Women are responsible for their own actions. These actions are performed in a context that tends to be different between men and women, and we're specifically talking about actions interacting with a man who she might not trust and who can overpower her. Man-on-woman sexual violence is unfortunately too common, and in particular if a man starts behaving physically aggressively he turns into a threat, and the woman needs to assess the risks. It is possible for a man who isn't really sensitive to commit sexual assault without knowing it, if the woman is afraid to say anything. At a job I had long ago, when a woman was talking to a man about going over the line, I stayed in the room and pretended to read the bulletin board. She was doing just fine, but I didn't trust him not to escalate physically if nobody else was there.
I think what we're disagreeing on here is what constitutes force or threat of force. I'm trying to imagine where the threat begins. In addition, there's a lot of stuff in our culture favoring aggressive behavior such as kissing, hugging, and pinning against the wall. There's a certain amount of cultural distrust here.
Obviously, this can work in reverse. Because most women are weaker and worse fighters than most men doesn't mean all are. There are women who could beat the crap out of me (and could have done so forty years ago, when I was in significantly better shape). If such a woman were to start getting physically and sexually aggressive with a man, the man could certainly be intimidated and let her have her way with him. More usually, there's a social power difference between the two in this case. The woman might be the man's boss, or otherwise important to his future, or just powerful and known to be vindictive.
As far as, say, both parties getting drunk beyond the point of no consent, then it can be legally rape for both of them. Alternately, one can force himself (more typically) or herself (less typically) on the other, and then it isn't mutual. It can be really hard to determine who's at fault here. (I have a relative who worked as a nurse for mentally ill and dangerous patients. She said that any sex had to be stopped because it was rape, possibly mutual rape.)
You don't seem to realize what college is actually for. It isn't a trade school that teaches only immediately practical things.
I don't know any real estate classes, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Business classes are to teach you about business and give you a sound background. Once you understand those, you can learn how to do the paperwork yourself. Science classes teach the science, not the application. Arts class give a good background in arts.
The idea is to help you learn to think about what you're doing. Get the basics so you can more easily understand the details.
We're talking about students that enter the country legally, in comparison to other students that have entered the country legally. That hasn't changed. You hypothesize that maybe the same number want to enter, but are deterred by things that haven't changed and didn't deter their predecessors. You then make up the idea that this is about illegal immigration, which it isn't.
Let's see. She claimed to be a feminist but wasn't necessarily rational or consistent about it. She claimed to be for the "little people" without actually being one of them. She was required to defend a child molester and later laughed nervously about it. She was one of several people to vote on selling shares in a uranium company (not the uranium) to Russia when the general policy was to be nice to them (that didn't work).
The simple fact is that there were a LOT of lies about Hillary Clinton, starting in the 90s, and an unfortunate number of people believed them. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with her, but her failings were exaggerated, and, when that didn't work, invented out of nowhere ("Killary"?).
The anti-illegal crowd conflates the legal and illegal also, perhaps more so. Being anti-immigration hits more buttons, it would appear, than being against illegal immigration.
What would solve most of the illegal immigration problem is jail sentences for people who hire illegal immigrants without verifying their eligibility to work in the US. It would disrupt the economy, but it's better to have the disruption in the open so we can figure a good way to fix it.
Democrats look pro-Hispanic when they don't want to crack down on illegal immigration. Republicans don't want to crack down on a source of easily exploited and abused labor.
How many have been violating Twitter's ToS? How many of those are verified? How many has Twitter done something to? One of the differences between us is that, when I ask a question, I typically don't immediately pull the answer I want out of my ass.
So you're a sexist that believes women are delicate flowers who can't hold their own with men, got it.
Strange, in the earlier paragraph you said that being aware of racial differences isn't racist, and now you're calling someone sexist for being aware of sexual differences.
The average man can beat the crap out of the average women. Men on the average are considerably larger and have considerably more upper body strength. I don't know how much of this is cultural, but boys tend to get considerably more preparation for fighting than girls do. We have separate athletic competitions for men and women, just to allow female athletes to compete.
The average woman is incapable of holding her own in a fight with the average man. Flowers have nothing to do with it. If a random man is willing to get physically aggressive and rape a random woman, he's likely to be able to. Some men are and do - not many, but enough to constitute a threat. That is one fundamental thing about relations between the sexes.
I hadn't gotten the note from the Left that Asians were to be called bananas. Do you think it got lost in the mail or something?
The right has its own brand of identity politics, favoring white Christian people. It's really easy to miss identity politics, of course, when you're a member of the favored group.
I ran across this story the other day that explained where Richard Spencer got his start. [nymag.com] It was the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case that was made up and never happened. The Left literally created the alt-right movement.
I, on the other hand, believe that right-wingers are fully human, which means that I believe they decided to create the movement of their own free will (whatever that is).
I really miss the kind of Republicans we had when I was a kid. I typically disagreed with them on the issues, but they could be thought-provoking and reasonable.
Learn some real history, dumbass. Study what socialism is, and what capitalism is. Learn about what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. Get a real education.
Can we all agree that Muslims at this point are producing a disproportionate share of terrorists? This wasn't always the case, and it won't always be the case, but it's happening now.
There's still serious problems in attributing the terrorism to Islam. There are dangerous Muslim terrorist groups, sure, but Islam itself isn't the problem. Lots of Muslims believe that the terrorists aren't true Muslims, and aren't following the way of Islam. We want to encourage these people, because Muslims who want peaceful lives are as much our allies as Christians and Buddhists that do also. We want Muslims in general to not provide support for terrorists.
We need to make a distinction between Islamic terrorists and Islam in general.
You mean all those democrats who were cheering him on when he bombed Syria?
All who Democrats who were cheering Trump on when he bombed Syria? I must have missed that.
You really have no idea what's going on with north korea though do you?
I know enough to know that poking at them is a Bad Idea. Let China deal with them. They've got influence, and it's in their best interests to keep things well short of active war.
That's the ideology that murdered 100m people on an industrial scale, and built their foundation based on an ideology of the state.
The Fascists (including the very similar militaristic Japanese regime) didn't do bad at all in megamurders, particularly considering the relatively short time they had. Also, Communist ideology was never about the state. It was about the class. The state was to wither away and become unnecessary in the Communist utopia. Obviously, the Communists didn't follow this in practice, but you're getting the ideology confused with Fascism and similar movements.
Conservatives got tired of the bullshit and kicked the neo-cons out,
No, the neocons took over the Republican party. The conservatives no longer really have a party, which I consider unfortunate.
But where oh where did those neo-cons run to? Oh right over to the left.
Would you care to name names of neocons who changed from right-wing to left-wing? Or is "neocon" a demon that possesses different people?
strange how the left is suddenly very pro-war, and cheering Trump on for more of it...
Strange that you'd get the impression that anything like that is anywhere near true. Leftists aren't cheering Trump on for anything, and they aren't pushing for war. We generally don't like war, and we really don't like Trump. You've obviously confused us with some other group that we reject. Fortunately, the only people who won't read what you said and realize you're bonkers are already in the alt-right.
What he said was: "There are good people on both sides"
Hint: No Nazis are good people. There were Nazis back when that were actually fairly good people (one was quite active in protecting Chinese during the Rape of Nanking), and tried to ignore what was going on.
Being a Nazi nowadays means accepting what Hitler did and glorying in it. Good people don't do that.
If Trump had just unequivocally come out against Nazis, it would have been different. It really shouldn't be difficult to condemn Nazis.
Modern Russia is not leftist in any sense of the word, any more than Nazi Germany was. You want to condemn violence across the board, fine. You want to blame all the violence on leftists, not fine.
My father took part in a large and organized anti-fascist demonstration that didn't bother with permits. His early death was probably partly due to the conditions he endured as a prisoner of war (and he was the sort of prisoner the Germans treated relatively well). I'm cool with what my father did.
There were a lot of Nazis in Germany at the time that were generally against murder. Most Germans ignored the evidence of the Holocaust.
People who call themselves Nazis nowadays embrace those things. They think it's great that Hitler killed six million Jews, and want his work completed. They're worse than the originals.
Check out murder rates. Both Nazi Germany and Militarist Japan exceeded the communists at the rate of murder. The only reason the Commies did so "well" in the final statistics is that they weren't as rabid so they lasted longer.
What you mean is that people, primarily the left, told some of you assholes to stop being assholes, and assholes are pushing back, having elected a prime specimen of one of their own. They also are forming their own alt-reality because they don't like the real world.
If you actually take a look at US statistics, the judicial system is not friendly to minorities. Police are not in general as friendly to minorities as to whites. The current poster child for getting slapped on the wrist for rape is white. People are defending the right of people to rape 14-year-olds because the rapist has political beliefs they like*. There's been attempts at boycotting a company for taking a stand against raping teenagers.
*I'm not expressing an opinion on exactly what Roy Moore did. I'm expressing an opinion over the reaction to the allegations, which is not to defend Moore by saying "he didn't do it", but by trivializing the act of rape.
Why don't you learn a teeny bit about fascism? Fascist regimes often do censor, but lots of other ones do also. It isn't a synonym for censorship or repression or something you don't like.
Also, it looks to me like political groups don't like free speech. The most worrying suppression of free speech right now is taking place in the scientific areas of the Federal Government, and that's not liberals doing it.
Why do so many people use "pussy" as an insult? I've very much enjoyed every pussy I was privileged enough to interact with. And using it as a term of weakness? Have you seen what can come out of them? If you don't have one, think about putting a softball through one of your orifices intact.
Slashdot Mirror
And white history, with mentions of blacks, is taught twelve months of the year. Please put a brake on your own mouth.
Women are responsible for their own actions. These actions are performed in a context that tends to be different between men and women, and we're specifically talking about actions interacting with a man who she might not trust and who can overpower her. Man-on-woman sexual violence is unfortunately too common, and in particular if a man starts behaving physically aggressively he turns into a threat, and the woman needs to assess the risks. It is possible for a man who isn't really sensitive to commit sexual assault without knowing it, if the woman is afraid to say anything. At a job I had long ago, when a woman was talking to a man about going over the line, I stayed in the room and pretended to read the bulletin board. She was doing just fine, but I didn't trust him not to escalate physically if nobody else was there.
I think what we're disagreeing on here is what constitutes force or threat of force. I'm trying to imagine where the threat begins. In addition, there's a lot of stuff in our culture favoring aggressive behavior such as kissing, hugging, and pinning against the wall. There's a certain amount of cultural distrust here.
Obviously, this can work in reverse. Because most women are weaker and worse fighters than most men doesn't mean all are. There are women who could beat the crap out of me (and could have done so forty years ago, when I was in significantly better shape). If such a woman were to start getting physically and sexually aggressive with a man, the man could certainly be intimidated and let her have her way with him. More usually, there's a social power difference between the two in this case. The woman might be the man's boss, or otherwise important to his future, or just powerful and known to be vindictive.
As far as, say, both parties getting drunk beyond the point of no consent, then it can be legally rape for both of them. Alternately, one can force himself (more typically) or herself (less typically) on the other, and then it isn't mutual. It can be really hard to determine who's at fault here. (I have a relative who worked as a nurse for mentally ill and dangerous patients. She said that any sex had to be stopped because it was rape, possibly mutual rape.)
You don't seem to realize what college is actually for. It isn't a trade school that teaches only immediately practical things.
I don't know any real estate classes, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Business classes are to teach you about business and give you a sound background. Once you understand those, you can learn how to do the paperwork yourself. Science classes teach the science, not the application. Arts class give a good background in arts.
The idea is to help you learn to think about what you're doing. Get the basics so you can more easily understand the details.
We're talking about students that enter the country legally, in comparison to other students that have entered the country legally. That hasn't changed. You hypothesize that maybe the same number want to enter, but are deterred by things that haven't changed and didn't deter their predecessors. You then make up the idea that this is about illegal immigration, which it isn't.
Let's see. She claimed to be a feminist but wasn't necessarily rational or consistent about it. She claimed to be for the "little people" without actually being one of them. She was required to defend a child molester and later laughed nervously about it. She was one of several people to vote on selling shares in a uranium company (not the uranium) to Russia when the general policy was to be nice to them (that didn't work).
The simple fact is that there were a LOT of lies about Hillary Clinton, starting in the 90s, and an unfortunate number of people believed them. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with her, but her failings were exaggerated, and, when that didn't work, invented out of nowhere ("Killary"?).
And in comparison to the lies told about Clinton.
The anti-illegal crowd conflates the legal and illegal also, perhaps more so. Being anti-immigration hits more buttons, it would appear, than being against illegal immigration.
What would solve most of the illegal immigration problem is jail sentences for people who hire illegal immigrants without verifying their eligibility to work in the US. It would disrupt the economy, but it's better to have the disruption in the open so we can figure a good way to fix it.
Democrats look pro-Hispanic when they don't want to crack down on illegal immigration. Republicans don't want to crack down on a source of easily exploited and abused labor.
How many have been violating Twitter's ToS? How many of those are verified? How many has Twitter done something to? One of the differences between us is that, when I ask a question, I typically don't immediately pull the answer I want out of my ass.
Strange, in the earlier paragraph you said that being aware of racial differences isn't racist, and now you're calling someone sexist for being aware of sexual differences.
The average man can beat the crap out of the average women. Men on the average are considerably larger and have considerably more upper body strength. I don't know how much of this is cultural, but boys tend to get considerably more preparation for fighting than girls do. We have separate athletic competitions for men and women, just to allow female athletes to compete.
The average woman is incapable of holding her own in a fight with the average man. Flowers have nothing to do with it. If a random man is willing to get physically aggressive and rape a random woman, he's likely to be able to. Some men are and do - not many, but enough to constitute a threat. That is one fundamental thing about relations between the sexes.
Start deleting black history? Start? It's been going on for a long time. Now that people object to it, people like you want to double down.
I hadn't gotten the note from the Left that Asians were to be called bananas. Do you think it got lost in the mail or something?
The right has its own brand of identity politics, favoring white Christian people. It's really easy to miss identity politics, of course, when you're a member of the favored group.
I, on the other hand, believe that right-wingers are fully human, which means that I believe they decided to create the movement of their own free will (whatever that is).
I really miss the kind of Republicans we had when I was a kid. I typically disagreed with them on the issues, but they could be thought-provoking and reasonable.
Learn some real history, dumbass. Study what socialism is, and what capitalism is. Learn about what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. Get a real education.
Can we all agree that Muslims at this point are producing a disproportionate share of terrorists? This wasn't always the case, and it won't always be the case, but it's happening now.
There's still serious problems in attributing the terrorism to Islam. There are dangerous Muslim terrorist groups, sure, but Islam itself isn't the problem. Lots of Muslims believe that the terrorists aren't true Muslims, and aren't following the way of Islam. We want to encourage these people, because Muslims who want peaceful lives are as much our allies as Christians and Buddhists that do also. We want Muslims in general to not provide support for terrorists.
We need to make a distinction between Islamic terrorists and Islam in general.
All who Democrats who were cheering Trump on when he bombed Syria? I must have missed that.
I know enough to know that poking at them is a Bad Idea. Let China deal with them. They've got influence, and it's in their best interests to keep things well short of active war.
The Fascists (including the very similar militaristic Japanese regime) didn't do bad at all in megamurders, particularly considering the relatively short time they had. Also, Communist ideology was never about the state. It was about the class. The state was to wither away and become unnecessary in the Communist utopia. Obviously, the Communists didn't follow this in practice, but you're getting the ideology confused with Fascism and similar movements.
No, the neocons took over the Republican party. The conservatives no longer really have a party, which I consider unfortunate.
Would you care to name names of neocons who changed from right-wing to left-wing? Or is "neocon" a demon that possesses different people?
Strange that you'd get the impression that anything like that is anywhere near true. Leftists aren't cheering Trump on for anything, and they aren't pushing for war. We generally don't like war, and we really don't like Trump. You've obviously confused us with some other group that we reject. Fortunately, the only people who won't read what you said and realize you're bonkers are already in the alt-right.
Hint: No Nazis are good people. There were Nazis back when that were actually fairly good people (one was quite active in protecting Chinese during the Rape of Nanking), and tried to ignore what was going on. Being a Nazi nowadays means accepting what Hitler did and glorying in it. Good people don't do that.
If Trump had just unequivocally come out against Nazis, it would have been different. It really shouldn't be difficult to condemn Nazis.
Interbreeding isn't genocide. Wiping out Trump supporters because they're Trump supporters isn't genocide.
There's violent assholes all around the fringes. The problem we're having now is that some of them elected someone who favors them.
Modern Russia is not leftist in any sense of the word, any more than Nazi Germany was. You want to condemn violence across the board, fine. You want to blame all the violence on leftists, not fine.
My father took part in a large and organized anti-fascist demonstration that didn't bother with permits. His early death was probably partly due to the conditions he endured as a prisoner of war (and he was the sort of prisoner the Germans treated relatively well). I'm cool with what my father did.
There were a lot of Nazis in Germany at the time that were generally against murder. Most Germans ignored the evidence of the Holocaust.
People who call themselves Nazis nowadays embrace those things. They think it's great that Hitler killed six million Jews, and want his work completed. They're worse than the originals.
Check out murder rates. Both Nazi Germany and Militarist Japan exceeded the communists at the rate of murder. The only reason the Commies did so "well" in the final statistics is that they weren't as rabid so they lasted longer.
What you mean is that people, primarily the left, told some of you assholes to stop being assholes, and assholes are pushing back, having elected a prime specimen of one of their own. They also are forming their own alt-reality because they don't like the real world.
If you actually take a look at US statistics, the judicial system is not friendly to minorities. Police are not in general as friendly to minorities as to whites. The current poster child for getting slapped on the wrist for rape is white. People are defending the right of people to rape 14-year-olds because the rapist has political beliefs they like*. There's been attempts at boycotting a company for taking a stand against raping teenagers.
*I'm not expressing an opinion on exactly what Roy Moore did. I'm expressing an opinion over the reaction to the allegations, which is not to defend Moore by saying "he didn't do it", but by trivializing the act of rape.
Why don't you learn a teeny bit about fascism? Fascist regimes often do censor, but lots of other ones do also. It isn't a synonym for censorship or repression or something you don't like.
Also, it looks to me like political groups don't like free speech. The most worrying suppression of free speech right now is taking place in the scientific areas of the Federal Government, and that's not liberals doing it.
Why do so many people use "pussy" as an insult? I've very much enjoyed every pussy I was privileged enough to interact with. And using it as a term of weakness? Have you seen what can come out of them? If you don't have one, think about putting a softball through one of your orifices intact.