Meno_ wrote:Sorry, Reasonable, didn't mean to p.o.-end You. Besides I take You for a man who is disconcerting to dubious formalities.
If You need to figure this out, excuse, my bad.
No need for any apology, but could you rephrase this?
Meno_ wrote:Sorry, Reasonable, didn't mean to p.o.-end You. Besides I take You for a man who is disconcerting to dubious formalities.
If You need to figure this out, excuse, my bad.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Meno_ wrote:Sorry, Reasonable, didn't mean to p.o.-end You. Besides I take You for a man who is disconcerting to dubious formalities.
If You need to figure this out, excuse, my bad.
No need for any apology, but could you rephrase this?
Ecmandu wrote:
There are 4 techniques to resolve the issue in the best sense :
Philosophic zombie realities
Marionette philosophic zombie realities
Hallucinating reality from eternal forms
Hyperdimensional mirror realities
Mr Reasonable wrote:Also I'm neither young nor mentally handicapped. I'll be 40 in August, and I have a clean bill of health both mental and otherwise.
But, I do thank you for keeping the ad homs fresh. Attack the argument if you can. I mean...that's kind of the whole idea of a debate. o far, you've just mentioned that you can prove some things without actually proving them and you've made a handful of personal attacks.
I'm a little disappointed. Give me something better.
Ecmandu wrote:Mr Reasonable wrote:Also I'm neither young nor mentally handicapped. I'll be 40 in August, and I have a clean bill of health both mental and otherwise.
But, I do thank you for keeping the ad homs fresh. Attack the argument if you can. I mean...that's kind of the whole idea of a debate. o far, you've just mentioned that you can prove some things without actually proving them and you've made a handful of personal attacks.
I'm a little disappointed. Give me something better.
In a sex dimorphic species where one sex is larger and stronger and more threatening than the other sex, women will
Show more involuntary discomfort being approach in a sexually implicating way than men will.
This sends the subliminal message that there's a "no" to all first approaches or escalations towards women.
When a man engages with a woman to send a sexual signal, he has decided he doesn't care about the "no"
If she accepts his advance, the entire relationship becomes a "no means yes" relationship.
That's just a summary. Fact of the matter is, every heterosexual relationship on earth and through history is and has been of this type.
We take this subliminal message out on the environment and each other to maintain sexual choice.
Think of getting slightly molested when you are two years old... 12 years later you will retroactively call it sexual assault or molestation.
In a very similar way, men and women think their relationships are consensual when it easy to demonstrate that it is not so
Mr Reasonable wrote:You said that the initial display of involuntary discomfort is a result of men being bigger and stronger as though it's some kind of instinct. So the show of discomfort isn't voluntary, so it means no more than someone blinking their eyes or breathing. So it's not because they really mean to say no. So it doesn't seem that by your own words even that this amounts to a denial of consent.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Yeah but since not every instance of an eye blink is a result of a bug flying near your eye, then maybe not every instance of an involuntary show of discomfort is an instance of an actual threat.
Mr Reasonable wrote:But aren't you reading the minds of all the females?
Ecmandu wrote:There have been some empirical studies, repeated many times now, that women are broadly more averse to approaches implying sexuality than men are, which simply prove the obvious.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Well, when someone just cites a study without giving the reasoning, it makes me imagine a bunch of idiot grad students working on a project while drinking red bull late into the night listening to music and having a good old time.
I'd love to break down the study you're citing as an appeal to authority. It would be a lot more fun than having someone expect me to just make radical logical leaps based on a citation of a random study.
Even if the whole idea that you've mentioned turns out to be demonstrably true....that being the idea that women don't like being hit on as much as men do. It's still a massive leap to go from that to something like, "all sex is rape".
Wouldn't you think?
Mr Reasonable wrote:Dude your study was conducted by women in a hyper liberal, as in, politically skewed environment. A university in Hawaii? Come on man. Ask the general public. Not kids who have been recently indoctrinated to a certain set of ideals.
Mr Reasonable wrote:I'm not talking about politics. You are. And you're citing a 30 year old study now. 30 year old studies of social norms are dated. You've not established it as fact that all sex is rape.
You take a weird study, with a sample size smaller than the general population, in a place where political indoctrination occurs at a rate higher than in the general population, from 30 years ago, about social norms and use it to make the jump from some data points to the declaration that all sex is rape.
I would say that it might be better to present your findings to the general population and use the laugh test. Most people would laugh at this whole conversation.
Users browsing this forum: gib