So we agree, right? I hated the laughter.

>> ^braindonut:

Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it, no matter what the context. I think that's the point I take away from this whole topic. If some asshole men are making fun of a woman who's gotten raped, then those asshole men are just as horrible as these women. Case closed.
I can bitch and moan all day about other people behaving in ways that I don't approve. In the end, the only thing I have control over is how I behave. And by doing so, I can ensure I remain the exception to the rules.
>> ^bareboards2:
I have been told that I am crap at trolling. It certainly isn't something I want to be good at -- I only have done it in self protection and to try to gain some peace from being picked at.
I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gender gap. Women hear men making "jokes" about violence towards women all the time. Rape jokes, hahahahahaha. Ha.
I wonder if this wasn't some attempt to match that energy -- you men laugh at our pain? We'll laugh at yours.
And we do it badly. Not much practice, you see, unlike the guys.
I watched the original segment and I was appalled at how this was discussed. It wasn't funny to me in the least and I was horrified at the laughter. I also don't laugh at rape jokes.

Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it, no matter what the context. I think that's the point I take away from this whole topic. If some asshole men are making fun of a woman who's gotten raped, then those asshole men are just as horrible as these women. Case closed.

I can bitch and moan all day about other people behaving in ways that I don't approve. In the end, the only thing I have control over is how I behave. And by doing so, I can ensure I remain the exception to the rules.

>> ^bareboards2:

I have been told that I am crap at trolling. It certainly isn't something I want to be good at -- I only have done it in self protection and to try to gain some peace from being picked at.
I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gender gap. Women hear men making "jokes" about violence towards women all the time. Rape jokes, hahahahahaha. Ha.
I wonder if this wasn't some attempt to match that energy -- you men laugh at our pain? We'll laugh at yours.
And we do it badly. Not much practice, you see, unlike the guys.
I watched the original segment and I was appalled at how this was discussed. It wasn't funny to me in the least and I was horrified at the laughter. I also don't laugh at rape jokes.

I have been told that I am crap at trolling. It certainly isn't something I want to be good at -- I only have done it in self protection and to try to gain some peace from being picked at.

I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gender gap. Women hear men making "jokes" about violence towards women all the time. Rape jokes, hahahahahaha. Ha.

I wonder if this wasn't some attempt to match that energy -- you men laugh at our pain? We'll laugh at yours.

And we do it badly. Not much practice, you see, unlike the guys.

I watched the original segment and I was appalled at how this was discussed. It wasn't funny to me in the least and I was horrified at the laughter. I also don't laugh at rape jokes.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Oh no she didn't.
She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.
I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Basically what the above philosophy means, society individual or grouped has no right to tell someone he or she cannot do anything that doesn't involve the harm of the society individually or wholly.
She was stating, as I thought, that there needs to be a better way to differ what will truly harm someone and what is in the minds of those who think someone will come to harm. It's a difference between projection of thought versus what is real and demonstrable.
Just because you think it does not make it true, it must be demonstrable.


That makes perfect sense to me, and I agree was one of the problems I had with his logic. However I'm not about to condemn this guy in the strictest sense just yet. There's a lot more that should and will probably come out about this situation. I'm interested though in how his aspergers might have effected his decision making.

Oh no she didn't.

She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.

I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Basically what the above philosophy means, society individual or grouped has no right to tell someone he or she cannot do anything that doesn't involve the harm of the society individually or wholly.

She was stating, as I thought, that there needs to be a better way to differ what will truly harm someone and what is in the minds of those who think someone will come to harm. It's a difference between projection of thought versus what is real and demonstrable.

Just because you think it does not make it true, it must be demonstrable.

Cybr, if a cat has a bad habit of scratching up things, doors, walls, furniture, then it might end up being a choice of either declawing a cat or letting it go. De-clawing is something I wouldn't consider halfheartedly, but if you really love the cat and want to keep it then im all for it. It's not like they will need them to gather food and self protect themselves in my house. The only result will it will have a problem jumping up 6 feet and crawling its way onto the back of my sofa.

Ahh, I can't be bothered doing my answers inline this time

I meant not so much the police protecting you from physical harm, it's not something that crosses my mind much really. It's more them finding and prosecuting people who break the law by stealing or breaking property etc. I've never felt the need to have a deadly weapon in my house... I just don't feel threatened as that guy obviously seems to feel.

You're coming from the mindset of fear, fear that the worst is bound to happen. I'm coming from the mindset of no fear, and as such live a happier, less stressful and worried life. And if it came to being broken into by an armed assailant, the chances of you getting to your gun and loading it (you don't keep it loaded do you, with any children around?) before they're on you is unlikely. So all you're really doing is housing a very deadly weapon in your house and creating more danger.

And taking issue on the fuel tax but ignoring the public transport system or social security dodges the cases where user pays does not, and can not work.

And I have no issue with a government being large. If it's a large government doing works that are generally considered to be of good worth and employs a large number of people to do so... then good. That's giving people work, they pay their taxes, consume, spend their money, keep the economy going and have created things that are of worth to the community as a whole.

Different governments get different things right and wrong, they can't always be right. But I'd rather not leave it all up to private companies who's sole aim is to make money, that's not the way forward for a country to have solid building blocks to have happy, healthy, housed and educated people.

>> ^blankfist:
spoco2,
There was a time before gasoline tax and someone came up with the bright idea to tax the gasoline to pay for infrastructure, so surely someone would do the same when bio vehicles become the norm. I think that's a moot point.

"It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you."
Obviously the only reason you'd carry a firearm is for self protection, correct? So when you say "call on [police] to uphold the laws" I imagine you mean "call on [police] to protect" as a replacement for carrying a firearm, correct? So, if I'm ever in a position where I need to protect myself and my fists are inadequate, I will need to find a phone and call the police and hope they arrive before something awful happens to me or my family.
That doesn't sound like a very good system.
Your idea of the police protecting us is illogical, because unless they're everywhere at all times, then you have no real protection. The only persons who will be where a crime goes down every single time is the aggressor and the victim. The victim requires a way to protect themselves, therefore carrying a weapon is the only real option.

"The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government."
I never said remove all money going to government. I'm a minarchist so I believe in a government albeit limited and small. I agree with paying some money to infrastructure and police, but the way in which we pay should be voluntary, hence the gas tax example I already mentioned which is only one example of many. A government can raise a lot of money through voluntary taxes, and income tax only makes up something like a third of the government's revenue, anyway. You mean to tell me we can't cut the government budget by a third? Come on.

spoco2,

There was a time before gasoline tax and someone came up with the bright idea to tax the gasoline to pay for infrastructure, so surely someone would do the same when bio vehicles become the norm. I think that's a moot point.


"It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you."

Obviously the only reason you'd carry a firearm is for self protection, correct? So when you say "call on [police] to uphold the laws" I imagine you mean "call on [police] to protect" as a replacement for carrying a firearm, correct? So, if I'm ever in a position where I need to protect myself and my fists are inadequate, I will need to find a phone and call the police and hope they arrive before something awful happens to me or my family.

That doesn't sound like a very good system.

Your idea of the police protecting us is illogical, because unless they're everywhere at all times, then you have no real protection. The only persons who will be where a crime goes down every single time is the aggressor and the victim. The victim requires a way to protect themselves, therefore carrying a weapon is the only real option.


"The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government."

I never said remove all money going to government. I'm a minarchist so I believe in a government albeit limited and small. I agree with paying some money to infrastructure and police, but the way in which we pay should be voluntary, hence the gas tax example I already mentioned which is only one example of many. A government can raise a lot of money through voluntary taxes, and income tax only makes up something like a third of the government's revenue, anyway. You mean to tell me we can't cut the government budget by a third? Come on.

"Now I'm not saying anyone should be able to do anything they want, but certainly anyone should be able to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else.

This basic premise is behind my opposition to nearly everything that I oppose, both big and small: drug laws, religious dogma, intermingling of church and state, censorship, etc." -- xxovercastxx

Agreed. That's the central thesis of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. As he put it:
" The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."