Potty Mouth, Dio! :mad:
Do you mean like starting a thread named “hypocrite PC-zealots and their strawmen” ?
Who do you think you are arguing with?
When you do it to us, you’re just showing us the way of the truth and the light, correct? I don’t see you debating the core issue here (I take it you’re on the “cover up ladies” side, since you advocate debating the issue, not the poster, and the people you’re debating with are definitely on the “ladies choice” side). Instead you are haranguing the rest of us about our poor debating skills, and low moral caliber. If you’re willing to discuss the issue, bring it. Otherwise, you’ve said it before and we’re not interested.
Moving on to Bricker, I thought he was talking about Octopus, but I can see how it could be read the other way.
Or for, for that matter?
I’ve already said I don’t think people should have to worry about how they are dressed. Being skimpily dressed or even naked is not an invitation for unwanted touching, imho. If someone argues otherwise I won’t feel a compulsion to insult him or her in order to change its mind or to shame them.
But you do feel the compulsion to insult the people who insult the person? I’m not sure that helps to establish any kind of moral high ground.
That’s a good point. I cannot deny there is some apparent hypocrisy or inconsistency in my own behavior. The main difference I see is that I’m not insulting people who are arguing in good faith but hold a contrary or even a controversial point of view. I’m insulting people who consistently argue via personal attack and other fallacious methods.
Does it hinder the establishment of a moral high ground? Perhaps, but I don’t think with those I argue with most any form of moral high ground, aside from 100% agreement in tone and position, would be sufficient.
In other words, the OP, and yourself. You’ve made broad sweeping “you all” statements without any clarity as to who it is you are directing them at.
Well, knock yourself out, sport. If I may suggest, though, you greatly wound your own credibility every time you earnestly call someone a “potty mouth”. Further, I’m not sure what progress you expect to make by arguing in what you feel is good faith with people you are convinced consistently argue in bad faith. Maybe there are some bystanders who will be won over to your side (whatever that is), but who knows?
Well, if you find it futile but nevertheless entertaining, by all means continue.
Wrong.
Right. (are you just seeking attention? You’ve certainly succeeded, good for you. :D)
I dunno… I don’t see a lot of specific quoting from you or the OP - just a generalized dislike of what you describe in various terms as hive-mindery or groupthink.
The issue doesn’t seem that complicated to me - if you and SaneBill demand the right to say the waitress’s clothing may have been a factor in her assault (or, if you prefer, he demands that right while you demand that he has the right to demand that right), nobody is stopping you.
If you want your demands to be immune from criticism, well… too bad. You don’t get to have freedom of expression while denying it to others. If you want, go set up your own message board where you can express your views and ban anyone who disagrees.
And that’s as boiled-down a summary of the conflict as I think I can manage.
To recap: they’re insulting people because they find their position offensive, whereas you only insult people whose position you find offensive.
Splendid stuff.
Who is insulting people other than the OP? Who is "they’?
I am a member of the anti groupthink party. Why don’t you agree with us?
Having tried to read that, my brain hurts.
Wrong. Yet pointless to explain, again, in simple language why.
Where is the previous simple language explanation? In particular where the specifics are identified…
Meh. It’s special pleading, from someone who thinks he’s special.
If this is true, then saying “if you lock your door, then it’s less likely that your stuff will be stolen stolen” is also “spliting the blame” and “100% supporting burglars”. But I’m quite positive that you wouldn’t think, even for an instant, that it applies in other scenari, and that you follow this reasoning only for a select few offenses. Following a reasoning when you feel like it and a completely different (ooposite, in fact) one when you feel differently is just being inconsistent. Either you’re wrong when you apply this reasoning to the gropper, or you’re wrong when you don’t apply it to the burglar.
You’re just either trying to justify your feelings (presumably based on the thoughts or opinions you ascribe to the person you’re arguing with) using a random reasoning that you wouldn’t ever apply to anything else, or parroting the “party line” about victim blaming without thinking. Or both.
Note that it still applies even if you can prove with a 100% certainty that being scantily dressed has no relationship whatsoever with being gropped. In this case, the person stating so is just wrong, he’s still not supporting groppers, not 100%, and not even 0.1%.