|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2011 : 11:18:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Who is the moron for missing the point? |
Still you.| Sad that you have to intentionally distort what I said to try and make your case. What I'm saying, in case you really didn't understand, is that fear of assault is unfounded. Be it by a black person walking down the street or by a lone man in an elevator. When that fear manifests as action to avoid a black guy, we call it racism. When it manifests as an action to avoid a man, what can you call that besides sexism? |
When you can provide evidence that the risk of being raped on an elevator by a stranger is zero, then you can call those fears unfounded.
But let's see. If someone crosses the street for fear of assault just because of someone's skin color, then yes, that's racism. If someone is afraid of being raped just because she's in an elevator with a man, that'd be sexism. But that's not what happened here, and it's not what Plait is talking about, either.| So hitting on a woman is an assertion of undeserved male privilege? Ummm, no. It isn't. |
No, I said that being dismissive of a woman's stated intentions and asking for sex is an assertion of undeserved male privilege.
From all accounts, the guy had plenty of opportunity to hit on her in ways that she wouldn't have found creepy. And he could have even asked (in the elevator, at 4 AM) a non-creepy question which could have presented him with more opportunities to hit on her in non-creepy ways. Guys hitting on women is not the issue here, never has been.| Not when, as in this case, the guy accepts the rejection and moves on. |
The male privilege was asserted when he thought that asking for sex under the conditions at the time was a reasonable thing to do.| That isn't sexist, it isn't undeserved male privilege, and it isn't potential sexual assault. |
No, your missing the point isn't anything.| Also, you should try to follow better. You seem to be having a problem with who I am criticizing here. Mostly Plait for his hysteria and falsely equating a single proposition with potential sexual assault. |
Which you answered with hysteria of your own, missing Plait's point in the process.| Calling a guy creepy for a single proposition when he accepted the rejection and moved on? How is that not a sexist attitude on her part? |
The proposition was what was creepy in that time and place. His accepting of the rejection was just a good end to a bad situation. Watson's "don't do that" was nothing more than advice to avoid putting women in bad situations in the first place, as was Plait's piece. And you're freakishly upset about it.| If being alone with men creeps her out... |
Now you're just making shit up about her. Where is your evidence that being alone with the guy is what creeped her out?| ...how is that any different from an old white person being creeped out by black people? It isn't. |
It wouldn't be, but you just fabricated it because you're being totally irrational about this whole thing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 13:10:09 [Permalink]
|
| And the schism continues! |
 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 13:49:50 [Permalink]
|
| The proposition was what was creepy in that time and place. His accepting of the rejection was just a good end to a bad situation. Watson's "don't do that" was nothing more than advice to avoid putting women in bad situations in the first place, as was Plait's piece. And you're freakishly upset about it. |
So it would be acceptable in a different setting? Maybe a bar? Why does being in an elevator make the proposition different? How does it increase the chance of being assaulted by happening in an elevator? Aren't the large majority of sexual assaults, like murders, carried out by people known to the victim? Friends, co workers, family?
Freakishly upset? No. Offended? Yes.
| When you can provide evidence that the risk of being raped on an elevator by a stranger is zero, then you can call those fears unfounded |
When you can show evidence that the risk of being robbed by a black man is zero then you can call fears of racist old white people unfounded. But wait, you already agreed that their fear and racism isn't justified! So why the double standard?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 13:50:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
And the schism continues! |
Your point? Male privilege is damaging to the atheist cause (hell, it's damaging to any cause besides masculinism or NAMBLA). If there are atheists who cannot tolerate the bad behavior of some men towards women being examined and criticized, with suggestions of better behavior proffered, then the "cause" is better off without them. They can go start a new group. I'd suggest the name Sexists Against Deities (SAD). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 14:24:49 [Permalink]
|
I could probably make a decent case against what you just said, given how completely subjective this whole issue is. But really I'm not even taking sides. I just find this to be quite a hilarious shitstorm in a teacup that wont seem to go away. Maybe the "cause" will be better off without Dawkins, (What's he ever done?) but it sure isn't better off had this whole incident never happened. Non-atheists are laughing at this incident.
BTW landmark moment, after 8 years I have achieved 500 posts. Thank you. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/10/2011 14:29:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 14:55:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
So it would be acceptable in a different setting? |
Yes, like not after she'd announced that she was tired and was going to go to sleep. Like not in a place where she was mechanically trapped. Do you really not know how to appropriately start wooing a woman?| Why does being in an elevator make the proposition different? How does it increase the chance of being assaulted by happening in an elevator? |
Do you really not grasp the situation? Hell, I think I would feel pretty uneasy if a stranger ever propositions me out-of-the-blue in a place where I can't immediately escape.| Aren't the large majority of sexual assaults, like murders, carried out by people known to the victim? Friends, co workers, family? |
Do you think it would have made a difference to Watson's point if Elevator Guy had been someone she knew?| Freakishly upset? No. Offended? Yes. |
Freakishly upset. You asked for a list of allowed behaviors. You're making up shit about Watson. You're not just offended, you're massively irrational.| When you can show evidence that the risk of being robbed by a black man is zero then you can call fears of racist old white people unfounded. But wait, you already agreed that their fear and racism isn't justified! So why the double standard? |
No double standard, unless there are examples of woman-on-woman sexual assault where the women were strangers and of the same age range of which I am unaware. All I can find are stats of women sexually assaulting teens and children.
The crossing-the-street thing is racism because thieves are often white, so skin color itself isn't a reliable gauge of the likelihood of being mugged by a random person in public. But so far as I've been able to discover, non-acquaintance woman-on-woman peer sexual assault is unheard of. Maybe I'm just failing at Google today. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:08:36 [Permalink]
|
What, exactly, have I "made up" about Watson?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:20:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I could probably make a decent case against what you just said, given how completely subjective this whole issue is. But really I'm not even taking sides. I just find this to be quite a hilarious shitstorm in a teacup that wont seem to go away. |
That's because religion and sexism often go hand-in-hand.| Maybe the "cause" will be better off without Dawkins, (What's he ever done?)... |
Nobody serious is talking about getting rid of Dawkins.| ...but it sure isn't better off had this whole incident never happened. |
Yes, it is. This is an important issue, one that gets at the heart of "why aren't there more women skeptics/atheists?" Better to have the "schism" now when the "movement" is smaller.| Non-atheists are laughing at this incident. |
That's because they won't look at themselves as critically as we look at each other. It's not something to be happy about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:20:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
What, exactly, have I "made up" about Watson? |
You suggested that being alone with men creeps her out. It was only a few posts ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:38:41 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, like not after she'd announced that she was tired and was going to go to sleep. Like not in a place where she was mechanically trapped. Do you really not know how to appropriately start wooing a woman? |
Personally I would not jump right to the proposition for sex, but that's just me. Clearly there are those who do. I still fail to see how the location matters unless you are assuming an intent to initiate an assault. You must assume the man is thinking about sexual assault in order to justify a fear of being assaulted by them. That unfounded fear, Watson's creeped out feeling, Dr hysterical's "potential sexual assault", that is a problem for them because that is the actual sexism in this instance.
It makes them, and their defenders, hypocrites.
| The crossing-the-street thing is racism because thieves are often white, so skin color itself isn't a reliable gauge of the likelihood of being mugged by a random person in public. But so farasI've beenableto discover, non-acquaintance woman-on-woman peer sexual assault is unheard of. Maybe I'm just failing at Google today. |
So you also think, like Plait, that simply being male is a good indicator of the chance a person will commit a sexual assault. No one disagrees that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual assault, but simply being male is not predictive. Just as skin color is not predictive of intent to steal, because there is a fucking universe of other factors involved. Ignoring them and using only Y chromosomes to predict behavior is blatant sexism in the same way that using skin color to predict behavior is racism.
You and Plait, and Watson, are wrong here. You are being blinded by your own biases, abandoning critical thinking, and being giant assholes in the process. Maybe it is you who need to jump ship and start your own group, ABB, Atheists Blinded by Bias.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 16:47:21 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
What I'm saying, in case you really didn't understand, is that fear of assault is unfounded. Be it by a black person walking down the street or by a lone man in an elevator. When that fear manifests as action to avoid a black guy, we call it racism. When it manifests as an action to avoid a man, what can you call that besides sexism? |
Where exactly did Watson say she wouldn't get on an elevator with a lone man? Really? You keep trying to make that analogy and it's false. It will be false no matter how many times you you repeat it. You're really one to talk about people being irrational when you won't let go of this obviously fallacious argument. If you actually believe that a white guy crossing the street to avoid a black guy is analogous to Watson getting creeped out on an elevator (but not avoiding getting on the elevator because a guy was getting on too) I'd say you hit one of those areas that I always worry about. That place where I become so irrational that no argument will disuade me. Sort of like when Dr. Slater bailed because we defended a persons right to be gay. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 16:50:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Personally I would not jump right to the proposition for sex, but that's just me. Clearly there are those who do. |
And there are those who do who aren't creepy about it.| I still fail to see how the location matters unless you are assuming an intent to initiate an assault. |
It is, as you say later, a whole bunch of factors coupled together. The location is one factor among many. But you go ahead and keep ignoring this.| You must assume the man is thinking about sexual assault in order to justify a fear of being assaulted by them. |
Do you deny that sexual assaults by strangers occur? Do you think it is possible for women to discriminate between rapist strangers and non-rapist strangers on looks alone?| That unfounded fear, Watson's creeped out feeling, Dr hysterical's "potential sexual assault", that is a problem for them because that is the actual sexism in this instance. |
It's only sexism if it is unfounded, and you just repeating that it's unfounded doesn't make it so.| It makes them, and their defenders, hypocrites. |
Only if they're wrong.| So you also think, like Plait, that simply being male is a good indicator of the chance a person will commit a sexual assault. |
Given all the data I have found, being male is a definitive indicator of a non-zero chance of being a future perpetrator of a sexual assault against a woman who is a stranger and a peer, in a public place. I have seen no evidence that women ever do that.| No one disagrees that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual assault, but simply being male is not predictive. |
Being the driver of a car is not predictive of crashing it into me, but that doesn't mean I can cross a six-lane highway safely.| Just as skin color is not predictive of intent to steal, because there is a fucking universe of other factors involved. Ignoring them and using only Y chromosomes to predict behavior is blatant sexism in the same way that using skin color to predict behavior is racism. |
Yes, and in this case, there was more going on than just the guy having a Y chromosome. Ignore the facts all you like, Dude, but this wasn't only about the guy's maleness.| You and Plait, and Watson, are wrong here. |
Yes, we're wrong when it comes to the straw men you've built in place of the actual arguments being made.| You are being blinded by your own biases, abandoning critical thinking, and being giant assholes in the process. |
Hypocrite. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 17:10:21 [Permalink]
|
OFFC:
But really I'm not even taking sides. I just find this to be quite a hilarious shitstorm in a teacup that wont seem to go away. Maybe the "cause" will be better off without Dawkins, (What's he ever done?) but it sure isn't better off had this whole incident never happened. Non-atheists are laughing at this incident. |
I'd say you took a side in your blog. You did it through hyperbole and lies and distortions and insults. You failed to present the case that you pretended you were presenting and even when your mistakes were pointed out you and you agreed that they were mistakes, you have failed to make corrections. I'm sure your blog will be pleasing to some, especially your target audience who knows nothing of this affair, but I found it to be specious, unfair and untrue.
Still wondering what makes you say that Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins are "vile?"
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 18:06:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
What I'm saying, in case you really didn't understand, is that fear of assault is unfounded. Be it by a black person walking down the street or by a lone man in an elevator. When that fear manifests as action to avoid a black guy, we call it racism. When it manifests as an action to avoid a man, what can you call that besides sexism? |
Where exactly did Watson say she wouldn't get on an elevator with a lone man? Really? You keep trying to make that analogy and it's false. It will be false no matter how many times you you repeat it. You're really one to talk about people being irrational when you won't let go of this obviously fallacious argument. If you actually believe that a white guy crossing the street to avoid a black guy is analogous to Watson getting creeped out on an elevator (but not avoiding getting on the elevator because a guy was getting on too) I'd say you hit one of those areas that I always worry about. That place where I become so irrational that no argument will disuade me. Sort of like when Dr. Slater bailed because we defended a persons right to be gay.
|
Where did I say she wouldn't get on an elevator with a lone man? Pretty sure you are imagining things. Also, you are having trouble parsing who I am criticising.
What I said is that her being creeped out, then instructing men not to proposition her in an elevator, is a manifestation of sexism. Also, let's just keep ignoring the fact that her being "creeped out" is a subjective judgement by her. Being propositioned in an elevator is outside the social norm, sure, but is it indicative of impending sexual assault as Dave and Plait keep insisting(and Watson implies)? Doubtful. That is just their cultural bias speaking and blinding them to their sexism.
I mean, seriously, listen to Dave_W. He is literally saying that being male is "the definitive" indicator of sexual assault. If he really believed that wouldn't he have to advocate the immediate segregation of men and women? Just because a behavior only occurs in one sex does not mean you can predict who is going to engage in that behavior. Also, woman v woman sexual assault is merely very rare, not totally absent. So he is defeated by his own failed logic, women have a non zero chance of sexually assaulting other women. According to Dave_W's reasoning that is a useful predictive tool!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 19:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Rebecca Watson said she was tired and wanted to sleep. The offer by the man in the elevator was inappropriate (to say the least) and Watson used that instance to say "Guys, don't do this". If Richard Dawkins doesn't realize that is not a way for men to treat women, well, he's another clueless male.
(Yeah, I'm a clueless male, too, but at least I realize this). |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
