Listen, I really don't care about this argument anymore, the thread is long dead, but since you insist on continuing.
There you go, lying again. If you really didn't care about this argument, you would not have responded. You wouldn't have even checked to see if I replied.
First, yes of course, I think it's a womans fault when she's raped, thats really what I think, I"m not just babbeling untilligably right now because the fact that you take that from my advice concerning avoiding risky situations is a defense of rapist makes you sound stupid.
I agree with avoiding risky situations. My problem with you has always been that if a woman doesn't for whatever reason, you then lay some blame on her, which removes some of the fault from the person that actually forced himself on her, thus excusing it in some way. That kind of logic is ok if it doesn't involve the choices of another.. like if you're rock climbing and don't take the proper precautions, its clearly 100% the fault of the person that falls. In the case of being attacked though, yes the person attacked increased the risk of being attacked. Does that make it his or her fault? No, clearly (well, apparently not so clearly to you) the blame still rests 100% on the attacker.
Btw, you EAT BABIES! I can tell from the mood of your comment, just like you can tell I condone rapes as the woman's fault. Moron.
You said the woman shares blame for being raped. Which means that in some small sense you believed she deserved it because she took a bigger risk. If a kid breaks the leg because they fell out of a tree after being told not to climb the tree, you'd probably say "that's why I told you not to climb the tree." See, when someone says that the girl shouldn't dress provocatively, its pretty clear what their underlying logic is. Seeing a woman ressed provocatively really isn't what causes someone to rape. You continue to cling to that even though I've told you that is incorrect. The fact that you want to blame someone for being attacked is what causes me to believe that you have some issues with women. I never said anything about babies on the other hand.
Saying it's reasonable to expect something to happen doesn't mean it's reaonable for that TO happen.
Its not reasonable to expect someone to act in a criminal way based on how a person is dressed, since rape isn't about sex at all.
You are trying way to hard to paint my perspective here as a violent misogynist you aren't even reading what I'm writing, only what you want it to read.
I don't have to paint you as anything, your words speak for themself.
If you can't swim and you walk off the end of a peer, it's only reasonable to expect you might drown. You might not, it might be low tied and you just step down into some soft sand, or shallow water.
If its low tide is not really reasonable to expect the person to drown, is it? Its not reasonable to expect that a drunk and sexily dressed woman will be raped, since that's clearly not the norm. Yet you continue to say that to avoid rape girls shouldn't dress sexy and get drunk. If it doesn't happen that often, how will not dressing sexy or getting drunk help anyway? You ignore the reason that someone rapes, which is why your advice is pointless.
Actually, I've already gotten sick of replying, the energy boost I got by saying you eat babies has run out... my final word is that anyone can take steps to avoid dangerous situations, and in many cases it's a good idea to do so. I just can't waste anymore time explaining how the violent mysoginist dribble you keep somehow reading into my comments is a product of your own mind, I spend 2/3 of each reply on that, rather than on any new content. If you reply to this, know I'm not reading it, so you can leave a nice long scathing "final word" post if you want to bolster your ego by delaring yourself the "winner."
Yes, you can take steps to avoid risks. I never had a problem with that; my p
Getting raped isn't her choice. Dressing provocatively has nothing to do with rape, since rape is about power. Getting blind drunk isn't a good idea under any circumstances. Plenty of men and women get loaded together, yet most encounters like that do not end up in rape. You're continuing the 'blame the victim' mentality. As long as you continue to do so we'll never be able to properly address the problem of rape.
Well, that actually is a problem, and one of the reasons I installed a UPS. I have my cable modem and router plugged into the UPS to keep the phones operational.
Probably because NO is very much a port city, just like Philadelphia or NYC. Moving the city further from one of their main industries will just make the port more expensive to run.
Hopefully one of the technological advances will be new levies and such...
FWIW, I don't think NO has ever been hit by a storm which 'wiped out' the city before... its unlikely to happen again in the near future, I'd think.
Much later on when someone is suddenly suspected of being a terrorist, they have at their fingertips mountains of illegally gathered backdated infomation to sift through to see what you've been up to.
See, that's where their argument really crumbles. Its illegal to wiretap, no matter when you decide to eventually get around to listen to that tap. Their argument is not ingenious at all, its rather weak.
Suspecting you that you are being monitored will likely lead you to censor yourself so yes, it is a free speech thing. Its also a freedom of the press issue, because the informants (those outside the US, which have something to say which we want to hear) will stop informing, if they believe they are being monitored.
The problem with your arguement (in my mind) is that you're talking about a wiretap between two US citizens. I'd say that yes, once the mobster's wiretap is approved, its fine to listen to any conversations between the mobster and another US citizen.
My statement was limited purely to the situation which this case addresses; one US citizen, and a foreign national. The Constitution doesn't apply to the person which the state is actually interested in, so tapping them is ok. However, I don't think that excusing the government from needing a warrant at all is a good way to go either, just because one party is outside our juristiction. Its still important to protect the rights of the US citizen, thus a warrant should still be required.
Honestly, a warrant isn't that big of a deal to get, and requiring it in all cases (we WANT to err on the side of individual rights, I'd hope) is not a major hurdle. If the government can't justify a wiretap, it shouldn't be allowed.
I would argue that your right to free association is being violated. After all, the wiretaps between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen, even if its the foreign national whom the goverhment is really interested. You can't collect the data without violating the rights of the US citizen (unreasonable search, freedom of association). Hence, they should always need a warrant.
I'd expand the question in your PS to why ever trust an entity which can exercise total power over you? Its not wise to do, even if you like the people in said entity.
Wow, you're a world class idiot, who had read exactly zero statistics relating to sexual assuault and a lot of bullshit propaganda.
Says the moron who has yet to post a single statistic himself. Of course, don't let the experts in behvior sway you.
What a woman has a right to do and what is smart for her to do are very, very different things.
How dumb or smart her actions are does not make her at fault for being victimized. The bottom line is that no one has the right to harm someone else, unless they are acting in self defense or to defend another. There's a difference between being dumb (driving a car on a frozen lake, for example), and doing something dumb but being hurt because of the choices of another. In the former case, ya, their fault. But being dumb doesn't give someone else any right to harm you, and if you blame the victim, that's what you're saying. You're removing responsibility from the attacker, saying that at some level the victim invited the attack through her dumb actions.
I also love how you have construed my stating something to be the most common type of something as my saying it is very common, shows lack of reading comprehention as well as lack of research.
So because one kind of rape is the most common, that means its not about power? I think you are the one lacking research. Only someone insecure in their manhood would take advantage of a drunk girl that still says they aren't interested.
I don't think women are dirt, this should read that I think you, in particular(who's gender I don't know), are stupid as dirt.
Apparently you do; I'm not the one with the attitude that its the woman's fault if she's raped.
My statements come from what advice I give my female friends about avoiding risky situations. Nobody deserves to be assualted in any way, never mind sexually, just as we are all entitled to free speech.
Yes, its good to avoid risky situtations. Going to a bar and drinking isn't normally very risky though, as evident that by the fact that most girls that leave a bar drunk don't end up getting raped.
However, if you utilize your right to free speech to walk through central harlem wearing a sign that says "I hate niggers" it's only reasonable to guess there is some chance something bad might happen.
Ha.. I knew it, the old 'however' or 'but.' When you do this in an argument, it means 'disregard everything I just said.'
Realistic, yes, something bad would likely happen in that situation. The REASONABLE thing to expect would be that no one is harmed, since its NOT REASONABLE to harm someone for being stupid or spreading hate speech. If you say its reasonable for violence to happen as a result of that situation, you're saying its 'kinda sorta ok,' and thus understandable. Do you understand now?
If you avoid a situation that leads up to an assault, you can avoid the assault. SHOULD you be obligated to? No, obviously not, but that isn't the point. The point is there are ways for you to hedge your chances of something you don't like happening, and it's a good idea to use them. A rapist doesn't care if you have a RIGHT to wear whatever you want, and a right to let him get to 3rd base then change your mind. The only intelligent thing to do is avoid the most common situation that these assaults arise from, when possible, because thats the only control the victim has in the case of rape.
Going back to the rape scenario no women should go to bars or parties serving alcohol. Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn't to me. Women now can't enjoy doing something they enjoy doing, because you're saying its their fault if they do and someone else chooses to assault them. That doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be saying we should just lock ourselves up in our houses, because if we go outside, anything that happens is partially our fault, even when its soley the choice of another.
The problem is that in Iraq, other nations can see. We aren't the only ones with satilite imagery. Any nation could track somebody going into a 'WMD store' shortly before the US says 'Hey, we found it!' The world would then ask... who went in with all that equipment just before you?
A person with a pathology doesn't have to plan anything. The need to exercise power may suddenly arise. Indeed, the random rape is easily explained. While drunk (or not) the woman rejects him (or he percieves that the woman rejects him). That simple act may trigger his pathology. He wasn't planning to rape, but something happened to cause it.
A woman has every right to go to a party, get drunk, make out with someone, then say no to anything more, just like any guy has that right. Being drunk is not an excuse for the guy to rape a girl. You claim its common, yet most people in most bars / parties do NOT get assaulted. With your line of reasoning, 'party rape' as you seem to refer to it, would happen every night in every bar or at every party. It does not. Its funny I've never had a problem not raping a girl, nor have any of my friends.
Don't worry, I don't expect facts to get in the way of your beliefs. Nevermind what you're saying is totally wrong, and we have mountains of evidence to prove it.
I know you want to cling to that irrational hatred of women. Just come out and say it: you think women are dirt to be treated anyway you want. They're beneath you, just animals. I can tell by everything you're advocating. "Its that dumb sluts fault, she shouldn't have lead me on like that!"
I can only hope someone dose something that leaves you paralized; then you can sit there and blame yourself for not being careful enough. Please post back when you do; I know you won't be blaming yourself at all.
It is about trying to get a reliable response across browsers, so that authors can use a style or technology, and know exactly how it will work. It is not (just) about CSS 2.1. Should a browser that fails to support PNG transparency, still be allowed to claim to pass, since that is not in the CSS spec? Should a browser that fails to support data URIs still be allowed to claim to pass, since they are not in the CSS spec either? No, of course not, because whether or not they are in the spec is irrelevant. They are still part of the test.
and
In my very strong opinion, no, it does not pass, because the question was "does Internet Explorer 6 pass the test", not "does it conform with the relevant parts of the CSS 1 specification". It did not meet the pass criteria for the test. The test tests what it wants to test. The test is not the spec.
Sounds to me like the test is meant to force browers to behave a certain way, even when there's no spec at all (such as supporting transparent PNG).
So yes, it certainly sounds like its meant to bash IE more than anything else; that was the purpose of the test, to build something IE wouldn't render (regardless of what the specs say... interesting how SHOULD requirements are turned into MUST requirements because the test author says so), just to have something to bash.
Firefox should pass Acid2 sometime in 2007. Firefox 2 is using the same version of the rendering engine as Firefox 1.5, but work has already been done on the code that will eventually work its way into Firefox 3 (not to mention future versions of SeaMonkey, Camino, etc.)
So what? It dosen't support it now, so it must be holding the world back from standards based websites since its the second most popular browser.
In short: Safari: Passed Konqueror: Passed Opera: Passed Firefox: Working on it, should be two releases away. Internet Explorer: Ignoring it for now.
Yet Safari and Konq have failed to render many sites for me that render just fine under IE or Firefox. Perhaps the reason IE is ignoring the acid2 test is because its not really that relevent?
No, what I'm instilling in my children is that there are rules and they should be obeyed. If they don't obey them there will be consequences.
Really? What rule did the kid who didn't start anything break? You act as if its impossible for one of your kids to just start wailing on one of the others. Or is the other kid at fault for sticking his tounge out?
Secondly if they get in a fight, either with their sibling or someone else, they have failed in basic human diplomacy and conflict resolution, and there are consequences for that also.
And it totally ignores when one person attacks another, unprovoked. Was it Kuwaits fault that Iraq invaded? Was there something they could have done diplomatically? Or was it just a power hungry dictator that ordered his army in? You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there are situtations which are unavoidablly lead to violence.
There is a big difference between getting in a fight with someone and being brutally attacked without warning. You seem to feel that everything is the second category and that is wrong. The brutal attack without provocation is very rare in almost every society. Never happened to my children to date, and I hope it never does, but that doesn't change the fact that if they are in a plain old fight they failed somewhere and so has the other party.
So if provoked verbally, its ok to respond physically? Is that what you're getting at? Someone has to throw the first punch, do they not? I was bullied in school for no other reason than I was new. I did nothing to the kids that bullied me, nothing to provoke them. Yet my fighting back when they attacked me, you would say I was partially at fault. Bull.
I never said that we shouldn't try to make things better, but we can't make them right. We can't fix the past and no matter what you do to the rapist it will never be equitable to what he did to the woman. Once again, that doesn't mean do nothing. Society needs to be protected and that is not done by making things fair to all parties involved, it's done by deterrence which can be anything from state sanctioned termination of life to several sessions of counseling to a 10 minute time out to think about why the decision you made was wrong.
Your argument though is to almost always lay blame on the victim. How does that help anything? If anything, it makes things worse for the victim.
p.s. If I'm so wrong why do almost all schools have similar rules to mine that punish both parties in a fight regardless of circumstances?
Because school administrators are lazy. They don't want to get to the bottom of anything. Apparently they'd rather the kid who was attacked just to lie there and take it, which is the natural consequence to blaming the victim. People argue, and sometimes one party is clearly in the right. Why should they back down when pressed? Why should they get in trouble for defending themselves when the other becomes violent?
The thread turned this way because you are blaming the victim when you punish both kids for fighting. It sets up unrealistic views of the real world (which are views you of course have). When a woman is raped, its not her fault, person. There is an innocent party, the victim, and she is not at fault. Ever. Yet you're instilling in your children that for every crime, the victim is always deserving in some respect. A rape victim can't just walk way or control her temper.
Your rant about justice is just that; a rant. The world is not perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better. Nothing will be able to undo what happened to the woman, but there are plenty of things which will help her overcome it, and having the rapist locked up is one of them. Justice is the attempt to set things right, even when there's no perfect way to do so.
Don't you think its tough to look at the screen when the data you're typing in comes from a paper? Have you ever tried to type pages of text into a word processor?
I don't think you understand psychology as much as you think you do. Dressing sexy isn't enabling rape. Sorry. Rape doesn't really have that much to do with sex, pschologically.
However, the 500 pound man, that can't get food, is being enabled by the person that continues to bring them McDonalds for dinner every night.
The logical conjecture that the less sexually appealing you look, the less likely you are to be raped, and the less you are intoxicated or otherwise impared, the less likely you are to be assaulted/raped, is accurate.
Of course if you knew that rape is really about power, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things.
Random acts of horrible violence and violation do happen, but they are such a small number of the total cases, that one can certainly hedge their bets by changing their behaviors.
Yes, you can lessen your chance to be attacked by avoiding certain parts of the city, for example. Considering that being raped at a party / bar even when you don't know a lot of people is very very rare, what exactly do you suggest? Never going out to drink? I think you fundimentally misunderstand rape and other crime.
However, to say that the victim's dress and behavior could not possibly have been a contributing factor that aggravated the situation is to ignore reality.
Wrong, wrong WRONG! Rape is NOT about how a girl looks; its about power. My god, I cannot believe that in this world there are still people that are this ignorant. A rapist wants control over the other person, that's pretty much it.
Of course, you'll never believe that. You'll never believe all the pathology behind rapists, despite the fact that we have mountains of evidence to prove it IS a power trip / ego thing, and nothing to do with what the girl looks like (unless that's part of the pathology). But to say someone dresses sexy is 'asking for it' is just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen, I really don't care about this argument anymore, the thread is long dead, but since you insist on continuing.
There you go, lying again. If you really didn't care about this argument, you would not have responded. You wouldn't have even checked to see if I replied.
First, yes of course, I think it's a womans fault when she's raped, thats really what I think, I"m not just babbeling untilligably right now because the fact that you take that from my advice concerning avoiding risky situations is a defense of rapist makes you sound stupid.
I agree with avoiding risky situations. My problem with you has always been that if a woman doesn't for whatever reason, you then lay some blame on her, which removes some of the fault from the person that actually forced himself on her, thus excusing it in some way. That kind of logic is ok if it doesn't involve the choices of another.. like if you're rock climbing and don't take the proper precautions, its clearly 100% the fault of the person that falls. In the case of being attacked though, yes the person attacked increased the risk of being attacked. Does that make it his or her fault? No, clearly (well, apparently not so clearly to you) the blame still rests 100% on the attacker.
Btw, you EAT BABIES! I can tell from the mood of your comment, just like you can tell I condone rapes as the woman's fault. Moron.
You said the woman shares blame for being raped. Which means that in some small sense you believed she deserved it because she took a bigger risk. If a kid breaks the leg because they fell out of a tree after being told not to climb the tree, you'd probably say "that's why I told you not to climb the tree." See, when someone says that the girl shouldn't dress provocatively, its pretty clear what their underlying logic is. Seeing a woman ressed provocatively really isn't what causes someone to rape. You continue to cling to that even though I've told you that is incorrect. The fact that you want to blame someone for being attacked is what causes me to believe that you have some issues with women. I never said anything about babies on the other hand.
Saying it's reasonable to expect something to happen doesn't mean it's reaonable for that TO happen.
Its not reasonable to expect someone to act in a criminal way based on how a person is dressed, since rape isn't about sex at all.
You are trying way to hard to paint my perspective here as a violent misogynist you aren't even reading what I'm writing, only what you want it to read.
I don't have to paint you as anything, your words speak for themself.
If you can't swim and you walk off the end of a peer, it's only reasonable to expect you might drown. You might not, it might be low tied and you just step down into some soft sand, or shallow water.
If its low tide is not really reasonable to expect the person to drown, is it? Its not reasonable to expect that a drunk and sexily dressed woman will be raped, since that's clearly not the norm. Yet you continue to say that to avoid rape girls shouldn't dress sexy and get drunk. If it doesn't happen that often, how will not dressing sexy or getting drunk help anyway? You ignore the reason that someone rapes, which is why your advice is pointless.
Actually, I've already gotten sick of replying, the energy boost I got by saying you eat babies has run out... my final word is that anyone can take steps to avoid dangerous situations, and in many cases it's a good idea to do so. I just can't waste anymore time explaining how the violent mysoginist dribble you keep somehow reading into my comments is a product of your own mind, I spend 2/3 of each reply on that, rather than on any new content. If you reply to this, know I'm not reading it, so you can leave a nice long scathing "final word" post if you want to bolster your ego by delaring yourself the "winner."
Yes, you can take steps to avoid risks. I never had a problem with that; my p
Getting raped isn't her choice. Dressing provocatively has nothing to do with rape, since rape is about power. Getting blind drunk isn't a good idea under any circumstances. Plenty of men and women get loaded together, yet most encounters like that do not end up in rape. You're continuing the 'blame the victim' mentality. As long as you continue to do so we'll never be able to properly address the problem of rape.
Well, that actually is a problem, and one of the reasons I installed a UPS. I have my cable modem and router plugged into the UPS to keep the phones operational.
Probably because NO is very much a port city, just like Philadelphia or NYC. Moving the city further from one of their main industries will just make the port more expensive to run.
Hopefully one of the technological advances will be new levies and such...
FWIW, I don't think NO has ever been hit by a storm which 'wiped out' the city before... its unlikely to happen again in the near future, I'd think.
Let me correct something for you:
Much later on when someone is suddenly suspected of being a terrorist, they have at their fingertips mountains of illegally gathered backdated infomation to sift through to see what you've been up to.
See, that's where their argument really crumbles. Its illegal to wiretap, no matter when you decide to eventually get around to listen to that tap. Their argument is not ingenious at all, its rather weak.
Suspecting you that you are being monitored will likely lead you to censor yourself so yes, it is a free speech thing. Its also a freedom of the press issue, because the informants (those outside the US, which have something to say which we want to hear) will stop informing, if they believe they are being monitored.
I thought we already said that 'just following orders' does not excuse human rights violations?
The problem with your arguement (in my mind) is that you're talking about a wiretap between two US citizens. I'd say that yes, once the mobster's wiretap is approved, its fine to listen to any conversations between the mobster and another US citizen.
My statement was limited purely to the situation which this case addresses; one US citizen, and a foreign national. The Constitution doesn't apply to the person which the state is actually interested in, so tapping them is ok. However, I don't think that excusing the government from needing a warrant at all is a good way to go either, just because one party is outside our juristiction. Its still important to protect the rights of the US citizen, thus a warrant should still be required.
Honestly, a warrant isn't that big of a deal to get, and requiring it in all cases (we WANT to err on the side of individual rights, I'd hope) is not a major hurdle. If the government can't justify a wiretap, it shouldn't be allowed.
I would argue that your right to free association is being violated. After all, the wiretaps between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen, even if its the foreign national whom the goverhment is really interested. You can't collect the data without violating the rights of the US citizen (unreasonable search, freedom of association). Hence, they should always need a warrant.
I'd expand the question in your PS to why ever trust an entity which can exercise total power over you? Its not wise to do, even if you like the people in said entity.
Wow, you're a world class idiot, who had read exactly zero statistics relating to sexual assuault and a lot of bullshit propaganda.
Says the moron who has yet to post a single statistic himself. Of course, don't let the experts in behvior sway you.
What a woman has a right to do and what is smart for her to do are very, very different things.
How dumb or smart her actions are does not make her at fault for being victimized. The bottom line is that no one has the right to harm someone else, unless they are acting in self defense or to defend another. There's a difference between being dumb (driving a car on a frozen lake, for example), and doing something dumb but being hurt because of the choices of another. In the former case, ya, their fault. But being dumb doesn't give someone else any right to harm you, and if you blame the victim, that's what you're saying. You're removing responsibility from the attacker, saying that at some level the victim invited the attack through her dumb actions.
I also love how you have construed my stating something to be the most common type of something as my saying it is very common, shows lack of reading comprehention as well as lack of research.
So because one kind of rape is the most common, that means its not about power? I think you are the one lacking research. Only someone insecure in their manhood would take advantage of a drunk girl that still says they aren't interested.
I don't think women are dirt, this should read that I think you, in particular(who's gender I don't know), are stupid as dirt.
Apparently you do; I'm not the one with the attitude that its the woman's fault if she's raped.
My statements come from what advice I give my female friends about avoiding risky situations. Nobody deserves to be assualted in any way, never mind sexually, just as we are all entitled to free speech.
Yes, its good to avoid risky situtations. Going to a bar and drinking isn't normally very risky though, as evident that by the fact that most girls that leave a bar drunk don't end up getting raped.
However, if you utilize your right to free speech to walk through central harlem wearing a sign that says "I hate niggers" it's only reasonable to guess there is some chance something bad might happen.
Ha.. I knew it, the old 'however' or 'but.' When you do this in an argument, it means 'disregard everything I just said.'
Realistic, yes, something bad would likely happen in that situation. The REASONABLE thing to expect would be that no one is harmed, since its NOT REASONABLE to harm someone for being stupid or spreading hate speech. If you say its reasonable for violence to happen as a result of that situation, you're saying its 'kinda sorta ok,' and thus understandable. Do you understand now?
If you avoid a situation that leads up to an assault, you can avoid the assault. SHOULD you be obligated to? No, obviously not, but that isn't the point. The point is there are ways for you to hedge your chances of something you don't like happening, and it's a good idea to use them. A rapist doesn't care if you have a RIGHT to wear whatever you want, and a right to let him get to 3rd base then change your mind. The only intelligent thing to do is avoid the most common situation that these assaults arise from, when possible, because thats the only control the victim has in the case of rape.
Going back to the rape scenario no women should go to bars or parties serving alcohol. Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn't to me. Women now can't enjoy doing something they enjoy doing, because you're saying its their fault if they do and someone else chooses to assault them. That doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be saying we should just lock ourselves up in our houses, because if we go outside, anything that happens is partially our fault, even when its soley the choice of another.
The problem is that in Iraq, other nations can see. We aren't the only ones with satilite imagery. Any nation could track somebody going into a 'WMD store' shortly before the US says 'Hey, we found it!' The world would then ask... who went in with all that equipment just before you?
Do you know how to fly a 767? Or a Boeing airplane? Or even an airplane in general?
Up is down, down is up, left and right are the same. Once in the air, is there REALLY a whole lot needed to keep the plane moving?
So what you want is someone to help you do your job properly, and then not have to pay for it?
Hmm, ok. How about this; you should be willing to work for free, since there's a greater good served by educating the kids (supposedly).
Apparently that's the society this pychopath wants.
Indeed, it seems that he thinks that if you piss someone off, you've done something wrong. No one ever just is an asshole that likes bullying others.
A person with a pathology doesn't have to plan anything. The need to exercise power may suddenly arise. Indeed, the random rape is easily explained. While drunk (or not) the woman rejects him (or he percieves that the woman rejects him). That simple act may trigger his pathology. He wasn't planning to rape, but something happened to cause it.
A woman has every right to go to a party, get drunk, make out with someone, then say no to anything more, just like any guy has that right. Being drunk is not an excuse for the guy to rape a girl. You claim its common, yet most people in most bars / parties do NOT get assaulted. With your line of reasoning, 'party rape' as you seem to refer to it, would happen every night in every bar or at every party. It does not. Its funny I've never had a problem not raping a girl, nor have any of my friends.
Don't worry, I don't expect facts to get in the way of your beliefs. Nevermind what you're saying is totally wrong, and we have mountains of evidence to prove it.
I know you want to cling to that irrational hatred of women. Just come out and say it: you think women are dirt to be treated anyway you want. They're beneath you, just animals. I can tell by everything you're advocating. "Its that dumb sluts fault, she shouldn't have lead me on like that!"
I can only hope someone dose something that leaves you paralized; then you can sit there and blame yourself for not being careful enough. Please post back when you do; I know you won't be blaming yourself at all.
Indeed, I found these lines very insightful (from http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/).
It is about trying to get a reliable response across browsers, so that authors can use a style or technology, and know exactly how it will work. It is not (just) about CSS 2.1. Should a browser that fails to support PNG transparency, still be allowed to claim to pass, since that is not in the CSS spec? Should a browser that fails to support data URIs still be allowed to claim to pass, since they are not in the CSS spec either? No, of course not, because whether or not they are in the spec is irrelevant. They are still part of the test.
and
In my very strong opinion, no, it does not pass, because the question was "does Internet Explorer 6 pass the test", not "does it conform with the relevant parts of the CSS 1 specification". It did not meet the pass criteria for the test. The test tests what it wants to test. The test is not the spec.
Sounds to me like the test is meant to force browers to behave a certain way, even when there's no spec at all (such as supporting transparent PNG).
So yes, it certainly sounds like its meant to bash IE more than anything else; that was the purpose of the test, to build something IE wouldn't render (regardless of what the specs say... interesting how SHOULD requirements are turned into MUST requirements because the test author says so), just to have something to bash.
Firefox should pass Acid2 sometime in 2007. Firefox 2 is using the same version of the rendering engine as Firefox 1.5, but work has already been done on the code that will eventually work its way into Firefox 3 (not to mention future versions of SeaMonkey, Camino, etc.)
So what? It dosen't support it now, so it must be holding the world back from standards based websites since its the second most popular browser.
In short:
Safari: Passed
Konqueror: Passed
Opera: Passed
Firefox: Working on it, should be two releases away.
Internet Explorer: Ignoring it for now.
Yet Safari and Konq have failed to render many sites for me that render just fine under IE or Firefox. Perhaps the reason IE is ignoring the acid2 test is because its not really that relevent?
No, what I'm instilling in my children is that there are rules and they should be obeyed. If they don't obey them there will be consequences.
Really? What rule did the kid who didn't start anything break? You act as if its impossible for one of your kids to just start wailing on one of the others. Or is the other kid at fault for sticking his tounge out?
Secondly if they get in a fight, either with their sibling or someone else, they have failed in basic human diplomacy and conflict resolution, and there are consequences for that also.
And it totally ignores when one person attacks another, unprovoked. Was it Kuwaits fault that Iraq invaded? Was there something they could have done diplomatically? Or was it just a power hungry dictator that ordered his army in? You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there are situtations which are unavoidablly lead to violence.
There is a big difference between getting in a fight with someone and being brutally attacked without warning. You seem to feel that everything is the second category and that is wrong. The brutal attack without provocation is very rare in almost every society. Never happened to my children to date, and I hope it never does, but that doesn't change the fact that if they are in a plain old fight they failed somewhere and so has the other party.
So if provoked verbally, its ok to respond physically? Is that what you're getting at? Someone has to throw the first punch, do they not? I was bullied in school for no other reason than I was new. I did nothing to the kids that bullied me, nothing to provoke them. Yet my fighting back when they attacked me, you would say I was partially at fault. Bull.
I never said that we shouldn't try to make things better, but we can't make them right. We can't fix the past and no matter what you do to the rapist it will never be equitable to what he did to the woman. Once again, that doesn't mean do nothing. Society needs to be protected and that is not done by making things fair to all parties involved, it's done by deterrence which can be anything from state sanctioned termination of life to several sessions of counseling to a 10 minute time out to think about why the decision you made was wrong.
Your argument though is to almost always lay blame on the victim. How does that help anything? If anything, it makes things worse for the victim.
p.s. If I'm so wrong why do almost all schools have similar rules to mine that punish both parties in a fight regardless of circumstances?
Because school administrators are lazy. They don't want to get to the bottom of anything. Apparently they'd rather the kid who was attacked just to lie there and take it, which is the natural consequence to blaming the victim. People argue, and sometimes one party is clearly in the right. Why should they back down when pressed? Why should they get in trouble for defending themselves when the other becomes violent?
She doesn't have an interest in this site.
The thread turned this way because you are blaming the victim when you punish both kids for fighting. It sets up unrealistic views of the real world (which are views you of course have). When a woman is raped, its not her fault, person. There is an innocent party, the victim, and she is not at fault. Ever. Yet you're instilling in your children that for every crime, the victim is always deserving in some respect. A rape victim can't just walk way or control her temper.
Your rant about justice is just that; a rant. The world is not perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better. Nothing will be able to undo what happened to the woman, but there are plenty of things which will help her overcome it, and having the rapist locked up is one of them. Justice is the attempt to set things right, even when there's no perfect way to do so.
Don't you think its tough to look at the screen when the data you're typing in comes from a paper? Have you ever tried to type pages of text into a word processor?
Get off your high horse, stupid.
I wonder when FF will pass the Acid test as well...
I don't think you understand psychology as much as you think you do. Dressing sexy isn't enabling rape. Sorry. Rape doesn't really have that much to do with sex, pschologically.
However, the 500 pound man, that can't get food, is being enabled by the person that continues to bring them McDonalds for dinner every night.
Why yes, my wife does have a pychology degree.
The logical conjecture that the less sexually appealing you look, the less likely you are to be raped, and the less you are intoxicated or otherwise impared, the less likely you are to be assaulted/raped, is accurate.
Of course if you knew that rape is really about power, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things.
Random acts of horrible violence and violation do happen, but they are such a small number of the total cases, that one can certainly hedge their bets by changing their behaviors.
Yes, you can lessen your chance to be attacked by avoiding certain parts of the city, for example. Considering that being raped at a party / bar even when you don't know a lot of people is very very rare, what exactly do you suggest? Never going out to drink? I think you fundimentally misunderstand rape and other crime.
However, to say that the victim's dress and behavior could not possibly have been a contributing factor that aggravated the situation is to ignore reality.
Wrong, wrong WRONG! Rape is NOT about how a girl looks; its about power. My god, I cannot believe that in this world there are still people that are this ignorant. A rapist wants control over the other person, that's pretty much it.
Of course, you'll never believe that. You'll never believe all the pathology behind rapists, despite the fact that we have mountains of evidence to prove it IS a power trip / ego thing, and nothing to do with what the girl looks like (unless that's part of the pathology). But to say someone dresses sexy is 'asking for it' is just stupid.