What grinds my gears...

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, potter3 said:

So from what I can gather, Oz thinks it's better that to be in a situation where we're telling rape victims that it wasn't their fault, after a rape has occurred, than to be reminding women that we do in fact live in the real world, and there are people out there that will hurt you given half a chance? Mind-boggling. 

 

Does that have to be a dichotomy?

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm guessing that you mean where the incriminating act can, sometimes, start consensually - but yeah, I see your point and it's a fair one.

 

(I would warrant that the majority of rape cases do not fall into that category, however, and the amount of times the spiel is given outnumbers them. But I could be wrong.)

 

Speak for yourself, mon ami.

 

(Though yeah, it does tend to be the Internet where most of the victim-blaming BS is found.)

Well it's not a common occurrence on here.. When people were discussing Danny Simpson's case nobody tried to blame the wife. Ched Evans was found not guilty on appeals but nobody blamed the victim.

 

I'm sure there are misogynists but they're not as common as some would have you believe. 

[Webbo]

On 28/02/2017 at 19:19, Webbo said:

Just back from blood donors, they had to stop it after 10 minutes as the rinse back didn't work properly. Apparently I'm going to have a whacking bruise in the morning.

Happened again today, if it happens next time I've got to go back to normal blood donors. They stopped it after 5 minutes and the wife didn't pick me up for an hour and a half .

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Does that have to be a dichotomy?

I'd say he has made his case that way.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Well it's not a common occurrence on here.. When people were discussing Danny Simpson's case nobody tried to blame the wife. Ched Evans was found not guilty on appeals but nobody blamed the victim.

 

I'm sure there are misogynists but they're not as common as some would have you believe. 

 

If you don't think there were people blaming the girl on the Ched Evans thread I suggest it is reread. Could grab a couple of posts to prove the point if needed.

 

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I'd say he has made his case that way.

Then it's wrong IMO.

 

Making sure you're safe in an unsafe world is obviously a good idea, but there really should be more done to make it safer rather than emphasising just how to protect yourself without addressing the underlying issue. Should be a good idea to do both at once.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you don't think there were people blaming the girl on the Ched Evans thread I suggest it is reread. Could grab a couple of posts to prove the point if needed.

 

Then it's wrong IMO.

 

Making sure you're safe in an unsafe world is obviously a good idea, but there really should be more done to make it safer rather than emphasising just how to protect yourself without addressing the underlying issue. Should be a good idea to do both at once.

Yeah but let's be realistic here, it's not a safe world and it isn't going to be ever. So let's cut the shit and protect ourselves and each other without feeling guilty.

Edited 28 March 2017 by Strokes

[thursday_next]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'd just like to see a bit more effort placed on making things better rather than grudging acceptance. But so it goes.

 

I'd agree with you, but the default setting for men is to have intercourse with women, or if they are too scared, to imagine it, and privately wish they could do it. The default setting for women is to prevent such intercourse from happening, unless they're quite sure there is a future in it. This dates back to the dawn of time, where there was no contraception. The last thing that any woman wants is to bring a child into this world without having some suitable male around to protect her. This won't change, no matter what we do to advance our culture.

 

A hundred years ago, it would have been seen as unthinkable for a middle-class or upper-class girl to go anywhere unchaperoned. Half the world still do it. That's because of the fear of rape, which comes down to the sex drives of men. You want the sex drives of men to run narrowly behind food, drink, oxygen or shelter, otherwise there's every chance of us going extinct in the next 5,000 years. You may not do it, I may not do it and none of the posters on this thread would do it. That's a blessing. But there's those that would do it, given the slightest chance of them getting away with it.

 

Consider armies, and their somewhat chequered history as regards to rape. I don't like to think that the British Army, or the armies of most civilised nations, would think it part of their mission to rape every woman they see. However, irregular armies or undisciplined armies, such as the Serbs, Boko Haram, IS, the Russians in Chechnya, and virtually every army in Central Africa would do it. It would be seen as part of their job.

 

I would not wish anything to be placed in front of the freedom of women to do anything at all. Or wear anything at all. However, if I were to insist on my absolute right as an absolutely pissed LCFC supporter to go and stand in the Millwall end, wearing my blue top, yelling encouragement at the lads, then I would hope there'd be someone around to point out the error of my ways. 

 

  

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

Going a slightly different way with this thread, but in spite of our differing opinions, can we all agree to maybe go the extra mile to help someone who we think might be vulnerable? It's very easy to walk by, but maybe if we looked out for each other these awful situations might arise less. Put that girl in a taxi, stop the group of lads rounding on her, make the bloke give up his car keys so he doesn't drive home, whatever it takes.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah but let's be realistic here, it's not a safe world and it isn't going to be ever. So let's cut the shit and protect ourselves and each other without feeling guilty.

 

18 minutes ago, thursday_next said:

 

I'd agree with you, but the default setting for men is to have intercourse with women, or if they are too scared, to imagine it, and privately wish they could do it. The default setting for women is to prevent such intercourse from happening, unless they're quite sure there is a future in it. This dates back to the dawn of time, where there was no contraception. The last thing that any woman wants is to bring a child into this world without having some suitable male around to protect her. This won't change, no matter what we do to advance our culture.

 

A hundred years ago, it would have been seen as unthinkable for a middle-class or upper-class girl to go anywhere unchaperoned. Half the world still do it. That's because of the fear of rape, which comes down to the sex drives of men. You want the sex drives of men to run narrowly behind food, drink, oxygen or shelter, otherwise there's every chance of us going extinct in the next 5,000 years. You may not do it, I may not do it and none of the posters on this thread would do it. That's a blessing. But there's those that would do it, given the slightest chance of them getting away with it.

 

Consider armies, and their somewhat chequered history as regards to rape. I don't like to think that the British Army, or the armies of most civilised nations, would think it part of their mission to rape every woman they see. However, irregular armies or undisciplined armies, such as the Serbs, Boko Haram, IS, the Russians in Chechnya, and virtually every army in Central Africa would do it. It would be seen as part of their job.

 

I would not wish anything to be placed in front of the freedom of women to do anything at all. Or wear anything at all. However, if I were to insist on my absolute right as an absolutely pissed LCFC supporter to go and stand in the Millwall end, wearing my blue top, yelling encouragement at the lads, then I would hope there'd be someone around to point out the error of my ways. 

 

 

 

3

Thanks for the replies, both of you, particularly thursday_next.

 

My own rebuttal is going to be pretty short and sweet by comparison: if we can't overcome drivers of conflict, sex included, then humanity is a lost cause; we're bascially like any other complex species that has existed in the past (secure the best deal for you and ensure your genetic information passes on) and will likely go extinct in exactly the same way most have done before us.

 

Far from being the cause of extinction, being able to get over that instinct and how it makes people do terrible things may well be the only way humans are saved from extinction.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Going a slightly different way with this thread, but in spite of our differing opinions, can we all agree to maybe go the extra mile to help someone who we think might be vulnerable? It's very easy to walk by, but maybe if we looked out for each other these awful situations might arise less. Put that girl in a taxi, stop the group of lads rounding on her, make the bloke give up his car keys so he doesn't drive home, whatever it takes.

 

That would be a good step, yes.

[potter3]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Does that have to be a dichotomy?

 

No, but that is what his posts appear to be suggesting. His sentiment isn't misplaced, of course a woman should be able to go out, get drunk, and enjoy herself with no consequences aside from a hangover. Unfortunately,this isn't a perfect world; putting yourself in a situation where you cannot prevent harm coming to you is irresponsible. Nobody is suggesting that the perpetrator of a rape isn't 100% to blame, but there are such people out there and it's not victim blaming to make sure that people are aware of such risks.

[The Doctor]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Thanks for the replies, both of you, particularly thursday_next.

 

My own rebuttal is going to be pretty short and sweet by comparison: if we can't overcome drivers of conflict, sex included, then humanity is a lost cause; we're bascially like any other complex species that has existed in the past (secure the best deal for you and ensure your genetic information passes on) and will likely go extinct in exactly the same way most have done before us.

 

Far from being the cause of extinction, being able to get over that instinct and how it makes people do terrible things may well be the only way humans are saved from extinction.

I like how everything is going to drive the human race to extinction in your world. Bit of an exaggeration don't you think? People are capable of being horrible *****, doesn't mean we're all doomed.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I like how everything is going to drive the human race to extinction in your world. Bit of an exaggeration don't you think? People are capable of being horrible *****, doesn't mean we're all doomed.

 

Yeah, apologies for the cheery nihilism.

 

But if I remember right you know a fair bit about evolutionary history - is my point regarding complex species dying out (either through competition or external events) and being replaced by others as evolution takes its course wrong?

 

We know about it, of course - which means you're right in that it doesn't have to happen to us. But there's a shedload of horrible ***** out there, as you say, who didn't get the memo.

[thursday_next]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

if we can't overcome drivers of conflict, sex included, then humanity is a lost cause

 

Be a bit boring, though, wouldn't it? A Hollywood film without money, food, drink, murder and sex would set up a whole raft of problems for a screenwriter. We would have to become a new species, which kind of defeats your objective.

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, thursday_next said:

 

Be a bit boring, though, wouldn't it? A Hollywood film without money, food, drink, murder and sex would set up a whole raft of problems for a screenwriter. We would have to become a new species, which kind of defeats your objective.

 

 

 

Yeah. It would be like 2032 in Demolition Man.

 

You're right - taking that risk is probably better than having to listen to all those fvcking jingles because there's nothing else left on the radio.

 

Edit: And not being able to drink, smoke or swear and figure out how to use those fvcking three seashells.

Edited 28 March 2017 by leicsmac

[thursday_next]

leicsmac, I took your advice and looked up 'The Timescape Of The Far Future' on wikipedia. Cheery stuff!

[Tuna]

Pundits/Commentators referring to him as N'Golo Konte.

 

It's Kante dammit.

[The Doctor]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, apologies for the cheery nihilism.

 

But if I remember right you know a fair bit about evolutionary history - is my point regarding complex species dying out (either through competition or external events) and being replaced by others as evolution takes its course wrong?

 

We know about it, of course - which means you're right in that it doesn't have to happen to us. But there's a shedload of horrible ***** out there, as you say, who didn't get the memo.

Course not. Man nearly went that way 75000 years ago thanks to Toba, but I don't really see a scenario by which rapists cause the extinction of the human race. 

Edited 28 March 2017 by The Doctor

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, thursday_next said:

leicsmac, I took your advice and looked up 'The Timescape Of The Far Future' on wikipedia. Cheery stuff!

It is, isn't it?

 

I know I sound like a plank for banging the same drum over and over, but having seen all that and really really wanting humans to survive for as long as possible, it really does grind my gears that we can't at least get started. There's so much really cool stuff we could be doing to guard against what's going to happen in the future, but there's so many people who would just rather carry on old emnities of the past and ignore the time to come because it either won't matter to them when they're dead or they honestly think this world doesn't matter because they'll get their reward in the next.

 

But that's their choice, I guess, and they're free to make it.

 

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Course not. Man nearly went that way 10000 years ago, but I don't really see a scenario by which rapists cause the extinction of the human race. 

Yeah, perhaps I'm reaching too much by saying that such conflicts tend to be part of a bigger thing. That tends to be tinfoil hat territory.

 

NB, offtopic: Toba catastrophe theory on human development - possible or rubbish? You're probably better-versed on that than I.

[thursday_next]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

but I don't really see a scenario by which rapists cause the extinction of the human race. 

If anything, they'd probably add to it, thereby preserving it from extinction.

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, perhaps I'm reaching too much by saying that such conflicts tend to be part of a bigger thing. That tends to be tinfoil hat territory.

 

NB, offtopic: Toba catastrophe theory on human development - possible or rubbish? You're probably better-versed on that than I.

Well, I'd have thought it seems plausible - supervolcano eruptions can make a mess of populations and cause huge climate change (Krakatoa essentially cleaned an island to start afresh and that wasn't anywhere near as powerful as Toba), but whether it actually did or not is more dubious - from what I've read the case from a genetics perspective is that a bottleneck occurred in the wake of it and matches up to a volcanic winter timeline, but geologists haven't found much in the way to demonstrate a volcanic winter occurring.

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Pundits/Commentators referring to him as N'Golo Konte.

 

It's Kante dammit.

 

In French the pronunciation would be closer to "Konte".

I've no idea how the original African name would be pronounced, though.  

Up to him, anyway, I suppose. He might prefer it to be pronounced "Conrad Logan".

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Well, I'd have thought it seems plausible - supervolcano eruptions can make a mess of populations and cause huge climate change (Krakatoa essentially cleaned an island to start afresh and that wasn't anywhere near as powerful as Toba), but whether it actually did or not is more dubious - from what I've read the case from a genetics perspective is that a bottleneck occurred in the wake of it and matches up to a volcanic winter timeline, but geologists haven't found much in the way to demonstrate a volcanic winter occurring.

 

Much obliged.

[Stadt]

44 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In French the pronunciation would be closer to "Konte".

I've no idea how the original African name would be pronounced, though.  

Up to him, anyway, I suppose. He might prefer it to be pronounced "Conrad Logan".

People that get it entirely wrong are responsible for that, Kante should be able to have his name prounonced exactly how he wants, we can't blame him for the people that mispronounce his name.

[thursday_next]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

In French the pronunciation would be closer to "Konte".

I've no idea how the original African name would be pronounced, though

 

The accent is another problem, though. We may be getting mislaid by the French way of saying it, like Médecins Sans Frontières. The probability is that the West African way of saying it contains loads of glottal stops and pings and that look like **, and are basically unpronounceable for those who haven't spent a lot of time in West Africa.