is ultimately your choice. This one time, I went ice-fishing close to a village where I was doing fieldwork as an undergrad. I got to talking to a guy and his mother who were also out fishing, and they invited me to their place for dinner. During the dinner, the mom kept mixing me stronger and stronger drinks, asking if I was single, and hinting at what a good catch the son was. Finally I decided that things were getting a bit too weird, mumbled some thanks and managed to stagger out of there. I was worried that if I stayed, I'd wake up engaged or something :D

Honey, with your picture, you have NOTHING to fear...

[Steersman]

Hey Steers,

On that blog you linked to, http://anthonybsusan.wordpress.com/2013 ... mment-1284, I submitted the following post below. It was in moderation for at least a couple of hours.

http://i.imgur.com/ZAUxfPI.jpg[/img]

http://i.imgur.com/QPO22mj.jpg[/img]

I wouldn't worry too much yet. It seems that first time commenters automatically go into moderation, that she works full-time, and that the time-stamps suggest that her time-zone might be Greenland or Iceland or points East in which case she's probably sleeping. Here's her comment on the other post of hers, related to Al Stefanelli's post, that I've been commenting on, more or less along the same lines:

Note: I’m overwhelmed by the response this blog has gotten! If your comment has been trapped in moderation, sorry about that–I work full time and didn’t expect my blog would get this level of attention. I’ve left some particularly atrocious comments up because I feel they prove my point. So, survivors, trigger warnings ahead.

[mikelf]

lol welch is talking about his daddy again...fuck off prick

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OA_kdeGc4e0/T ... b-ears.jpg

[mordacious1]

Guest/WTF

She has to give "enthusiastic consent"?
"Oh...alright", isn't good enough? Damn.

[Rystefn]

No, it just doesn't bother me. It's a pretty hypocrite I'd be to get upset over people making fun of me. Fuck, I've probably said worse shit about me on this forum than any of you assholes. However, the comment "you need to relax," comes up often enough that I think it's a good idea to periodically respond.

To this day it really has not sunk in to me that some(/many/most?) people are affected by a negative reaction from some relative stranger. I know theoretically that they are and do, but it falls into one of those things I do not "get".

My suspicion is that a large number of people have nothing remotely interesting in their lives, so they blow trivial shit way out of proportion. They then respond to said trivial shit as if it's the big deal they pretend it to be so that they can pretend to themselves that their lives aren't utterly banal and pointless.

[windy]

I'll admit that it's easier to get more drunk than intended when someone keeps "plying" you with drinks, even if the drinking is ultimately your choice. This one time, I went ice-fishing close to a village where I was doing fieldwork as an undergrad. I got to talking to a guy and his mother who were also out fishing, and they invited me to their place for dinner. During the dinner, the mom kept mixing me stronger and stronger drinks, asking if I was single, and hinting at what a good catch the son was. Finally I decided that things were getting a bit too weird, mumbled some thanks and managed to stagger out of there. I was worried that if I stayed, I'd wake up engaged or something :D

Honey, with your picture, you have NOTHING to fear...

Look who's talking... but that's what beer goggles are for!

[Ä uest]

Guest/WTF

She has to give "enthusiastic consent"?
"Oh...alright", isn't good enough? Damn.

Hey don't get me wrong. I am entirely 10000% behind the concept of enthusiastic consent.

Right now in women's studies courses across the world, and in mandatory Freshman orientation sessions, men are being trained to not go ahead unless there is enthusiastic consent, and women are being trained to give it.

I mean shit fuck, this is awesome and makes me wish I was back in college.

I wish my ex-wife had learned more about enthusiastic consent even AFTER marriage instead of taking notes from whatever asshole taught her the standard of mannequin after marriage.

Yes, enthusiastic consent seeks to end thousands of years of male/female big game hunting

http://i.imgur.com/lWwz8Ia.jpg

But I think with teaching freshman about enthusiastic consent alternate universe me could have gotten laid in college, so I have to be for it.

http://i.imgur.com/AVkmKV2.jpg

The%20critical%20hotness%20of%20enthusiastic%20consent.

Fuck yea!

[Steersman]

<snip>
But by the same token, why are people who don't have to fall off a cliff elebenty times before they learn to watch where they are going bad? That's the other side. If you did learn to pull your head out of your ass at a young age, or ever really, regardless of reason, you're some kind of bad person for pointing out that it is in fact possible to not be fucking stupid year after year, or that a little thinking can avoid problems.

I still think you’re judging her by your experiences, not hers. While I don’t know all of the details of the “conversations” you two have had, and I’ll concede that she might be acting a little self-indulgent – “[Welch is] … just one more person who doesn’t want me to talk about me …” – I think you’re completely missing the boat in not considering that her experience on drinking – at 15 one might emphasize – might have been more along the line of “Oooh, getting tipsy! Isn’t this fun!” instead of “Christ! Losing control! Bogies at 12 o’clock high! Evasive actions!” that you apparently think every 15 year old should have in those circumstances.

I can totally understand not knowing how your body reacts to large quantities of alcohol at 15, particularly if you grew up in 'Murrica! where many parents are not as sensible as Welch's were.

Agreed. And even in Canada. I grew up in small towns in BC, and I certainly don’t recollect receiving any information at school during my early to mid-teens about the evils and perils of drinking. But I also recollect that most people never locked the doors to their homes either so the sense of fear had to have been minimal in other areas as well.

(On the other hand, by 30, you should either have that shit down cold or not drink.)

True. Although her story was about when she was 15. And, presumably, about the experiences of people of that age now. But, considering all of the hysteria about rape and drinking, it seems a little hard to believe that more young people aren’t more cautious – maybe all of those programs aren’t all that effective.

But if she gets the benefit of the doubt on the inexperience of youth, why doesnt her counterparty? Why is he assumed to have malicious intent in pouring her a strong drink? Why isnt is simply assumed that a teen boy doesnt have great experience as a bartender?

Would you believe, “The Patriarchy”? But good question. Maybe because people aren’t really human until they’re at least 30. Takes time, I think, to develop a sense of empathy without which we can be rather careless, callous or nasty, rather than being malicious, i.e., have the intent to do harm.

[Parody Accountant]

I think windy is very handsome.

[welch]

Hey, speaking of people confusing getting drunk/having sex with getting drugged/raeped--

Did I ever tell you all a guy tried to drug-->rape me in college? Sheer fucking luck saved me, that and being an 'experienced' under-age drinker.
<snip>
Incidentally, this incident is one reason why I did very little partying in college, and why I do very little drinking now.

Christ. I remember reading an article in an actual newspaper [the printed variety :shock: ] of a bunch of Hell’s Angels types who had been charged with possessing or attempting to sell some “date-rape” drugs [Rohypnol, I think], and had been horrified at the thought that there was a market for such. Unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the population – “more of a guy thing”, I think – who are simply sociopaths and psychopaths. Not at all an easy thing to deal with or avoid – frequently a question of luck as in your case.

I remember having it symbolically drilled into my brain by my mom that you always watch if someone makes you a drink and you never leave your glass unattended. If you do leave your glass somewhere out of sight you never drink from it again after that.

But of course, we all know she was totally pre-emptively victim-blaming me, amirite

Hell, MY dad told me that. Not because of date-rape drugs, but because people are assholes and will pour 'extra' booze in there to 'help' you have a better time.

[Rystefn]

I remember having it symbolically drilled into my brain by my mom that you always watch if someone makes you a drink and you never leave your glass unattended. If you do leave your glass somewhere out of sight you never drink from it again after that.

But of course, we all know she was totally pre-emptively victim-blaming me, amirite

Hell, MY dad told me that. Not because of date-rape drugs, but because people are assholes and will pour 'extra' booze in there to 'help' you have a better time.

Yeah, that's not a women's issue. It's a human issue. I didn't have a parent say anything to me on the subject, but neither I nor anyone I know, male or female, leaves a drink unattended and then comes back to drink from it. That's just common fucking sense.

[welch]

So... if you were writing the clarification, it would take you 350 pages? Is that what you're saying? That there's no way to express laws except in massive tomes or half a sentence that says pretty much nothing, and there's nothing in between? Because I'm calling bullshit on that. There's pretty much 350 pages in between, in fact. The fact that we have all this case-law and precedent stuff tells us the 350+ page tomes of "clarification" aren't working so great anyway, doesn't it? Either the law is clear and doesn't need interpretation, or the interpretation is the law and we don't need massive tomes.

I answered this. To date, a reasonable guess is that trying to define SOX into something specific and reliable has taken probably ten times that number of pages, and still failed.

You don't get it, nor, do I think you want to. The law has to be precise. You can't just say "killing people is illegal". You have to define that shit so that someone who kills someone in self-defense isn't given the same treatment as Ted Bundy. You then have to define self-defense so that it can't be used to whack your neighbor because his dog pooped in your yard. You seem to not only be happily and nigh-completely ignorant of what you're talking about, but defensively so, and you refuse to acknowledge that your "just keep it simple" doesn't work in Law any more than it does in Engineering. Precision is not something you can get in a fucking paragraph of one-syllable words. You think an arch is simple? Look at how many pages are involved in building one correctly so it supports its own weight, the other weight it has to carry and does so for more than a month. I know in your world all problems can be solved with a 1cm square bit of duct tape and a spoon, but in the really real world, that kind of half-assing causes far more, FAR more problems than it solves.

Lsuoma and I and many more live the results of when you try. Six words dude. Six words that created, literally, thousands of pages of documentation and none of it, none of it is authoritative beyond the walls of the building it lives in.

But do go on and tell me how I'm wrong, and how this isn't what's really happening. While you're at it, tell me what you do for a living that gives you this awesome knowledge base, because right now I'm seeing "I don't understand it, but I know I don't like it, and therefore it's bullshit."

Do you know what a false dichotomy is? Because that's what you're doing. The options are not "either half a sentence that tells you nothing useful or a ten thousand page document that's functionally useless." Get off the "this is how it is" bullshit, and listen to what I'm actually saying: It should not be either of those things. Let me say that again, since you seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm saying: IT SHOULD NOT BE EITHER OF THOSE THINGS. And yet somehow, you're bitching at me for being wrong while at the same time complaining about it being both. In what universe does that make sense? The law should be exactly as long as it needs to be for clarity.

I don't actually give a rat's fucking ass about what it SHOULD be. We SHOULDN'T need laws or a legal system. Unfortunately, I live in the really real world, where we do need those things, and, regardless of your completely ignorant insistence to the contrary, history is rife with examples about why vague law is BAD and HURTS PEOPLE. SOX just happens to be the one I'm most familiar with, but vague, imprecise language in law is bad for the same reasons it's bad in engineering. It causes shit to go wrong, and like engineering, if the law goes wrong, people get hurt and people die. Christ, "it should not be either of those things". And people shouldn't rape.

I like your example about killing people, actually. That's something that gets relatively complex, because we make a difference between killing on purpose and killing on accident, and we care about why you did what you did, and we care about how it happened. How long is the law on murder/manslaughter where you live? Is it thousands of pages, different in every building, and still unclear? I haven't looked it up, because I don't live there, have no intention of ever going back there, and so it doesn't impact me in the slightest, but I'll put a thousand dollars on the answer being no.

it's not small either. It's not the paragraph and a half you claim it to be, and, as other people have pointed out at other times, state law, even on the same general subject can vary a LOT. Massachusetts has no death penalty, their murder laws are rather different than Florida's. A state with no "stand your ground" is going to have rather different laws around self defense than Florida. As well, if you actually collate all the related pages on murder law in well any state, including referenced applicable statutes and the actual case law and precedents that are used to help judges, lawyers and juries actually implement the law, (you DO understand the difference between implementation and definition, right? We'll assume so), you'd find it's a bit larger than you seem to think it is.

I also like you pointing out arches. It reinforces exactly what I said before about tech-related laws needing the most detail. However, how much of that needs to be there if you're writing the standards to be read by a professional builder? Still a fair bit, you are setting the standard of compliance here, but less than you'd need in an instruction manual for someone who never build anything more complex than a lego car. The law needs to be clear to the people it affects. If a legal dispute comes up, you bring some experts into the courtroom to explain if things were up to snuff or not, and why. Wait... don't we do that already anyway? It turns out we do. So any extra detail is redundant.

how the fuck are you even BEGINNING to define "extra detail" beyond "shit I don't care about"? Because before you can say "well that is EXTRA DETAIL, and therefore unnecessary", I kind of think you have to be clear about what the fuck that actually means in any context you're using it in. There's a lot of shit about programming microcontrollers that I don't understand and seems unnecessary. The difference is, I know that I know fuck-nothing about the subject, and so am not actually stupid enough to try to seriously say "that shit there? That's redundant", because I don't know what the fuck I am talking about in that case. Which is why I stuck to one of the few laws I directly have a lot of experience with on the implementation side.

Now, would you like to argue against what I'm actually saying, or would you prefer to carry on attacking your men of straw? While you're at it, kindly answer the question I asked, not the one you'd like pretend I asked: They law as written does not and never has existed. If you were writing a law to do what that law is intended to do, clearly and setting one standard for all, and not worrying about lawyers weaseling around because experts will be brought into the courtroom to explain exactly what is meant in cases where specialized knowledge is required, how much space would it take? If the law superfluous, causes more/worse problems than it solves, or is otherwise unnecessary, then the answer is zero. Otherwise, go ahead and tack on a page or so to create a clause where it's revisited periodically for updates, because we all know that technology marches on.

Can you actually tell me what subject you have any real knowledge and experience in other than using shitty tools to prove a point, and how you fuck everyone's girlfriend? that way, we can focus on a handful of examples instead of ALL LAW EVERYWHERE. Also, show us that you understand the difference between definition and implementation of said definition, and why that implementation can be, and quite often is FAR more complex than the definition?

because if you don't actually have some experience in a field where we can narrow this down to a manageable level, and that you understand and are familiar with some of the basic concepts required to have this discussion, I literally cannot show you anything that you won't dismiss because it's all redundant shit.

[welch]

<snip>
I can sympathize. However, I think you’re judging others by your own experiences and abilities, not to mention those of your parents. Not everyone is as self-aware as you apparently were at that age or able to judge the consequences of their actions.

As they say, good judgement comes from experience, but experience comes from bad judgement. And “bad judgement” covers a very wide spectrum. Not particularly reasonable, I think, to think that everyone’s introductions to that are the same.

But by the same token, why are people who don't have to fall off a cliff elebenty times before they learn to watch where they are going bad? That's the other side. If you did learn to pull your head out of your ass at a young age, or ever really, regardless of reason, you're some kind of bad person for pointing out that it is in fact possible to not be fucking stupid year after year, or that a little thinking can avoid problems.

I still think you’re judging her by your experiences, not hers. While I don’t know all of the details of the “conversations” you two have had, and I’ll concede that she might be acting a little self-indulgent – “[Welch is] … just one more person who doesn’t want me to talk about me …” – I think you’re completely missing the boat in not considering that her experience on drinking – at 15 one might emphasize – might have been more along the line of “Oooh, getting tipsy! Isn’t this fun!” instead of “Christ! Losing control! Bogies at 12 o’clock high! Evasive actions!” that you apparently think every 15 year old should have in those circumstances.

I freely admit to being limited by my own experiences, and what those have taught me. As is every single other person on the planet. However, given her eagerness to judge me based on what she thinks, I have no problem returning the same. When she decides to show a little understanding that hers is not the only correct worldview as it applies to people who disagree with her, I'll consider returning the consideration. Until then, what I said about her stands. I'm sorry her parents didn't raise her right, and I'm sorry that she had to wait until some magical older age to start actually learning anything. Not my fault.

Rather unreasonable to think that she should have known about threats and consequences of actions that neither she nor, apparently, her parents had any inkling of. People, particularly adolescents or young adults, learn from experience, the worst consequences of which they are lucky – as with Abbie – or unlucky – as with Stephanie – to evade or not. Or they learn them from their parents – as with 16bitheretic – who may have learned them in more painful ways. But still unreasonable, I think, to judge people without considering the circumstances they were in at the time they made their choices or acted the way they did.

Um, I hate to break this to you, but the dangers of getting drunk in unfamiliar circumstances are hardly new, nor were they hidden away in some sekret time capsule only opened in dublin a few years ago. This is the kind of shit people have dealt with since well, *alcohol*. if she was raised in deliberate ignorance, I feel bad but that still doesn't make me a bad person for not elevating her problems in my world.

I'm sorry she went through some bad experiences, but me not giving her "I COULDN'T STOP DRINKING" excuse some great elevated status doesn't mean I think rape is okay. It means i'm not particularly sympathetic to people who give alcohol and social pressure magical properties.

Again, I don't know the specifics of whatever it is you might be referring to there. However, that quote of her that I provided above really doesn't look like much of any "I COULDN'T STOP DRINKING" excuse. At most a "How can I be faulted for not knowing something I had no way of knowing?" "excuse". Which seems to be a reasonable response to some MRA-type accusations, and not any insistence that "alcohol and social pressure [has] magical properties". Maybe you're reading more into her position and statements than is justified.

I dunno. How old do you wait for your kids to be before you teach them about practical shit? Evidently, in Zvan's world, you never do that, you just demand the world not have any bumps or bruises? I grew up in a rough city and had some rough times. Ironically, none of them were alcohol-driven. Just people being assholes. If i was "lucky" at all, it's that my parents also lived in the real world and taught me how to deal with things as they were, not some fucking fantasy land. Anytime she wants to play "woe is me", I bet i can fucking keep up with her sad-assed childhood with ease. The difference is, I left my childhood behind decades ago. She is still wallowing in it. She should watch the pilot for "Deep Space Nine". It applies.

However, in the end, given how relentlessly unforgiving and unsympathetic she is to anyone not in full agreement with her on everything, it..pleases me to return the favor to her. Should she wish that to change, then she is perfectly capable of not being such a raging cock herself.

[welch]

Well, because she was 15, and the behavior was illegal for her, and the reason why it is illegal, alcoholism, drunk driving, overdosing, makes her vulnerable to rape and other things, is well known and certainly not a secret.

There have only been a zillion afterschool specials on this.

There have been. But twenty or thirty years ago?

So Stephanie, I aimed a gun at my face and shot it, because other people told me it would help me lighten my load. How can I be faulted for not knowing something I had no way of knowing?

I'm sure there's a logical fallacy to cover that. Or maybe just "hyperskepticism". Or maybe "silliness". It would be rather strange, being charitable, to argue that someone not realizing that shooting oneself in the face was likely to be "career limiting" was in any way analogous to someone not realizing - particularly at the age of 15 twenty or thirty years ago - that drinking with strangers was not particularly wise, particularly for young women.

This doesn't excuse rape.
It also doesn't excuse willful stupidity.

Again, the stupidity of shooting oneself in the face is hardly analogous to the "stupidity" of drinking with people one hardly knows: the consequences of the former tend to be uniformly fatal and manifestly so even to the most clueless, those of the latter hardly ever, even if they can be somewhat painful. Actually, I think it's kind of a stupid analogy - you might want to check the link.

Juding by her pictures, I'm almost certainly older than Zvan, and I remember getting anti-alcohol, anti-drug messages in elementary school in the 60s.

Alcohol and alcoholism, drugs, and drunk driving have been around for quite sometime.

We may not expect 15 year olds to be adults, but there are tons of behaviors we do expect them to know not to do, regardless of how rare the consequences are and how beneficial the payoffs can be.

Staying out all night long, drinking alcohol, gambling, smoking, shop-lifting, hitch-hiking, driving, ditching school, dating much older people,

You may not like my gun analogy but the point holds, Stephanie and 99% of all 15 year olds, even back in the sixties know that alcohol abuse is dangerous -- the "How can I be faulted for not knowing something I had no way of knowing?" excuse just can't hold up rationally.

[Gah, you can actually google when she was born, fucking mylife.com privacy invasion, how does it work. So I can guarantee you that by the time she was 15, MADD and DARE were in operation, and the ABC After School Special had been on the air for 13 years, and Woodstock was in the past. Her community was certainly getting anti-drug and anti-alcohol messages.]

[youtube]os8TT7HYF9g[/youtube]

"Just say no to drugs" was the vogue message when i was in high school. When Mr. T and Nancy Reagan are on the same PSA, it's a really mixed message, because SOMEONE CLEARLY DID NOT IN FACT SAY "NO" TO DRUGS.

[welch]

lol welch is talking about his daddy again...fuck off prick

STOP IGNORING ME!

<SOB>

[Ä uest]

Feminist women convince me more and more that feminist women are too fragile and well, stupid, to be left on their own.

For the sake of feminist women, we truly do need to keep them locked up where they are safe, perhaps in the kitchen in familiar surroundings, and barefoot, so they can't stumble over their heels.

[clownshoe]

I think windy is very handsome.

I'd go through Xem like a Star Destroyer through a knee.

[Hunt]

Fast forward a month or two, friends at a party at the same frat house. Senior Boy was really drunk, and real interested in whether I drank that White Russian from TWO MONTHS AGO. My face: :| Kept him talking-- Drunk Senior Boy admitted to drugging me and couldnt figure out why it didnt work.

Creepy as fuck. So this guy literally had no self awareness as to how wrong that was. 7 billion people on this planet, there are bound to be more than a few losers. But just about finished with college and he had yet to develop any sense of morals or ethics? Did he say what he put in it?

He still might have developed some in Law School.

[Zenspace]

Someone has set up a legal fund for Michael Shermer:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/micha ... legal-fund

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

ERV, you might like this.

There's a person whose name I recognize as "someone" who is an atheist (no insult intended, I'm also an atheist who does fuck all about it), and she is apparently been very sick recently. Several of her online family, including PZ Meyers, contributed little "get well soon" messages to a Youtube video. Meyers made a post about it. Ahh, very thoughtful.

But then, coming in like a wrecking ball of stupidity and crassness, comes Jenny Titwobble on Twitter:

http://i.imgur.com/sfJxwWH.png

You're a fucking moron, Jenny.

[Aneris]

ERV, you might like this.

There's a person whose name I recognize as "someone" who is an atheist (no insult intended, I'm also an atheist who does fuck all about it), and she is apparently been very sick recently. Several of her online family, including PZ Meyers, contributed little "get well soon" messages to a Youtube video. Meyers made a post about it. Ahh, very thoughtful.

But then, coming in like a wrecking ball of stupidity and crassness, comes Jenny Titwobble on Twitter:

http://i.imgur.com/sfJxwWH.png

You're a fucking moron, Jenny.

Clips, laughter and hugs? ("olden" but golden).

[youtube]9C_11laqbvM[/youtube]

[Bourne Skeptic]

Feminist women convince me more and more that feminist women are too fragile and well, stupid, to be left on their own.

For the sake of feminist women, we truly do need to keep them locked up where they are safe, perhaps in the kitchen in familiar surroundings, and barefoot, so they can't stumble over their heels.

Idiot!

[AndrewV69]

Feminist women convince me more and more that feminist women are too fragile and well, stupid, to be left on their own.

For the sake of feminist women, we truly do need to keep them locked up where they are safe, perhaps in the kitchen in familiar surroundings, and barefoot, so they can't stumble over their heels.

Idiot!

You rang? Oh wait ... never mind.

[Rystefn]

I don't actually give a rat's fucking ass about what it SHOULD be. We SHOULDN'T need laws or a legal system. Unfortunately, I live in the really real world, where we do need those things, and, regardless of your completely ignorant insistence to the contrary, history is rife with examples about why vague law is BAD and HURTS PEOPLE. SOX just happens to be the one I'm most familiar with, but vague, imprecise language in law is bad for the same reasons it's bad in engineering. It causes shit to go wrong, and like engineering, if the law goes wrong, people get hurt and people die. Christ, "it should not be either of those things". And people shouldn't rape.

If you can point out one example of any time in the history of the world when I have said that vague, imprecise law is good, or even acceptable, I will give you a slow-roasted dodo stuffed with the Hope Diamond. I have said that the law should be exactly as long as it needs to be to get across the meaning it needs to have. I've said it several times, in fact. Honestly, though, if you don't give a shit about what the law should be, why the fuck did you even jump into a conversation about what the law should be? Thank you for informing us that you have no opinion on what we're talking about but felt the need to butt in and spout off some unrelated shit anyway, though.

it's not small either. It's not the paragraph and a half you claim it to be, and, as other people have pointed out at other times, state law, even on the same general subject can vary a LOT. Massachusetts has no death penalty, their murder laws are rather different than Florida's. A state with no "stand your ground" is going to have rather different laws around self defense than Florida. As well, if you actually collate all the related pages on murder law in well any state, including referenced applicable statutes and the actual case law and precedents that are used to help judges, lawyers and juries actually implement the law, (you DO understand the difference between implementation and definition, right? We'll assume so), you'd find it's a bit larger than you seem to think it is.

Where the fuck did I claim that? How is any of this relevant to anything I've said anywhere? How many times do I have to tell you to stop making shit up and pretending I said it? Fuck, man, you're better than this. Don't turn into Justi.

how the fuck are you even BEGINNING to define "extra detail" beyond "shit I don't care about"? Because before you can say "well that is EXTRA DETAIL, and therefore unnecessary", I kind of think you have to be clear about what the fuck that actually means in any context you're using it in. There's a lot of shit about programming microcontrollers that I don't understand and seems unnecessary. The difference is, I know that I know fuck-nothing about the subject, and so am not actually stupid enough to try to seriously say "that shit there? That's redundant", because I don't know what the fuck I am talking about in that case. Which is why I stuck to one of the few laws I directly have a lot of experience with on the implementation side.

That's why I tried to pick a law on a subject you do know something about. I'm assuming you're a qualified professional in your field and directly asking you how much it would take for you to communicate to other qualified professionals in the same field. For some reason, you seem to be incapable of answering that. Does that mean you know fuck-nothing about this subject as well?

Can you actually tell me what subject you have any real knowledge and experience in other than using shitty tools to prove a point, and how you fuck everyone's girlfriend? that way, we can focus on a handful of examples instead of ALL LAW EVERYWHERE. Also, show us that you understand the difference between definition and implementation of said definition, and why that implementation can be, and quite often is FAR more complex than the definition?

because if you don't actually have some experience in a field where we can narrow this down to a manageable level, and that you understand and are familiar with some of the basic concepts required to have this discussion, I literally cannot show you anything that you won't dismiss because it's all redundant shit.

I rather suspect that the areas of my expertise don't much overlap with yours, and if they do, it wouldn't be legal for us to discuss the particulars in any detail on a public forum. Unless you're a gamer, but I rather suspect you aren't. I'm many several brands of gamer, enough to be called an expert in some of them. Maybe you draw? Paint? Play a musical instrument? Not sure I count as an expert in any of those these days, but I retain enough to discuss them intelligently. More to the point, though, you have a special ability to argue against shit I'm not saying and steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, so I winder what I could possibly gain from engaging in this any further aside from a few laughs at your expense as you carry on acting like an ass and arguing like a creationist.

Also, I think you should take a moment to reflect on the difference between the general "you" and the specific "you." I know it's a lot more fun for you to pretend I claimed to fuck all and sundry and women everywhere throw themselves at me than to actually address the things I really said, but... oh, right... pretty much SOP by now, isn't it? Carry on, then.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

http://i.imgur.com/sfJxwWH.png
.

So, my sweet Jen announces "I suck" on twitter, does that mean her BF doesn't have to ask for Enthusiastic Consent every time he grabs her by the ponytail?

[yomomma]

My suspicion is that a large number of people have nothing remotely interesting in their lives, so they blow trivial shit way out of proportion. They then respond to said trivial shit as if it's the big deal they pretend it to be so that they can pretend to themselves that their lives aren't utterly banal and pointless.

Isn't that kind of what "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" was about? Inventing illnesses so that people have something to focus on?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Aneris: "Presumably so people don't read it and see how fucking retarded it is".

Gets me every time. Come back, Simpleflower.

[yomomma]

Someone has set up a legal fund for Michael Shermer:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/micha ... legal-fund

How dutiful. I'm very impressed with the try-hard coordinator of this effort.

[Bourne Skeptic]

My suspicion is that a large number of people have nothing remotely interesting in their lives, so they blow trivial shit way out of proportion. They then respond to said trivial shit as if it's the big deal they pretend it to be so that they can pretend to themselves that their lives aren't utterly banal and pointless.

Isn't that kind of what "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" was about? Inventing illnesses so that people have something to focus on?

That made me think of this clip.
[youtube]okW1z11HotM[/youtube]

[DownThunder]

Guest/WTF

She has to give "enthusiastic consent"?
"Oh...alright", isn't good enough? Damn.

A woman must be this enthusiastic at all times and doubly so every 15 seconds. But that doesn't let you off the hook about being a rapist.

consent.jpg

(79.54 KiB) Downloaded 278 times

[yomomma]

Hey don't get me wrong. I am entirely 10000% behind the concept of enthusiastic consent.

Right now in women's studies courses across the world, and in mandatory Freshman orientation sessions, men are being trained to not go ahead unless there is enthusiastic consent, and women are being trained to give it.

I mean shit fuck, this is awesome and makes me wish I was back in college.

I wish my ex-wife had learned more about enthusiastic consent even AFTER marriage instead of taking notes from whatever asshole taught her the standard of mannequin after marriage.

Yes, enthusiastic consent seeks to end thousands of years of male/female big game hunting

Why not sign a contract first, so there's no misunderstanding?

This is really stupid. Lots of married people, especially women, have sex when they aren't 100% in the mood and life goes on as usual and nobody feels violated or exploited. Some people have sex after the baby keeps them up all night simply because they want to do that for their partner. It may not be enthusiastic, but it's the best their partner is going to get until life becomes more predictable. (And this can work both ways.)

[TheMan]

Drinking and stuff....

I was allowed to drink a little wine mixed with lemondae when I was a kid at home...usually only when entertaining family guests or away visiting family. Neither of my parents were regular drinkers. This didn't stop me binge drinking in my 20's and early 30's due to peer group pressure . I doubt my parents were consciously trying to create positive associations in my mind about alcohol.

Peer Group Pressure is an effect I haven't seen mentioned before so far here in the drinking related discussions. I don't drink much anymore but I used to go for complete "wipe outs" and/or "legless" to the point of "blackouts"/"Passing out" (same thing in my book).

I did have a rhym and reason when drinking heavily...if it was a party at my place I went to the limits and we used to designate a crash out room. if away from home on a night out I'd stay compus mentus enough to manage to get home and chunder in the bathroom. I was in a group where we not only lived with each other but went out to the same places and liked the same things...so we tended to look out for each other too and made sure if someone was too drunk to walk we'd get them home even if it ment carrying them home. This is what true SJW did back in my day.

speaking of SJW....another view. Seeing as I was perhaps could be considered an SJW back in the heady punk rock days. SJW's to me feel that mainstream society doesn't cater to their specific needs. In my day it was music tastes and entertainment venues...we complained but we complained through doing something about it...we started our own band and we could complain louder and attract fans who felt the same way. It's what I liked about Punk Rock ethos...or should I say Complaint Rock ethos.....you CAN do something about it. Now I've slipped mostly back into mainstreamism holding onto the last vestiges of self delusion that I am fighting against the "system" only to realise for a time I was carrying the torch many others have done before me. I passed on the torch ages ago but the SJW's of today dissapoint me.At least the internet provides a means to convey whatever gripe one has much easier and not requiring picking up any special skills (except advanced trolling).

/babbling

[Supertroy]

Fast forward a month or two, friends at a party at the same frat house. Senior Boy was really drunk, and real interested in whether I drank that White Russian from TWO MONTHS AGO. My face: :| Kept him talking-- Drunk Senior Boy admitted to drugging me and couldnt figure out why it didnt work.

Creepy as fuck. So this guy literally had no self awareness as to how wrong that was. 7 billion people on this planet, there are bound to be more than a few losers. But just about finished with college and he had yet to develop any sense of morals or ethics? Did he say what he put in it?

I'm guessing a business major, minor in PE.

[Ä uest]

Hey don't get me wrong. I am entirely 10000% behind the concept of enthusiastic consent.

Right now in women's studies courses across the world, and in mandatory Freshman orientation sessions, men are being trained to not go ahead unless there is enthusiastic consent, and women are being trained to give it.

I mean shit fuck, this is awesome and makes me wish I was back in college.

I wish my ex-wife had learned more about enthusiastic consent even AFTER marriage instead of taking notes from whatever asshole taught her the standard of mannequin after marriage.

Yes, enthusiastic consent seeks to end thousands of years of male/female big game hunting

Why not sign a contract first, so there's no misunderstanding?

This is really stupid. Lots of married people, especially women, have sex when they aren't 100% in the mood and life goes on as usual and nobody feels violated or exploited. Some people have sex after the baby keeps them up all night simply because they want to do that for their partner. It may not be enthusiastic, but it's the best their partner is going to get until life becomes more predictable. (And this can work both ways.)

Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid for a dozen reasons too. Remember these are the people that think Baby It's Cold Outside is a rape song from a rape culture. I think that for whatever reason, men and women enjoy "the chase".

I just like the idea of feminists teaching college women to say yes Enthusiastically, because I was always shitty at mind reading or sensing signals, so that's gotta help some college nerds like I was.

[Parody Accountant]

Guest/WTF

She has to give "enthusiastic consent"?
"Oh...alright", isn't good enough? Damn.

A woman must be this enthusiastic at all times and doubly so every 15 seconds. But that doesn't let you off the hook about being a rapist.

http://i.imgur.com/Lnr010A.jpg

FFS Rystefn is so ugly in that picture.

[Parody Accountant]

Drinking and stuff....

<snip>

speaking of SJW....another view. Seeing as I was perhaps could be considered an SJW back in the heady punk rock days. SJW's to me feel that mainstream society doesn't cater to their specific needs. In my day it was music tastes and entertainment venues...we complained but we complained through doing something about it...we started our own band and we could complain louder and attract fans who felt the same way. It's what I liked about Punk Rock ethos...or should I say Complaint Rock ethos.....you CAN do something about it. Now I've slipped mostly back into mainstreamism holding onto the last vestiges of self delusion that I am fighting against the "system" only to realise for a time I was carrying the torch many others have done before me. I passed on the torch ages ago but the SJW's of today dissapoint me.At least the internet provides a means to convey whatever gripe one has much easier and not requiring picking up any special skills (except advanced trolling).

/babbling

http://cdn2.planetminecraft.com/files/r ... 56_lrg.jpg

[Supertroy]

Why is it the when to drink/not to drink question comes up, the "Victim Blaming" canard comes up?

I mean, it get that it sucks that women have to take rape into consideration. It sucks that this is a shitty thing by in large women specifically have to deal with.

But drunk women are easier to rape.

Life sucks, we should do something to change it. Don't make it easy for rapists. These are not exclusive thoughts. In fact, they kinda seem complimentary.

[JackRayner]

<snip>
That’s a little harsh. And, I think, decidedly short-sighted. There are, no doubt, congenitally stupid people for whom no amount of experience is going to be sufficient to educate them – in which case having them remove themselves from society if not the gene pool is probably the optimal solution.

However, speaking as someone who has periodically come close to “winning” a Darwin Award – something I think more than a few here have indicated they have done likewise, I think it is important to realize that, as someone famous said, “we hang together or we hang alone”. That, to a large degree, we have an obligation to “have each other’s backs”. While there is obviously a limit to that, I would draw the line in a very different location from where you apparently do.

No thanks. Being emotionally invested in the outcome of individuals who are both stupid, and who display an inability to take accountability for their own actions, would eventually get to me to a place where I give even less of a fuck, just out of numbness.
Call me ableist [LOLz], but incurable idiots repel me, and Zeus knows I try. I fucking try...

I'm not talking about "incurable idiots" - I very explicitly excluded those, although one might wonder how you would determine if they qualified as such. I'm talking about those who are "curable". Rather important, I think, to differentiate between those two classes, particularly in light of the phrase "some of us all of the time, all of us some of the time".

I did make a jump there, from dumb kid surrounded by dumb all around, to dumb individual that refuses to see how their actions lead them to bad outcomes, but......yeah. No. I lost my train of thought and whatever it was that I was trying to get across with that jump. Sorry Steers.

[JackRayner]

Guest/WTF

She has to give "enthusiastic consent"?
"Oh...alright", isn't good enough? Damn.

Hey don't get me wrong. I am entirely 10000% behind the concept of enthusiastic consent.

Right now in women's studies courses across the world, and in mandatory Freshman orientation sessions, men are being trained to not go ahead unless there is enthusiastic consent, and women are being trained to give it.

Call me a cynic, or a "biological determinist", or whatever, but......Yyyyyeah. That'll never stick.

[FlyingV]

Guest/WTF

She has to give "enthusiastic consent"?
"Oh...alright", isn't good enough? Damn.

Hey don't get me wrong. I am entirely 10000% behind the concept of enthusiastic consent.

Right now in women's studies courses across the world, and in mandatory Freshman orientation sessions, men are being trained to not go ahead unless there is enthusiastic consent, and women are being trained to give it.

Call me a cynic, or a "biological determinist", or whatever, but......Yyyyyeah. That'll never stick.

That's a shame because some of the best sex I've had was when I wasn't enthusiastic and had set the bar really low. I hate being enthusiastic and being let down.

[welch]

Oh for fucks sake, stop huffing screwdrivers.

it's not small either. It's not the paragraph and a half you claim it to be, and, as other people have pointed out at other times, state law, even on the same general subject can vary a LOT. Massachusetts has no death penalty, their murder laws are rather different than Florida's. A state with no "stand your ground" is going to have rather different laws around self defense than Florida. As well, if you actually collate all the related pages on murder law in well any state, including referenced applicable statutes and the actual case law and precedents that are used to help judges, lawyers and juries actually implement the law, (you DO understand the difference between implementation and definition, right? We'll assume so), you'd find it's a bit larger than you seem to think it is.

Where the fuck did I claim that? How is any of this relevant to anything I've said anywhere? How many times do I have to tell you to stop making shit up and pretending I said it? Fuck, man, you're better than this. Don't turn into Justi.

Your words:

I like your example about killing people, actually. That's something that gets relatively complex, because we make a difference between killing on purpose and killing on accident, and we care about why you did what you did, and we care about how it happened. How long is the law on murder/manslaughter where you live? Is it thousands of pages, different in every building, and still unclear? I haven't looked it up, because I don't live there, have no intention of ever going back there, and so it doesn't impact me in the slightest, but I'll put a thousand dollars on the answer being no.

The "law" on murder includes, whether you like it or not, all the cross-referenced other laws, which for FL, before I got done counting, was well over 50 entries, and that includes cases where it references entire chapters. Which also reference other laws. It also includes, and again, whether you like it or not, the relevant case law/precedents that are part of the implementation details for implementing the laws against murder. Then you have sentencing guidelines. Those are also part of "the law" as it applies to murder. And we have the various regulations and procedures that law enforcement has to abide by when handling murder, also part of the law. Because this shit doesn't just exist on its own. For a law to be implementable, there's a shit-ton of things that have to happen, and over time, things like precedent, to help clarify in a reasonably even way, how to actually implement the law.

So, is it over a thousand pages? I didn't actually paginate and count everything, but I'll bet it's pretty fucking close if you want actual full coverage. Is the strict definition of the various forms of homicide a thousand pages? no, but it's also not something even slightly detailed enough to use in an actual courtroom. for example, here is the entire "law" regarding justifiable use of deadly force in the state of florida:

782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

[/quote]

You think that's clear and detailed enough to use without any form of supporting material? you can think that, but you'd be wrong. it's missing rather a lot of detail, which are all those "redundant bits" you seem to think are unncessary. Or is it that you don't need an definition because you have the implementation details. Well then what the fuck are you implementing? Without the definition, you don't know. How do you implement said law? without implementation details, you can't.

is it different in every building? Well no you ninny, because that's not how the law works. However, is it different in every state? Well, as I showed earlier, yes, actually, murder law can, and often is quite different due to things like variations in sentencing, self-defense definitions, etc. That's not even including differences in how abortion law fits into things. Which again, MOAR VARIANCE.

You seem to think that you can just separate all this and keep the bits you like. Doesn't work that way.

Fuck, music is easy right? There's what 8 notes in an octave and then the whole fucking thing repeats. Why the fuck do you need 88 keys on a piano or more than one string on a guitar. And don't even BEGIN to get me into how redundant every fret > 12 on a guitar is. It just repeats everything, so it's all redundant, right?

I mean, if you don't know shit about music, all of that seems reasonable. It's utter crap of course, but you have to at least TRY to understand how music and instruments work to realize that. You are perfectly capable of at least TRYING to understand how all this works, but you don't want to. Okay, fair enough, the law can be dry I suppose. But then stop talking as if you're even vaguely informed on it.Not when you can't even be fucked to look up the examples you give. Jesus, lazy much?

Compared to even a fresh Law School grad, I don't know shit, but I at least look shit up and TRY to understand it. If nothing else, I quickly learn that it's not complicated just to be complicated, there's an actual reason for it. I've even, <horror> talked to lawyers, and asked them about why it is the way it is. Yes, sometimes it is a bit over the top, but the explanations as to why that doesn't happen as much as it seems to someone who isn't a lawyer or a judge showed me that just because I don't know why that shit's so complicated, that doesn't mean it's complicated for meaningless reasons or some kind of jobs program for rich kids.

[JackRayner]

I don't drink much anymore but I used to go for complete "wipe outs" and/or "legless" to the point of "blackouts"/"Passing out" (same thing in my book).

[being that guy] I hate to be that guy, but they're really not, though I can understand why some would try to conflate not remembering with being unconscious. It makes a great "get out of taking responsibility for my actions" card, and I don't doubt that it's the case with a lot of these "was draped while runk" stories... [/being that guy]

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Come on, Jenny Titwobble, hurry up and post your "thing", your brave little piece of journalism. Come on!

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

lol welch is talking about his daddy again...fuck off prick

STOP IGNORING ME!

<SOB>

Welch, can you stop telling debaser71 to stop writing comments where he stops telling you that he has stopped ignoring you for long enough to tell you to stop talking about him because he has stopped stopping ignoring you?

It's really triggering for me, and I am shaking with anger, outrage, and a little bit of self disgust right now.

[JackRayner]

I just like the idea of feminists teaching college women to say yes Enthusiastically, because I was always shitty at mind reading or sensing signals, so that's gotta help some college nerds like I was.

Yyyyyyeah.... Even less likely to happen. I hope "nerds" and other socially awkward kids don't get their hopes up because of this. Chicks aren't going to drop their testing and their games just because they were told to in some class. What's their incentive for doing so??

[I'm talking in the aggregate. I get that some the women here are, like, totally not like that, and totally always the sexual aggressors/initiator.]

Hey don't get me wrong. I am entirely 10000% behind the concept of enthusiastic consent.

Right now in women's studies courses across the world, and in mandatory Freshman orientation sessions, men are being trained to not go ahead unless there is enthusiastic consent, and women are being trained to give it.

Call me a cynic, or a "biological determinist", or whatever, but......Yyyyyeah. That'll never stick.

That's a shame because some of the best sex I've had was when I wasn't enthusiastic and had set the bar really low. I hate being enthusiastic and being let down.

:lol:

[TheMan]

I don't drink much anymore but I used to go for complete "wipe outs" and/or "legless" to the point of "blackouts"/"Passing out" (same thing in my book).

[being that guy] I hate to be that guy, but they're really not, though I can understand why some would try to conflate not remembering with being unconscious. It makes a great "get out of taking responsibility for my actions" card, and I don't doubt that it's the case with a lot of these "was draped while runk" stories... [/being that guy]

If I went for that definition of Blackout....I've never blackedout but passed out heaps of times. Must be my constitution. :shifty: I'll have to ask some of my old drinking partners what theor experiences were. I seem to recall some out of character behavior with some of my friends and they don't recall the events the next day. I may indeed be conflating blackouts with passing out...

[Steersman]

<snip>
I'm not talking about "incurable idiots" - I very explicitly excluded those, although one might wonder how you would determine if they qualified as such. I'm talking about those who are "curable". Rather important, I think, to differentiate between those two classes, particularly in light of the phrase "some of us all of the time, all of us some of the time".

I did make a jump there, from dumb kid surrounded by dumb all around, to dumb individual that refuses to see how their actions lead them to bad outcomes, but......yeah. No. I lost my train of thought and whatever it was that I was trying to get across with that jump. Sorry Steers.

No problemo. It’s a tricky question, one partly circumscribed by the concepts of altruism and personal responsibility, and compounded by different ways of phrasing and interpreting different facets of it. Easy to get lost in the details – at least I find that is the case.

But it’s a fairly common situation, I think, illustrated by the discussions between Rystefn and Welch where they seem to be talking at cross purposes caused, in part in any case, by imprecisely defined terms and points of reference. Reminds me of a story – not sure how true it is – about a joint British-American design of a satellite or space probe. Apparently there was some interface required between the separately designed modules to exchange control data, but the British one had been designed expecting or providing metric data while the American one had been designed expecting or providing, ironically, the older Imperial (British) data (feet, pounds, etc.) And when the two modules went to communicate with each other – something to do with the control of the satellite – the imcompatibility cause the satellite to crash and burn.

Something that Michael Shermer noted in his The Believing Brain:

As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio” and “progressive talk radio” you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. [pg 263] [my emphasis]

Rather a difficult though important question how to resolve those types of issues.

[Ä uest]

I just like the idea of feminists teaching college women to say yes Enthusiastically, because I was always shitty at mind reading or sensing signals, so that's gotta help some college nerds like I was.

Yyyyyyeah.... Even less likely to happen. I hope "nerds" and other socially awkward kids don't get their hopes up because of this. Chicks aren't going to drop their testing and their games just because they were told to in some class. What's their incentive for doing so??

Well I think the Enthusiastic Consent Mandate goes up against a lot of biology and psychology and so will almost certainly fail.

But there are a lot of reports of two things:

1) Campuses have this wild and carefree hookup culture
2) The wild and carefree hookup culture doesn't actually exist. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... eal/68259/

Enthusiastic Consent comes to us from Feminists that well celebrate hookup culture and tell us not to slut-shame and tell us that the walk of shame should really be a very proud walk of victory.

To the extent that freshman orientation has messages of enthusiastic consent, and the freshmen are given backup messages about slutwalks and the walk of victory and are told to initiate sex, that will only serve to increase the amount of sex on campus.

Maybe this additional sex will go to the same men as usual, but I suspect some amount of sex will trickle down on men who are not the usual suspects.

Those are the guys I root for, and if it takes support of feminist encouragement of cheap/regret free/one night stands met with enthusiastic consent which they tell us is way fucking hot all as a way to stick it to the man, and smash Patriarchy, well count me in.

[mordacious1]

So, does Dr. Phil read the Pyt?

He got himself into hot water tonight by tweeting: "If a girl is drunk, is it okay to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @drphil".

http://www.ibtimes.com/dr-phil-under-fi ... ls-1393173

:mrgreen:

[Steersman]

ERV, you might like this.

There's a person whose name I recognize as "someone" who is an atheist (no insult intended, I'm also an atheist who does fuck all about it), and she is apparently been very sick recently. Several of her online family, including PZ Meyers, contributed little "get well soon" messages to a Youtube video. Meyers made a post about it. Ahh, very thoughtful.

But then, coming in like a wrecking ball of stupidity and crassness, comes Jenny Titwobble on Twitter:

http://i.imgur.com/sfJxwWH.png

You're a fucking moron, Jenny.

I hope you’ll take due cognizance of the fact that this question is coming from someone who, according to some accounts, scored 9000 in that Autism-Quotient test, but what, pray tell, are you going on about there? I can maybe see that Jenny’s comments were a bit of a non sequitur, but a “wrecking ball of stupidity and crassness”?

You think maybe you’re being a little obsessive in following and/or criticizing, and analyzing every last syllable that she utters for hidden insults, nefarious meanings, and evidence of having clay feet? Maybe to the point of qualifying as, dare I say it, harassment?

Although I’ll concede that I am at least a little curious about her overly coy and breathless intimation of “breaking news” … “Stay tuned for another thrilling episode in ‘As the FftB World Turns’” ….

[VAXherd]

All science so far!

Sorry for the delay; had other demands on my time.

As an example of what social scientists do, I'll be referring to my own dissertation. The area was Social Networks, and the focus was on whether your position in a network could give you power, aside from any skills you might have for the role. The method was a fairly typical Social Psych experiment. (Note that we'll be sneaking up on "privilege" by way of "unearned power".)

People, unlike, say, hydrogen molecules, have preferences about which others of their species they interact with; they form networks. So goods or information do not travel through a group in the simple way one gas diffuses through another, but rather they move along the network connections. For example, if you have three people in a line, A - B - C, and A wants some of what C has, s/he must get it from B. Mathematically, you could say that B is inherently privileged, but we were interested in what people would do; might B keep some extra value from exchanges between A and C?

There had been a good deal of prior field work regarding this (yes, including researchers sitting at parties or in workplaces with a clipboard and a watch), but in the wild, network position is confounded by the characteristics of the people in the position. So we wanted to do an experiment where people could be randomly assigned to network position.

Next, I plan to describe the experiment, but I'd like to keep these posts short. So let's check in with you here. Anything unscientific or unclear so far?

[Steersman]

So, does Dr. Phil read the Pyt?

He got himself into hot water tonight by tweeting: "If a girl is drunk, is it okay to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @drphil".

http://www.ibtimes.com/dr-phil-under-fi ... ls-1393173

:mrgreen:

Interesting. Maybe he ran across that original tweet from Watson. But this is highly questionable:

“If a girl is drunk, is it OK to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @DrPhil #teensaccused,” Dr. Phil tweeted out to his million-plus followers on Monday night. Legally, of course, drunk people are not capable of consenting to sex, making such an encounter rape.

Sure would like to know what statutes the author of that piece used to justify that argument.

[Jan Steen]

The value of gossip.

Someone called her, on her facebook page, a “psychic slut”. Many people at TAM accused her of using her sexuality to her advantage, of sleeping around, of sexually getting off on attention.

http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2010 ... he-ladies/

A “named source” (copyright Greta Christina*), Mark Edward, wrote:

I imagine that again, if true, Dr. Shermer must be very proud to have hooked up with such a discreet partner.

No, this is not about the exploits of a certain skepchick. It’s about a “psychic” called Anita Ikonen who attended TAM8 in 2010. She related what actually happened between her and Shermer on her FB page:

http://i.imgur.com/o80WeQj.png

http://web.archive.org/web/201202091226 ... /mark.html

Skepchick party? Which Skepchick party? Oh, this one:

Not to mention the Skepchicks party, where women were dressed up as whores, which I did not attend.

http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2010 ... he-ladies/

In 2010 the Skepchicks dressed up as whores at a party, but anno 2013 a certain Michael Shermer is reprimanded by rape-fantasy-porn author Greta Christina for “behavior (...) that wasn’t assault but was inappropriately and uninvitedly sexual.*”

Ah, the good old days of slut shaming. We have left them behind us. We have progressed. We are into PUA shaming now.

*http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... ep-throat/

[mordacious1]

<snip>

Interesting. Maybe he ran across that original tweet from Watson. But this is highly questionable:

“If a girl is drunk, is it OK to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @DrPhil #teensaccused,” Dr. Phil tweeted out to his million-plus followers on Monday night. Legally, of course, drunk people are not capable of consenting to sex, making such an encounter rape.

Sure would like to know what statutes the author of that piece used to justify that argument.

That line popped out at me also. As we've previously discussed here, if both people are drunk, are they both rapists? Or just the male? We know what the RadFems would say: Gotta protect the wimenz from the evil menz. It's a far cry from when I was a feminist activist in college in the 1970's.

[JackRayner]

I just like the idea of feminists teaching college women to say yes Enthusiastically, because I was always shitty at mind reading or sensing signals, so that's gotta help some college nerds like I was.

Yyyyyyeah.... Even less likely to happen. I hope "nerds" and other socially awkward kids don't get their hopes up because of this. Chicks aren't going to drop their testing and their games just because they were told to in some class. What's their incentive for doing so??

Well I think the Enthusiastic Consent Mandate goes up against a lot of biology and psychology and so will almost certainly fail. But there are a lot of reports of two things:

1) Campuses have this wild and carefree hookup culture
2) The wild and carefree hookup culture doesn't actually exist. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... eal/68259/

Enthusiastic Consent comes to us from Feminists that well celebrate hookup culture and tell us not to slut-shame and tell us that the walk of shame should really be a very proud walk of victory.

Do Feminists really celebrate hookup culture? I guess I've gotten lots of conflicting messages on the topic [Feminists hate "dude bros", and they're painted as the ones who dominate so-called "hook up culture", so...], but I'll take your word for it. As for The Walk Of Shame/Victory, I'd personally refrain from applying any "shoulds" to people's feelings, post hook up/one night stand. They're free to judge for themselves if they got what they wanted out of it, and how they'll feel about it. If the girl that attaches her identity to the idea that one should only have sex with someone they love, ends up doing The Walk the morning after getting it on with some dude whose name she can't even remember, I doubt she'll be feeling very victorious, regardless of anyone else's opinion on the matter. I can say the same for this guy, too. [Though it seems to be his place, so he only had to cope with a Shower Of Shame.]

To the extent that freshman orientation has messages of enthusiastic consent, and the freshmen are given backup messages about slutwalks and the walk of victory and are told to initiate sex, that will only serve to increase the amount of sex on campus.

I...don't understand what "slutwalks" have to do with this. That I'm aware, those were in response to "victim blaming". As for this increasing the amount of sex being had...highly doubt it. My reason for thinking this is that things like abstinence only sex-ed, purity pledges, and all sorts of other sillyness seems to have little effect on how many kids are having sex. The kids that want to have sex will have it [limited by the willingness of the girls, of course]. My thought is that this also applies to the reverse and, I have to point out, this "enthusiastic consent" thing is not even that. Again, what's the incentive? What's in it for women if they stop being cryptic in their attempt to transfer responsibility for any sex that takes place to the man, and what's in it for men if they become sexually passive when the exact opposite is what gets them laid?

Maybe this additional sex will go to the same men as usual, but I suspect some amount of sex will trickle down on men who are not the usual suspects. Those are the guys I root for, and if it takes support of feminist encouragement of cheap/regret free/one night stands met with enthusiastic consent which they tell us is way fucking hot all as a way to stick it to the man, and smash Patriarchy, well count me in.

Can't smash something that doesn't exist...

[Ä uest]

[quote="Steersman"
Interesting. Maybe he ran across that original tweet from Watson. But this is highly questionable:

“If a girl is drunk, is it OK to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @DrPhil #teensaccused,” Dr. Phil tweeted out to his million-plus followers on Monday night. Legally, of course, drunk people are not capable of consenting to sex, making such an encounter rape.

Sure would like to know what statutes the author of that piece used to justify that argument.[/quote]

Are you wondering about the bolded part?

Isn't that the law in many places?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... le=261-269

http://i.imgur.com/60PZUca.jpg

This is for non-spouse's in California, but there is an equivalent section for spouses.

More here: http://www.shouselaw.com/date-rape.html

http://www.cwlc.org/resources/rape-reso ... eding-rape

Rape is defined differently in every state, but generally any non-consensual or forced intercourse is considered rape. This includes rape by coercion, intimidation, rape based off of an actual or perceived fear or threat, and actual force. If a victim is unable to give consent because they are intoxicated or asleep, that is rape as well.

http://i.imgur.com/yxBzgHy.jpg

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... ation.html

It does seem that in court, the degree of intoxication can be disputed.

[Ä uest]

Time to crash.