Di di dah dah di di
I think you meant Dash Dot Dot Dot Dash

Batco

.

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.

If your grandaugter gets raped (and I hope she doesn't) I do hope you say to her it wouldn't have happened if she wasn't serving. I wonder how helpful she will find that?

I do understand it mate, it's classic victim blaming.

Shouldn't have gone out dressed like that.....shouldn't have been serving...etc, etc...

No, it isn’t victim blaming. Go and read it again in the sense it was meant.

The problem is that I can't quite fathom how it was meant...

How was it meant then?

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.

He was saying simple facts (tongue in cheek), which are correct. People have taken it one stage further and incorrectly made the assumption that he means something else by it.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

Sums it up nicely.

"Implicit thought"

Orwell's 1984 may just have arrived.

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.

Harsh!



But fair



And applicable to most of us 😉

Indeed so, which is why I take care when expressing my thoughts!

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!

​​​​​​I took your advice and read what was written, he didn't say "rape within in the military" perhaps he should have, if that is what he meant, but he didn't.
Is it not presumptuous and patronising to assume that easy street is both old and male?

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.