A Failure of Values
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,787
Likes: 1,205
From: Baston
Langleybaston - I'm neither snowflake nor woke-ist, but find your thought to be an exceptionally objectionable one that would have been better kept to yourself. (1602hrs GMT, 2 Dec - I'll refrain from quoting in case you decide to delete, although I see that London Eye has already quoted you).
I suggest that you take a deep breath, read the words slowly, think about it, and accept that [casting prejudice aside] what I wrote cannot be other than true.
If you can spare the time to read on, I am not against the fair sex [or any LGBT [alphabet follows] serving, indeed I have a granddaughter serving.
If you believe my statement is incorrect, instead of levelling abuse, you could always seek to demonstrate that I am wrong. Its called civilised debate.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
.
I suggest that you take a deep breath, read the words slowly, think about it, and accept that [casting prejudice aside] what I wrote cannot be other than true.
If you can spare the time to read on, I am not against the fair sex [or any LGBT [alphabet follows] serving, indeed I have a granddaughter serving.
If you believe my statement is incorrect, instead of levelling abuse, you could always seek to demonstrate that I am wrong. Its called civilised debate.
I suggest that you take a deep breath, read the words slowly, think about it, and accept that [casting prejudice aside] what I wrote cannot be other than true.
If you can spare the time to read on, I am not against the fair sex [or any LGBT [alphabet follows] serving, indeed I have a granddaughter serving.
If you believe my statement is incorrect, instead of levelling abuse, you could always seek to demonstrate that I am wrong. Its called civilised debate.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: The Jungle
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
Because it seems pretty clear his idea to solve this problem is remove women rather than you know, simply not rape people.
Either way it's a crass statement from a crass poster.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: The Jungle
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
I suggest that you take a deep breath, read the words slowly, think about it, and accept that [casting prejudice aside] what I wrote cannot be other than true.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd December 2021 at 15:51.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: The Jungle
Once again, no, that’s not what he said. He didn’t say the answer is to remove women. You’ve jumped to that false conclusion through a poor comprehension of the facts he stated.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
Without wishing to get caught in the crossfire from those stepping off the indignation bus, I think what LB is saying is that on the premise that male-on-male rapes ocurr in the services (which they do) having no females (in the services) would not result in 'no rapes', simply fewer. I initially thought this was a response to an earlier post, but now that I see it isn't, I tend to agree it was a rather crass and clumsy comment to make. (Inner voice vs outer voice!)
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 229
From: UK
If we didn't have any women in the armed services the cases of rape would probably decrease [not cease ..............]
Evidently since there would be no servicewomen, no servicewomen would be raped, that is the only conclusion. Since no differentiation is made between rapes in the military and total number of rapes in society (including the military) and since the supposition that the 'probability' of the total number of rapes decreasing, the inference is that servicewomen whilst serving are more likely to be raped than if they were not serving, which could be interpreted as a form of victim blaming, but I think it is just sloppy logic badly phrased.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
It is true that if there were no women in the military, no servicewomen would be raped, and there might still be some cases of male rape. However it's such a trivial point that I fear you are rather overestimating the depth of your insight, and are being rather insulting in implying that anyone might need to take a deep breath to understand it. It's the implicit thought which is so objectionable, and if you don't appreciate that then you are nowhere near as wise as you would appear to consider yourself.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
If I was to say that rape cases in the general population would reduce if certain restrictions were placed upon womens' freedom, for instance being confined to the home or being escorted everywhere by a male relative, what point would a reasonable person assume I was making? Would you think that was a reasonable point for someone to make in polite conversation, or something that was best left unsaid unless immediately qualified with a statement of disagreement with the idea, in which case why say it at all?
If there was nothing more to your post than the completely banal observation that "no servicewomen would be raped if there were no women in military service", then I have to wonder what on earth you thought you were contributing to the thread. I might as well post "2 + 2 = 4" for all the value it brings to the discussion. However, your reference to Occam's Razor suggests that you weren't merely making an observation, as the Razor is a philosophical concept applicable to arguments and explanations. Not to observations or facts. I suspect you no more understand Occam's Razor than you understand the term 'implicit' or the concept of thoughtcrime, which doesn't apply to a thought expressed either explicitly or implicitly. All this reinforces my assessment that you are not as clever as you think.
If there was nothing more to your post than the completely banal observation that "no servicewomen would be raped if there were no women in military service", then I have to wonder what on earth you thought you were contributing to the thread. I might as well post "2 + 2 = 4" for all the value it brings to the discussion. However, your reference to Occam's Razor suggests that you weren't merely making an observation, as the Razor is a philosophical concept applicable to arguments and explanations. Not to observations or facts. I suspect you no more understand Occam's Razor than you understand the term 'implicit' or the concept of thoughtcrime, which doesn't apply to a thought expressed either explicitly or implicitly. All this reinforces my assessment that you are not as clever as you think.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd December 2021 at 21:19.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: The Jungle
That's probably not true.
Evidently since there would be no servicewomen, no servicewomen would be raped, that is the only conclusion. Since no differentiation is made between rapes in the military and total number of rapes in society (including the military) and since the supposition that the 'probability' of the total number of rapes decreasing, the inference is that servicewomen whilst serving are more likely to be raped than if they were not serving, which could be interpreted as a form of victim blaming, but I think it is just sloppy logic badly phrased.
Evidently since there would be no servicewomen, no servicewomen would be raped, that is the only conclusion. Since no differentiation is made between rapes in the military and total number of rapes in society (including the military) and since the supposition that the 'probability' of the total number of rapes decreasing, the inference is that servicewomen whilst serving are more likely to be raped than if they were not serving, which could be interpreted as a form of victim blaming, but I think it is just sloppy logic badly phrased.
Anyway, we have probably reached the end of this topic. Next!
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 229
From: UK
Sorry, Easy Street old boy, your supposition is wrong on this. Bit of an awful discussion, but someone being raped outside the military is immaterial to the view that he put forward. He merely said that rapes within the military would reduce - which they would. There’s no victim blaming in his statement, you’ve inferred that.
Anyway, we have probably reached the end of this topic. Next!
Anyway, we have probably reached the end of this topic. Next!
Is it not presumptuous and patronising to assume that easy street is both old and male?
Last edited by beardy; 4th December 2021 at 10:01.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
There are some confused people with some strange ideas about logical argument here. Totally missing someone's point, and then misattributing someome else's words in an attempt to discredit them? Next, indeed.