All Activity

Is this supposed to be offensive? Seems like a reasonable statement on global nature of rape culture to me. I think many women would take offense at being characterized this way. If I thought your headspace was due to women actually soliciting you on the regular as often as men cross boundaries with me, I would not be offended because I know I’m not prostitute. Okay. Again, though, I think many women would take offense at being characterized as "potential prostitutes," or "potential pedophiles," or "potential rapists," and so on. Thanks, -Smac

But when I try to talk about the topic, you take it and change it, so what am I supposed to do? Take and change what? The topics here have been A) the sheriff in Arizona, B) the Cornell matter, and C) the "all men are potential rapists" slogan. I'm not sure how to apply this. Let's talk about the topics, please, none of which is me. Thanks, -Smac

Good point. I don't see a logical fallacy here. The rush to judgment has been patent. It surely isn't based on the evidence, which was not good at the outset and is looking worse and less credible as time goes on. So the rush is, in my view, based on emotion (rage), not evidence or reasoning. Same as above. Same as above. Nehor and SU have both libeled me extensively in this thread. It's not a logical fallacy to not that. I think much of what they have said is not based on any sort of dispassionate analysis of the evidence, and is instead, well, "performative emotionalisms and accusations and mobocratic rage." That is my assessment. It's not a logical fallacy AFAICS. Logical fallacies in a discussion are certainly fair game. I'm not sure you have marshalled any. I am not. Feel free to point out what you see to be logically fallacious, and explain why. I am certainly willing to listen to what you have to say. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Message received. Now please, back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

So do I. But using gold and other expensive materials to glorify God and keep His commandments does not require killing. That is the distinction I draw. I retain belief in the divinity of the commandments associated with this practice, but I struggle with it still, as it doesn't quite work with my personal moral code. I maintain belief because part of my faith requires me to accept that "man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9). So I trust that where my moral barometer does not sync with what I understand to be God's commandments, I need to take a serious look at my own understanding. Thanks, -Smac

But when I try to talk about the topic, you take it and change it, so what am I supposed to do? If the topic is about how blue the sky is and I say it is rather grayish blue right now, I prefer the intense blue in the evening on a clear day and you call me out for saying the sky is orange, kind of have to resolve the orange misrepresentation first in order to talk about how I see the sky is blue. And after many posts of trying to point out .i said blue, not orange while still getting told I said orange, I would doubt it would surprise anyone to see me start wondering ‘why are you insisting I am saying orange when I am clearly saying blue’, judging how clear I was by others telling me I am saying blue and talking about blue skies in response to me as well…except with you.

If I thought your headspace was due to women actually soliciting you on the regular as often as men cross boundaries with me, I would not be offended because I know I’m not prostitute.

Is this supposed to be offensive? Seems like a reasonable statement on global nature of rape culture to me. Okay. I think many women would take offense at being characterized this way. Thanks, -Smac

Is this supposed to be offensive? Seems like a reasonable statement on global nature of rape culture to me. This is actually inherently true even if one frames it as “latent”….which btw is not how those using ‘potential rapist’ are typically using it. I say this based on how many women are forced into prostitution, often with human trafficking. Also given the numbers claimed for forced prostitution, those women may be higher in numbers than those who consented to participate. If you include when the options are starvation, homelessness, etc, I have seen the numbers go up to 80%. It is easy to see this could be any of us in such a situation, female or male. Maybe some of us would prefer to starve, but if handcuffed and stuffed with drugs, choice is not part of the equation. Humans do horrible things to other humans. Thankfully being forced to be a rapist is rarely a thing. I doubt it would be possible with everyone as being drugged or even being under restraint can’t force one to act. One doesn’t have to act or even be conscious for a trafficker/pimp to get paid.

Oh yes, seeing smells and being able to track that way looks fun (only seen it on shows, might not work that way). And watching an orchestra play without the help of Disney***….what about feeling sound as touch…I am almost there with sounds that overwhelm me, lol, but I am thinking more like how I feel immersed in water and how it flows around me. How lovely that could be…depending on the sound of course. So only if I can turn it off and on though… or have greatly increased processing power to absorb and understand stimuli as otherwise it just feels like I am in the middle of a dodgeball game. ***I recommend Fantastia for those who haven’t see it yet. I got it a couple of times in music class at school.

That is understandable as it looks like a waste of resources in a time when many were at or below survival level. I see those as similar to using gold and other expensive materials in the temple to show respect to God. I doubt he’s that into such things and is fine with us taking care of a lovely garden to worship in instead if it was about his own desires. I assume he has us do these things on occasion (burnt offerings were limited to high, holy days iirc, so an occasional thing) so we can figure out how much our respect of God matters to us rather than matters to him. So I am okay with that as much as I am okay with investing massive funds into temples…meaning sometimes I am quite uncomfortable about it…especially when my favorite temple is beautiful and has little gold and shiny things in it that I remember. Though it had lots of wood and that might be more expensive. But in mortality most of us constantly get chances to decide what we are willing to sacrifice for what and who we love. Makes sense God gets included in that.

Smac your thoughts plz

Good point. There are quite a few more…. If you are now saying you see this as inappropriate, I look forward to the absence of such in your posts. I will try and refrain from doing more than just pointing out when you are arguing with strawmen….because like you I know best what I think and how I define things and if someone chooses to ignore half of what I and others say in their response, I just might mention that.

A person who understood what is being said, would be incapable of making this argument. This is not a disagreement, but you fundamentally not understanding the argument put forward. How in the world could you possibly believe that " the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation". You are not listening. You are not understanding. It appears willful and belligerent at this point.

Maybe we could return to discussing the topic instead of me personally. That sure would be nice. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. People who A) are drunk and B) driving a motor vehicle are more likely to be unsafe while driving in that condition. In contrast, "All women are terrible drivers" is not something with which I would agree. Sounds good. Thanks, -Smac

Some of who typically agree with you, iirc. Maybe you might consider that what we are aligned on is not what you insist we are aligned on.

Returning to topic: I find walking out to a parking lot alone in the dark to 100% of the time puts me on high alert because of my experiences with men. So whenever I see a man walking towards me in that situation, I suspect that I am in danger. I never feel this way when a woman is walking towards me. Every man is suspect to me in that scenario. it’s sad because I know not all men are actually threatening, but in that scenario, I have to assume that any man is threatening. so in my mind, I’m assuming that any man approaching me in a dark parking lot is potentially very dangerous to me and so I have to quickly get in my car and lock the door and prepared to scream and kick and fight as necessary. There are zero exceptions to this, unless that man is my husband, my father my brothers or my sons. Why is this? My experiences with other humans who happen to have all been men. Unfortunate isn’t it?

I will continue to speak against patent prejudice. "All Muslims are potential terrorists." "All gay men are potential pedophiles." "All women are potential prostitutes." "All black men are potential rapists." I denounce all of these categorical denigrations because they are per se prejudiced. I likewise denounce "All men are potential rapists" as per se prejudiced Hi Smac I am trying not to be contradictory or argumentative. Would you consider that people who are drunk, to be safe to drive a motor vehicle, or not. I ask this with a good intention, nothing more.

What scholars may have argued may be different than what was believed at the time of Jesus. According to The One Volume Bible Commentary, Edited by The Rev. J.R. Dummelow, M.A., Queens' College Cambridge, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1936, p. 698. This is commentary on Matthew 22:28: "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life. A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendour of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfil their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'"

You are right…I need to focus on what you say. Better yet, focus on what I say about the topic, and then comment about the topic rather than about me. That sure would be nice. I find this to be mostly a Red Herring. I understand what is being said, I just disagree with a lot of it, and I reject some of it outright. I think you and others have been resorting to a combination of Ad Hominem and Red Herring fallacies to distract attention away from the topic and toward me as a person. Sure would be nice to get back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

Grand. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

I assume you are a meat eater, so killing animals is not the issue for you. No, it's not an issue. Killing an animal to immediately burn its carcass on an altar. That's the part with which I struggle. That is not my struggle. See above. Tithing is put to good use. Killing an animal and burning its carcass has no apparent (and mundane) utility. It is purely an expression of faith. I was referencing burnt offerings. Thanks, -Smac

You are right…I need to focus on what you say. Maybe you are listening and maybe you understand, but neither are being conveyed by what you wrote. If you are listening and you do understand, that is rather strange though. What would your intention to intentionally misrepresent so many in the thread? I can’t tell what you know about human psychology, I can see how you apply what knowledge you have though. Though what I wrote that you quoted was not an individual, but a global observation. I know many, many people and probably myself who have been told they are good at writing, even rewarded for it, called insightful, etc, and who are clueless with some of their interactions with others and being able predict how people will react to them. I based this in them telling me, not assumptions. You cannot infer from someone’s writing that they have high comprehension when it comes to how others think of things, though typically this isn’t global…some they get, others they don’t when it dipped below the superficial.

It is focuses on the wrong thing in a different way though….if you change the last part to something that reflects that is true for that individual…otherwise it seems to target the race of the “you” individual. I tried a few phrasings, but not creative today. None of them avoided implying something they shouldn’t have.