Oh, FFS, you mean to tell me you never read a tutorial or stackexchange?
Those things were not available to me in 1986, when I wrote my first game. The computer came with a reference for BASIC. I read it. I started programming. I went to the library to get more information. I programmed some more. I got my hands on the computer reference. I programmed some more. I don't ever recal reading something called a "tutorial", but I do remember reading a lot of other peoples code published in magazines.
you dont seem to understand that 100% wrong, on the attackers part has nothing at all to do with sharing the blame. He is wrong to attack you 100% he had no right to do so. but that does not mean that you could not have avoided it by doing something slightly different than you chose to do.
Then I'm glad you've moved from your previous position of blaming the victim:
"If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame"
1) You're making a strawman - parent said no such thing.
2) Society has already decided that you're wrong - society has already decided that there is nothing wrong in apportioning blame to the victims in certain circumstances.
I have no problem with probability. Risk is simply probability attached to a bad outcome. I understand it very well. But unlike you I differentiate it from responsibility. The word risk is confusing you.
You have a serious problem with logic - try telling your insurance that, yes, even though you left your car in a rough part of town, overnight, with the keys in the ignition and all the windows rolled down, that they have to pay up because "it's 100% the criminals fault". The insurance company understands risks much better than you, and thus I'm inclined (and just about every other human out there, barring SJW's) to follow their logic much better than I follow your non-logic.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
There is nothing rational in your argument. We can (and do, as a matter of fact) call the criminal 100% guilty of the crime and call the victim $X% guilty of stupidity. This in no way endorses the crime, as you seem to think, especially in the case of rape.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
[snipped]
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? No one is victim blaming - if a girl gets blackout-drunk at a private party with people she doesn't know very well then she isn't guilty of being raped, she's guilty of being stupid. The rapist still get's 100% "at fault" for rape. The victim get's $SOME% "at fault" for being stupid.
You're making a silly claim - that people should be absolved of all responsibility even when they take risks. Sorry, no. While the criminal is still 100% to be blamed for the crime, that doesn't prevent us from saying "what a stupid twit " for the victim taking unnecessary risks.
More over it definitely is a consistent and widespread problem in games. Almost all adult "open world" style games feature prostitutes, for example..
How is this misogynistic? Does the existence of prostitutes, whether in a game or in real life, make the culture woman-hating? If anything, the non-ostracised presence of prostitutes signifies *more* freedom for women (and men, if they choose the job).
What us geeks dislike about it is much the same reason we dislike systemd: its an abstract layer between you and the configuration of your services/daemons. We like init.d in that we can script those daemons and even add on to those init scripts if we choose. Where as windows services puts this wall between you and that sweetness. And systemd is pushing us in that direction and OP's last comment in the summary is ringing more and more true.
Uh, tell me how to adjust an init.d script such that:
1. You add support for running the daemon with an ionice level which was missing from the original script.
AND
2. The next distro upgrade won't blow your changes away, and you won't have to manually re-combine your changes with their new init script which adds some new feature yours lacks?
I'll tell you how - the way smart admins have always done it, by keeping their changes in a different file stored in version control that get's merged with whatever's in/etc after a dist-upgrade. Seriously:
1. The server isn't getting a dist-upgrade every few weeks unless the admin is stupid already, in which case he's probably *for* systemd and not against it
2. It's all text files, hence easy to manage merges with scripts and view differences
and...
3. It's text files, hence a svn/git repo is going to contain all the configuration anyway, unless the admin is stupid already, in which case he's probably for systemd (again).
With systemd you just stick a drop-in in/etc and it will only override that one setting in the default unit - and there is no file collision. That's the beauty of declarative programming.
They say the same thing about excel spreadsheets. Most spreadsheets are still a hideous mess to maintain. I think you just proved the "against" argument.
Because of course that statement means that all women have inferior brains, right?
How else would women be incapable of being neutral?
You realise that just because you (for example) are unable to hold a neutral point of view, it does not mean that your brain is necessarily inferior. Do you also translate "more men are incarcerated" into "more men have an inferior brain"?
Because using neutral point of view is not the job of women
Ah yes, nothing to do with rampant sexism of exactly the sort you are displaying. Nope nothing at all. Must all be the fault of "women" for having "inferior brains" or something.
If they had such foresight in the first place, it seems like perhaps they wouldn't be in a position where someone they shouldn't trust could surreptitiously slip them drugs in their drinks.
I'm not "blaming the victim", mind you.
Actually, you are blaming the victim. Here's a common scenario: Guy that a woman knows buys her a drink. It doesn't need to be alcoholic. It could be soda. Or maybe it's alcoholic but the woman hasn't been drinking much. Either way, woman accepts the drink (since she knows the guy) and drinks it. Unbeknownst to her, though, the guy has been acting nice in hopes of getting her into bed and has decided to "speed things up" by spiking her drink. She passes out and wakes up having been raped.
Saying that it is this women's fault that she didn't have the "foresight" to "be in a position [snipped]
He didn't say that. You're saying that he said that. Parent made no reference to whose fault it might be.
I hate to break it to you, but that is exactly what you are doing. You are also claiming that only woman without much brains or ability to think for themselves and plan ahead like to have a good time in public.
He actually makes a very good point - the only time this will be worn is when a women is about to enter a potentially dangerous situation. Going to the book club? No need for this. Going to hang with new friends at the bar? Then this nail polish becomes useful. Unfortunately my understanding of human nature is that those who have riskier outlooks in life also tend to worry less about the precautions.
... and each is equally evil. It doesn't matter if they agreed to date the rapist, or already figured out what a scumbag they are. Rapists deserve the death penaly.
Thereby turning every rape into a murder (why leave a witness - it's not like they can execute you twice after all). There is something severely wrong with society when the taking of a human life is considered to be the same as forced penetration.
[snipped...] then why was women's participation in computer science higher in 1984 than it is today?
They had fewer choices then. They have more choices now, and they are exercising those choices and leaving the field. Since 1984 we've gotten less sexist, not more.
Regardless, that answer is just as valid as any you come up with.
Sorry, I don't believe it just because a couple of researchers, presumably with an agenda or a desire for further funding of their anthropological tintinnabulations, have written about it.
WTF is wrong with you? I live here, I've suffered under white rule and my entire family was a struggle family so I've got no agenda. The fact is that this is a belief that is shared by many of the locals here:-( Why don't you believe what newspapers, researchers and people on the ground are telling you - these folk are still stuck in the stone age in many respects. Grab any local newspaper you want and see for yourself the pathetic beliefs these people have:
In fact, there are too many stories in the courts to even list. You no longer have the assertions of a couple of anthropologist's, you have the statement of a born-and-bred african who is living here, you have official reports of cases in courts and you also have independent newspapers all verifying the same facts.
Maintaining your skepticism in the face of all this will just make you look foolish. These thugs from the above stories aren't ignorant; they've all completed high-school (equivalent to a US HS diploma) and many of them even have tertiary education. It has become abundantly clear that the problem cannot be solved by relieving these idiots of their ignorance with education; the problem is not ignorance, it's stupidity.
Why not? Is the reports by multiple newspapers not enough to convince you? How about a report from a local (me)? It's true, that they believe such crap is fact and is undisputed.
But even if it's true, what we're dealing with here is an ignorant, uneducated population most of whom don't have access to information, don't watch the daily news, don't (can't) read newspapers, haven't ever heard of the germ theory of disease, and with a government the members of which are enriching themselves in the traditional African way through corruption, coercion and violence.
You're way off base there. Look up the Marikana massacre. The idiot miners, all well past high-school with extra vocational training, went to a witchdoctor who gave them a muti that they could rub all over their body that will make them immune to bullets. They not only believed it (because that particular belief is common in this country), they bought the stuff, smeared themselves with it and then performed an all-out balls-to-the-wall assault on some 200 armed police officers (who also believe in this shit).
The results were as bad as you would guess.
The problem is not one of ignorance - everyone goes through the school system, no exceptions. The problem is one of stupidity; even those locals with advanced degrees still believe in muti that makes one bulletproof, or the virgin cure for HIV. The locals here are just plain stupid and no amount of education over the past two decades has managed to shake them of their beliefs in bulletproof vaseline and/or virgin cures and/or anything else that is stupid.
Thankfully the situation in Africa is slowly improving, though I think the current generation in this locality is probably doomed to plod on in ignorance regardless.
So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.
Well, seeing as the vast majority of jailed-citizens, dangerous-get-killed-on-the-job-employees and violent-crime-victims are men, why do you believe that if there is widespread persecution, it is not against men?
Trouble is, people like you look up and see it is dominated by men and conclude that that it must be because of persecution. You never look down and see that that sphere also is widely dominated by males. You're ignoring that males dominate the extremes of every measurement that exists, both the top and the bottom.
Men dominate the geniuses while simultaneously dominating the darwin-award-winners; men are over represented in acts of valor while also being over-represented in acts of selfishness (embezzlement). Men are stray more than the median in both directions in measures of height, weight and shoe-size than women do. Doesn't mean anything.
The author is NOT the right person to do this. Lawyers have a saying "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".
I was told that by a Magistrate when I was representing myself in a violent crime case. I replied (much to the Magistrates enjoyment), "Anyone representing a lawyer has a fool for a client".
oh for fucks sake I am really getting annoyed with the overuse of that word. It used to refer to a specific group of people - the affluent urban young people who are always up on the latest trends and fashions.
Don't talk to many women do you? Just ask a woman. Ask your mother. I think you will be surprised how common it is.
Ask simple questions like:
Have you ever felt unsafe because of the comments men are making about you?
I'm not responsible if you feel uncomfortable around me. Your feeling uncomfortable might be due to me actively working to make you uncomfortable, or it may just be you being paranoid.
How often do you evaluate your personal security around men?
Men evaluate their personal security around other men all the time. It's not sexist in any way if women do the same.
Have you ever been sexually harassed?
In online forums? All the time.
Know a geek girl? Ask her:
Have you ever been harassed with a rape threat because of a comment you made on line?
As a man, I face violent threats all the time online. This includes death threats.
Listen to the answers and then start looking at your own behavior. Why are you making it the women's problem rather than looking at your own behavior and beliefs?
Because most people understand that your "feels" may not actually be rooted in anything I did. If my wife "feels" neglected, it's not necessarily a fact that I neglect
her. If my wife "feels" unloved, it is not necessarily a fact that I do not love her. If a woman I talk to at work "feels" harassed, it is not necessarily a fact that I harassed her.
The problem is that you are trying to make men responsible for the way women feel, and "feels" are an entirely subjective thing. When you can objectively measure on a proper granular scale how "loved", "creepy", etc a man is being (regardless of how the woman perceives it), then we can talk about whether it's a problem or not - until then it's all subjective and I see no reason for the female point of view into feelings to be more legitimate than the males point of view.
Yet TradeMe still exists and people use direct bank transfers than any other payment method on the site. If your claim (that business this way is not practical) was true then people would not use direct bank transfers. But they do. Ipso facto your claim can't be true.
My claim was and still is that using cash eliminates many of the scams - your claim was that scamming was too infrequent to matter. I provided evidence that it was frequent enough that the marketplace warned you against handing over money via bank transfers (other than their own special bank transfer that still had no guarantees). Please read those links I posted - they actually specifically warn against bank transfers.
Again, the system is widely used here. So the onus is on you to back up your claim that it can't possibly work with evidence.
But the system still works. You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. You haven't even provided evidence that the incidence of fraud is higher with direct bank transfers.
I don't need to provide evidence that it doesn't work because I never made the claim that it does not work. I claimed that untrusted transactions are best with payment and possession taking place at the same time, hence cash works best for this. The sites you pointed me to warn specifically about doing bank transfers.
You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here.
You're claiming "It works, because there are no scams", and I'm telling you, right now and right here, there are scams in all the classifieds. You're relying on the fact that people are honest; I'm comfortable being skeptical. You're asking me to trust "because it doesn't happen", and I'm saying that over here it's a daily occurrence. I actually don't know how to make it any clearer - if you're buying something off of craigslist, or whichever classifieds, the damn site itself warns you to be skeptical! Even the marketplace itself is telling you that there are scammers out there!
No, you're misrepresenting my position. I never claimed there were no scams. I said it was not a significant problem in practice. Perhaps that is due to a difference in the cultures of our countries. But the fact remains that the system works here. When you claim that a system that is in widespread use doesn't work, that's not skepticism. It's simply denial.
From the trademe site, they warn about this specifically: http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust...
So, they themselves think that if you hand over money you could lose it. Let me emphasise that for you: Trademe themselves think that you should use any protection you can when paying money and you should not rely on trust!
So the trust issue is not an insignificant problem, but it is one that is painlessly solved by using cash.
Again, the system is widely used here. So the onus is on you to back up your claim that it can't possibly work with evidence.
And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item
at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.
You're arguing hypotheticals against reality.
What are you talking about? What's not a reality?
You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here.
You're claiming "It works, because there are no scams", and I'm telling you, right now and right here, there are scams in all the classifieds. You're relying on the fact that people are honest; I'm comfortable being skeptical. You're asking me to trust "because it doesn't happen", and I'm saying that over here it's a daily occurrence. I actually don't know how to make it any clearer - if you're buying something off of craigslist, or whichever classifieds, the damn site itself warns you to be skeptical! Even the marketplace itself is telling you that there are scammers out there!
Someone dealing in cash can just as easily be robbed by the seller.
True, but if you're going to mug someone, why post on the classifieds first? You're just as likely to be mugged leaving a bank after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, FFS, you mean to tell me you never read a tutorial or stackexchange?
Those things were not available to me in 1986, when I wrote my first game. The computer came with a reference for BASIC. I read it. I started programming. I went to the library to get more information. I programmed some more. I got my hands on the computer reference. I programmed some more. I don't ever recal reading something called a "tutorial", but I do remember reading a lot of other peoples code published in magazines.
Did they mention how many were women?
you dont seem to understand that 100% wrong, on the attackers part has nothing at all to do with sharing the blame. He is wrong to attack you 100% he had no right to do so. but that does not mean that you could not have avoided it by doing something slightly different than you chose to do.
Then I'm glad you've moved from your previous position of blaming the victim: "If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame"
1) You're making a strawman - parent said no such thing.
2) Society has already decided that you're wrong - society has already decided that there is nothing wrong in apportioning blame to the victims in certain circumstances.
I have no problem with probability. Risk is simply probability attached to a bad outcome. I understand it very well. But unlike you I differentiate it from responsibility. The word risk is confusing you.
You have a serious problem with logic - try telling your insurance that, yes, even though you left your car in a rough part of town, overnight, with the keys in the ignition and all the windows rolled down, that they have to pay up because "it's 100% the criminals fault". The insurance company understands risks much better than you, and thus I'm inclined (and just about every other human out there, barring SJW's) to follow their logic much better than I follow your non-logic.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
There is nothing rational in your argument. We can (and do, as a matter of fact) call the criminal 100% guilty of the crime and call the victim $X% guilty of stupidity. This in no way endorses the crime, as you seem to think, especially in the case of rape.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
[snipped]
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? No one is victim blaming - if a girl gets blackout-drunk at a private party with people she doesn't know very well then she isn't guilty of being raped, she's guilty of being stupid. The rapist still get's 100% "at fault" for rape. The victim get's $SOME% "at fault" for being stupid.
You're making a silly claim - that people should be absolved of all responsibility even when they take risks. Sorry, no. While the criminal is still 100% to be blamed for the crime, that doesn't prevent us from saying "what a stupid twit " for the victim taking unnecessary risks.
More over it definitely is a consistent and widespread problem in games. Almost all adult "open world" style games feature prostitutes, for example. .
How is this misogynistic? Does the existence of prostitutes, whether in a game or in real life, make the culture woman-hating? If anything, the non-ostracised presence of prostitutes signifies *more* freedom for women (and men, if they choose the job).
Every country that has had a gun ban strongly enforced has had a reduction in homicides. Every. Single. One.
I won't comment on your other statements, but this one is dead wrong. It's the opposite of what actually happens.
What us geeks dislike about it is much the same reason we dislike systemd: its an abstract layer between you and the configuration of your services/daemons. We like init.d in that we can script those daemons and even add on to those init scripts if we choose. Where as windows services puts this wall between you and that sweetness. And systemd is pushing us in that direction and OP's last comment in the summary is ringing more and more true.
Uh, tell me how to adjust an init.d script such that: 1. You add support for running the daemon with an ionice level which was missing from the original script. AND 2. The next distro upgrade won't blow your changes away, and you won't have to manually re-combine your changes with their new init script which adds some new feature yours lacks?
I'll tell you how - the way smart admins have always done it, by keeping their changes in a different file stored in version control that get's merged with whatever's in /etc after a dist-upgrade. Seriously:
1. The server isn't getting a dist-upgrade every few weeks unless the admin is stupid already, in which case he's probably *for* systemd and not against it
2. It's all text files, hence easy to manage merges with scripts and view differences
and...
3. It's text files, hence a svn/git repo is going to contain all the configuration anyway, unless the admin is stupid already, in which case he's probably for systemd (again).
With systemd you just stick a drop-in in /etc and it will only override that one setting in the default unit - and there is no file collision. That's the beauty of declarative programming.
They say the same thing about excel spreadsheets. Most spreadsheets are still a hideous mess to maintain. I think you just proved the "against" argument.
Because of course that statement means that all women have inferior brains, right?
How else would women be incapable of being neutral?
You realise that just because you (for example) are unable to hold a neutral point of view, it does not mean that your brain is necessarily inferior. Do you also translate "more men are incarcerated" into "more men have an inferior brain"?
Where did the parent say that?
Erm learn to read. He said:
Because using neutral point of view is not the job of women
Because of course that statement means that all women have inferior brains, right? Looks like some reading lessons are in order - not for me though.
Because using neutral point of view is not the job of women
Ah yes, nothing to do with rampant sexism of exactly the sort you are displaying. Nope nothing at all. Must all be the fault of "women" for having "inferior brains" or something.
Where did the parent say that?
Actually, you are blaming the victim. Here's a common scenario: Guy that a woman knows buys her a drink. It doesn't need to be alcoholic. It could be soda. Or maybe it's alcoholic but the woman hasn't been drinking much. Either way, woman accepts the drink (since she knows the guy) and drinks it. Unbeknownst to her, though, the guy has been acting nice in hopes of getting her into bed and has decided to "speed things up" by spiking her drink. She passes out and wakes up having been raped.
Saying that it is this women's fault that she didn't have the "foresight" to "be in a position [snipped]
He didn't say that. You're saying that he said that. Parent made no reference to whose fault it might be.
I hate to break it to you, but that is exactly what you are doing. You are also claiming that only woman without much brains or ability to think for themselves and plan ahead like to have a good time in public.
He actually makes a very good point - the only time this will be worn is when a women is about to enter a potentially dangerous situation. Going to the book club? No need for this. Going to hang with new friends at the bar? Then this nail polish becomes useful. Unfortunately my understanding of human nature is that those who have riskier outlooks in life also tend to worry less about the precautions.
... and each is equally evil. It doesn't matter if they agreed to date the rapist, or already figured out what a scumbag they are. Rapists deserve the death penaly.
Thereby turning every rape into a murder (why leave a witness - it's not like they can execute you twice after all). There is something severely wrong with society when the taking of a human life is considered to be the same as forced penetration.
[snipped...] then why was women's participation in computer science higher in 1984 than it is today?
They had fewer choices then. They have more choices now, and they are exercising those choices and leaving the field. Since 1984 we've gotten less sexist, not more.
Regardless, that answer is just as valid as any you come up with.
Sorry, I don't believe it just because a couple of researchers, presumably with an agenda or a desire for further funding of their anthropological tintinnabulations, have written about it.
WTF is wrong with you? I live here, I've suffered under white rule and my entire family was a struggle family so I've got no agenda. The fact is that this is a belief that is shared by many of the locals here :-( Why don't you believe what newspapers, researchers and people on the ground are telling you - these folk are still stuck in the stone age in many respects. Grab any local newspaper you want and see for yourself the pathetic beliefs these people have:
Virgin cure belief
Another one of many
Here's official african government admitting to the baby-rape problem
How about bullet-proof vaseline and other stupidities?
Results of the official inquiry into the massacre
Strikers use body parts from security gaurd for their muti
Cutting up a 6 year old girl for body parts for their muti before they even killed her.
In fact, there are too many stories in the courts to even list. You no longer have the assertions of a couple of anthropologist's, you have the statement of a born-and-bred african who is living here, you have official reports of cases in courts and you also have independent newspapers all verifying the same facts.
Maintaining your skepticism in the face of all this will just make you look foolish. These thugs from the above stories aren't ignorant; they've all completed high-school (equivalent to a US HS diploma) and many of them even have tertiary education. It has become abundantly clear that the problem cannot be solved by relieving these idiots of their ignorance with education; the problem is not ignorance, it's stupidity.
I don't believe that story at all.
Why not? Is the reports by multiple newspapers not enough to convince you? How about a report from a local (me)? It's true, that they believe such crap is fact and is undisputed.
But even if it's true, what we're dealing with here is an ignorant, uneducated population most of whom don't have access to information, don't watch the daily news, don't (can't) read newspapers, haven't ever heard of the germ theory of disease, and with a government the members of which are enriching themselves in the traditional African way through corruption, coercion and violence.
You're way off base there. Look up the Marikana massacre. The idiot miners, all well past high-school with extra vocational training, went to a witchdoctor who gave them a muti that they could rub all over their body that will make them immune to bullets. They not only believed it (because that particular belief is common in this country), they bought the stuff, smeared themselves with it and then performed an all-out balls-to-the-wall assault on some 200 armed police officers (who also believe in this shit).
The results were as bad as you would guess.
The problem is not one of ignorance - everyone goes through the school system, no exceptions. The problem is one of stupidity; even those locals with advanced degrees still believe in muti that makes one bulletproof, or the virgin cure for HIV. The locals here are just plain stupid and no amount of education over the past two decades has managed to shake them of their beliefs in bulletproof vaseline and/or virgin cures and/or anything else that is stupid.
Thankfully the situation in Africa is slowly improving, though I think the current generation in this locality is probably doomed to plod on in ignorance regardless.
So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.
Well, seeing as the vast majority of jailed-citizens, dangerous-get-killed-on-the-job-employees and violent-crime-victims are men, why do you believe that if there is widespread persecution, it is not against men?
Trouble is, people like you look up and see it is dominated by men and conclude that that it must be because of persecution. You never look down and see that that sphere also is widely dominated by males. You're ignoring that males dominate the extremes of every measurement that exists, both the top and the bottom.
Men dominate the geniuses while simultaneously dominating the darwin-award-winners; men are over represented in acts of valor while also being over-represented in acts of selfishness (embezzlement). Men are stray more than the median in both directions in measures of height, weight and shoe-size than women do. Doesn't mean anything.
The author is NOT the right person to do this. Lawyers have a saying "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".
I was told that by a Magistrate when I was representing myself in a violent crime case. I replied (much to the Magistrates enjoyment), "Anyone representing a lawyer has a fool for a client".
oh for fucks sake I am really getting annoyed with the overuse of that word. It used to refer to a specific group of people - the affluent urban young people who are always up on the latest trends and fashions.
Why bring python programmers into it? :-)
Don't talk to many women do you? Just ask a woman. Ask your mother. I think you will be surprised how common it is.
Ask simple questions like: Have you ever felt unsafe because of the comments men are making about you?
I'm not responsible if you feel uncomfortable around me. Your feeling uncomfortable might be due to me actively working to make you uncomfortable, or it may just be you being paranoid.
How often do you evaluate your personal security around men?
Men evaluate their personal security around other men all the time. It's not sexist in any way if women do the same.
Have you ever been sexually harassed?
In online forums? All the time.
Know a geek girl? Ask her: Have you ever been harassed with a rape threat because of a comment you made on line?
As a man, I face violent threats all the time online. This includes death threats.
Listen to the answers and then start looking at your own behavior. Why are you making it the women's problem rather than looking at your own behavior and beliefs?
Because most people understand that your "feels" may not actually be rooted in anything I did. If my wife "feels" neglected, it's not necessarily a fact that I neglect her. If my wife "feels" unloved, it is not necessarily a fact that I do not love her. If a woman I talk to at work "feels" harassed, it is not necessarily a fact that I harassed her.
The problem is that you are trying to make men responsible for the way women feel, and "feels" are an entirely subjective thing. When you can objectively measure on a proper granular scale how "loved", "creepy", etc a man is being (regardless of how the woman perceives it), then we can talk about whether it's a problem or not - until then it's all subjective and I see no reason for the female point of view into feelings to be more legitimate than the males point of view.
Yet TradeMe still exists and people use direct bank transfers than any other payment method on the site. If your claim (that business this way is not practical) was true then people would not use direct bank transfers. But they do. Ipso facto your claim can't be true.
My claim was and still is that using cash eliminates many of the scams - your claim was that scamming was too infrequent to matter. I provided evidence that it was frequent enough that the marketplace warned you against handing over money via bank transfers (other than their own special bank transfer that still had no guarantees). Please read those links I posted - they actually specifically warn against bank transfers.
Again, the system is widely used here. So the onus is on you to back up your claim that it can't possibly work with evidence.
I refer you to the trademe trust and safety blog (yes, it really is called that): http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust...
But the system still works. You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. You haven't even provided evidence that the incidence of fraud is higher with direct bank transfers.
I don't need to provide evidence that it doesn't work because I never made the claim that it does not work. I claimed that untrusted transactions are best with payment and possession taking place at the same time, hence cash works best for this. The sites you pointed me to warn specifically about doing bank transfers.
You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here.
You're claiming "It works, because there are no scams", and I'm telling you, right now and right here, there are scams in all the classifieds. You're relying on the fact that people are honest; I'm comfortable being skeptical. You're asking me to trust "because it doesn't happen", and I'm saying that over here it's a daily occurrence. I actually don't know how to make it any clearer - if you're buying something off of craigslist, or whichever classifieds, the damn site itself warns you to be skeptical! Even the marketplace itself is telling you that there are scammers out there!
No, you're misrepresenting my position. I never claimed there were no scams. I said it was not a significant problem in practice. Perhaps that is due to a difference in the cultures of our countries. But the fact remains that the system works here. When you claim that a system that is in widespread use doesn't work, that's not skepticism. It's simply denial.
From the trademe site, they warn about this specifically: http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust... So, they themselves think that if you hand over money you could lose it. Let me emphasise that for you: Trademe themselves think that you should use any protection you can when paying money and you should not rely on trust!
So the trust issue is not an insignificant problem, but it is one that is painlessly solved by using cash.
Again, the system is widely used here. So the onus is on you to back up your claim that it can't possibly work with evidence.
I refer you to the trademe trust and safety blog (yes, it really is called that): http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust...
And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.
You're arguing hypotheticals against reality.
What are you talking about? What's not a reality?
You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here.
You're claiming "It works, because there are no scams", and I'm telling you, right now and right here, there are scams in all the classifieds. You're relying on the fact that people are honest; I'm comfortable being skeptical. You're asking me to trust "because it doesn't happen", and I'm saying that over here it's a daily occurrence. I actually don't know how to make it any clearer - if you're buying something off of craigslist, or whichever classifieds, the damn site itself warns you to be skeptical! Even the marketplace itself is telling you that there are scammers out there!
Someone dealing in cash can just as easily be robbed by the seller.
True, but if you're going to mug someone, why post on the classifieds first? You're just as likely to be mugged leaving a bank after all.