PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   A Failure of Values (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/641875-failure-values.html)

BATCO 3rd Dec 2021 04:34


Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2 (Post 11150498)
Dash Dot Dot Dash!

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

Batco


langleybaston 3rd Dec 2021 12:10


Originally Posted by Easy Street (Post 11150430)
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.

downsizer 3rd Dec 2021 13:00


Originally Posted by langleybaston (Post 11150815)
.

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?

downsizer 3rd Dec 2021 13:02


Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn (Post 11150503)
Thats not what he said, Downsizer. Read his message again, slowly, and youíll understand it.

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...

Foghorn Leghorn 3rd Dec 2021 13:53


Originally Posted by downsizer (Post 11150835)
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 isnít victim blaming. Go and read it again in the sense it was meant.

London Eye 3rd Dec 2021 15:00


Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn (Post 11150847)
No, it isnít 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...

downsizer 3rd Dec 2021 15:19


Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn (Post 11150847)
No, it isn’t victim blaming. Go and read it again in the sense 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.

Foghorn Leghorn 3rd Dec 2021 15:34


Originally Posted by London Eye (Post 11150869)
The problem is that I can't quite fathom how it was meant...

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.

Easy Street 3rd Dec 2021 15:36


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.
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.

Foghorn Leghorn 3rd Dec 2021 15:38


Originally Posted by downsizer (Post 11150877)
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.

Once again, no, thatís not what he said. He didnít say the answer is to remove women. Youíve jumped to that false conclusion through a poor comprehension of the facts he stated.

212man 3rd Dec 2021 15:48

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!)

beardy 3rd Dec 2021 15:48


If we didn't have any women in the armed services the cases of rape would probably decrease [not cease ..............]
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.



downsizer 3rd Dec 2021 17:20


Originally Posted by Easy Street (Post 11150889)
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.

Sums it up nicely.

langleybaston 3rd Dec 2021 20:12


Originally Posted by downsizer (Post 11150935)
Sums it up nicely.

"Implicit thought"

Orwell's 1984 may just have arrived.

Easy Street 3rd Dec 2021 20:37


Originally Posted by langleybaston (Post 11150998)
"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.

beardy 3rd Dec 2021 21:21


All this reinforces my assessment that you are not as clever as you think.

Harsh!



But fair



And applicable to most of us 😉

Easy Street 3rd Dec 2021 21:34


Originally Posted by beardy (Post 11151020)
And applicable to most of us 😉

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

Foghorn Leghorn 4th Dec 2021 07:50


Originally Posted by beardy (Post 11150895)
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.

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. Thereís no victim blaming in his statement, youíve inferred that.

Anyway, we have probably reached the end of this topic. Next!

beardy 4th Dec 2021 08:13


Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn (Post 11151157)
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. Thereís no victim blaming in his statement, youíve 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?

Easy Street 4th Dec 2021 10:10

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.