I’ve gone back over all your statements in this thread, The Ryan, and the closest I can come to finding a place where you state that the OP accused the man of being a rapist is where you refer to the “Fine, get raped, if that’s what he intends to do” sentence. Please correct me if I’m wrong; it’s possible I missed the quote you’re referring to.
This is a tangential use of the classic if/then causal statement, in which an outcome is assured given that certain preconditions are met.
So, we can say “If the man was a rapist, then AotL would get raped.” However, we can also say “If the man was not a rapist, then AotL would not get raped.”
See, it’s that little word “if” that makes the difference. Removing it from the sentence in question definitely creates an accusation: “Fine, get raped, that’s what he intends to do.” There’s no doubt in that statement, and the accusation is plain. However, we can’t discount the presence of the word “if”, since it’s obviously there. That indicates doubt. With doubt, there’s no accusation. And as you’ve so adroitly stated, repeating something over and over (i.e., “She accused the man of being a rapist”) doesn’t make it so.
I could say, “The Ryan, if you were any dumber, you’d be a rock.” Hypothetically speaking, of course. You would be foolish to complain that I’d called you a rock, because you’d then be automatically granting the assumption.
The Ryan did point out that the main problem is the fact that strange men (or women)could be potentially ANYTHING devious, and that the OP decided to choose Rapist as the possibility to point out. It is obvious that rape is the worst of all possibilities (behind getting murdered).
As far as no one else seeing The Ryan’s side of things, that is completely false… I am the person who originally started all of this, and it was The Ryan who came to support my side of things.
Of course, it has snowballed from there.
Yeah, there’s a lot of objectionable things that this internet stranger could POTENTIALLY have been. Why is it that I don’t think that anyone would have taken any of these other choices as a personal attack on all men?
[sub](Patiently waiting for someone to attack my theory by posting the comparative statistical probabilities of a man being a rapist vs. being an Amway salesman)[/sub]
Mind if I extend just a bit, especially in responding to my friend PLD?
a) I’ve got no citable evidence that rape is underreported. I have, however, known a half-dozen women who were either raped as adults, or sexually molested/abused as children/preteens. Of these assaults, none were reported.
It’s a small, non-random sample, but needless to say I lean toward the supposition that rapes and other sexual assaults are significantly underreported.
b) kabbes had it right on the modifiers thing.
c) The underlying reality, to a typical woman, probably looks something like this:
Most men are decent people who won’t use their greater size and strength to their advantage, at my expense.
OTOH, there are a few bad apples out there.
When I’m in a vulnerable situation with a strange man, I don’t know which category he falls into.
But the downside of letting down my defenses with one of the bad apples is pretty extreme.
So even if the odds are way tilted toward this particular stranger being trustworthy, the extremity of the downside if he isn’t makes it a bad risk to take any chances.
Let’s say, by analogy, that two weeks ago, I put up a walkway between the roofs of the two WTC towers. It’s a few feet wide, but with no handrails. You and I need to get from the top of one tower to the top of the other.
Let’s say the odds are 99 in 100 that you won’t fall. Are you going to walk that bridge? I’m not. In my two-weeks-ago, back-when-we-still-had-the-WTC example, I’m taking the elevator down, walking across the plaza, then taking the elevator back up. Why? Because while the odds are excellent that nothing will go wrong, the downside of being wrong is extreme. And the upside is comparatively trivial.
Kinda like the situation where AotL is concerned about a strange man in her dorm room.
Phil, I suspect you know all this, and I’m going over familiar territory. I think the difference is just how we perceived what the women in this thread were saying. You seemed to be picking up ‘with any man, there’s a small but tangible danger of rape’ as opposed to ‘there’s a lot of decent men, but with a small number of men, there’s a major risk of rape - and I don’t know which strangers are which, so I’ve got to be on my guard with all strangers’.
Your off-the-cuff odds of a man being a rapist came in at about 166 to 1 against. I suspect that, for most women, that’s not sufficiently long odds to justify taking a major risk with a total stranger.
Nothing wrong with 28 year olds, but a 28 year old hitting on a 18 year old girl in between her senior year of HS and first semester of college, traveling a long distance to meet her the moment she’s out from under her parents’ roof - yeah, this activates my creep-o-meter.
There really is a pretty big gap between the experience of a 28 year old and that of an 18 year old. My first reaction (and my second, and third) is that either he’s a misfit who can’t get a date with women anywhere near his own age, or he’s a borderline predator who’s figured out a good strategy for scoring with 18 year olds, and is sufficiently satisfied with it to stay with it, rather than date women his own age.
So “I’m not entirely sure that Sauron invites people over to dinner only to slowly torture and then kill them, but I’m certainly not going to take that risk” is not an accusation? An accusation is no more acceptable simply because it is done through innuendo.
I would just like to remind you that while other people have been repeating things in the expectation that I will suddenly change my mind, I have been repeating myself because people have constantly said “I don’t understand what your problem is”. There’s a big difference between between badgering someone with a position, and being asked over and over again to state one’s position.
Not anywhere on this board but the Pit. If you can get one, just one moderator to agree that that is acceptable outside the Pit, I will concede the point.
Unless stupidity is a non-Hausdorff space, “If you were any dumber, you’d be a rock.” is logically equivalent to “You are a rock”.
To further clarify the point that I think that you are making, the probability should be applied to men in general (“a certain percentage of men are rapists” is valid) not any man in particular (“this man has a certain probability of turning into rapist” is not valid).
It comes down to how strong the probability is that AotL appears to assigning to the man being a rapist. To me, it looked like she was assigning an inappropiately high probability to it. The “if he wants” part doesn’t make it any better; even if I wanted to rape a woman I wouldn’t. To imply that this man, that she has never met, is the kind of person to rape anyone he feels like raping is, to me, inappropiate.
The wording in the OP wasn’t “I’m not entirely sure…” There was a distinct “I know he probably isn’t…” also stated the OP. Which is not present in the sentence you wrote above.
Also, in your sentence above is the ambiguity of whether or not Sauron is or is not a stranger. Which is a vitally important detail for the OP, and for the rest of us when discussing this issue. Also absent from your sentence is any details about who else would be at the dinner. Are they strangers also? People you know? How long will this dinner be? What time of day will this dinner take place? Will the neighbors still be awake? All important details.
Try parsing actual sentences the OP wrote, and try to convince us that there was an actual “accusation” there. Making up your own sentence, (which is substantially different from the OP) and trying to pass that off as an “accusation” isn’t going to cut it.
Tell you what, The Ryan … you come up with verifiable statistics that prove people called “Sauron” on a message board are known to invite people to their homes only to torture and kill them, and I’ll grant your assertion. I’ll go one better. Give me ONE verified instance of the above actually happening, regardless of statistical probability, and I’ll withdraw from the argument and concede the point.
Until you do, though, I’m leaning toward that whole “rock” interpretation.
See, it actually DOES happen in this world that women get raped by strange men. It happens often enough that many women are concerned about having an unknown man sleeping in the room with them. The OP granted that the man probably wasn’t a rapist. But it was a possibility. And nowhere in her post was an accusation.
You’re comparing two completely different issues. Either compare people in general torturing and killing people to people in genral raping women, or compare you specifically torturing and killing people with this man specifically raping women.
I’m following through on an implication (not an accusation) that you made. An implication about me, specifically, but I’m magnanimous enough not to hold that against you.
It is within the realm of statistical possibility that an unknown man could be a rapist. Earlier in this thread, someone calculated the odds at around one in 166. Dunno if that’s accurate or not. The point is, there’s a definite statistical possibility.
When you add to that statistical possibility the behavior of the male in question, I would argue that the odds rise a bit. RTFirefly posted this:
I would agree with him. These are somewhat suspicious behaviors. Not accusing the guy, you understand; I’m just saying that what he’s doing raises questions.
Now, I don’t know how FAR those suspicious behaviors raise the odds. Got no stats whatsoever. But there are things in life that make you go “Hmmm.” And in those cases I think it’s prudent for people to follow their gut reactions. Being concerned about the possible consequences of having a stranger, about whom you know nothing, spending the night in your room at the invitation of your roomie (who by the way has never met this person), is completely normal in my opinion.
It would be wrong to accuse an unknown person of being a rapist based on the information above. However, since that wasn’t done (see below for more information on the if/then statement), I think we can move on.
Now, on to the assertion you made – specifically, that I invite people to dinner only to torture and kill them.
On this message board, there’s one Sauron. Even if we grant the assertion that someone on the boards is a torturer and a killer, the odds are one in 17,000 or thereabouts that I’m that person. Around .00005 percent.
But wait! You didn’t assert that someone on the boards was a torturer and a killer. You asserted that I am the torturer and the killer. In that case, I can only point to my life’s history, in which I’ve never tortured and killed any human that didn’t deserve it. Especially not after inviting them to dinner. That would be rude. So your implication isn’t accurate.
Finally, I feel the need to point out once more the intricacies of the If/Then statement. I learned these relationships in fourth grade, but perhaps different educational systems use different teaching methods.
Saying “If you were any dumber, you’d be a rock” isn’t the logical equivalent of “You are a rock.” The If/Then statement above (in which the “then” is implied) clearly draws a distinction between the two states of being. There’s you, then there’s a rock. The two are dissimilar. You would be similar to the rock, and share its characteristics, only if your intelligence level dropped.
Allow me to demonstrate this with a line I heard once in a porn video. The male actor said, “Baby, if you were any hotter, you’d be on fire.” In your world, he would be telling the female actress she was on fire. I think you can see the fallacy in that line of thinking.
After reading all the posts from the men, I now understand why the date-rape statistics are so high.
Let me make one thing clear, men. We women have to worry about rape. We have to do things to protect ourselves that most men don’t understand or even know about. If I walk out to my truck at night in a parking lot, I walk confidently but quickly, hold my keys in my hand so the keys stick out through my knuckles (in case I need to punch someone), check the backseat before I get in, and I lock the doors as soon as I’m inside. How much of that do you do? I try to avoid walking alone at night, and if I do, I carry a gun.
If you wonder why a woman waiting at the elevator changes her mind when the doors open and the two of you are going to get in alone, it’s because she’s worried that you could be a rapist. It happens and we’re warned about it.
If you wonder why your new date doesn’t want to be picked up but instead wants to meet you at a bar/restaurant/movie theatre, it’s because she’s worried that you could be a rapist.
If you knock on a door of a stranger’s house and the woman answers with the chain lock on and a very guarded look, she too is worried you could be a rapist. Yes, she probably worries about burglars, but thieves can only take your stuff.
Here’s one more thing we women are told when we’re advised on getting help (such as a troubled car.) Predators stalk their prey. When you’re in trouble, refuse the help of the man who comes up and offers it, especially in dangerous situations such as late at night in a quiet place. Instead, approach someone and ask for help. That person, whether male or female, is less likely to be a troublemaker simply because of that one simple rule. So if you’re wondering why a woman looks scared when you stop to help her and she refuses persistently, that’s why. You are scaring her. In her mind, you’re preying on her.
Don’t you get it? Angel has every reason to wonder why this 28-year-old man would drive two days to be alone with an 18-year-old college girl. I don’t think it’s narrow-minded of her to wonder why someone of that age would want a relationship with an 18-year-old. She shows uncommon maturity to realize that there is a difference in those two ages. My husband is 28, and while he will admit that he enjoys looking at attractive young women, he would find most 18-year-old girls much too immature to want a relationship with. Yes, those kinds of relationships can and do work and aren’t necessarily abnormal, but most mature adults wouldn’t even consider it.
Now, a final note. I know most if not all of the men on this board are not rapists and would never dream of forcing a woman, but please, for those of you who think we’re paranoid or insulting to make assumptions, learn the facts. Women have something we have to deal with that most men never have to think about unless they’re in prison. Understand that just because it won’t happen to you, it can and does happen to us all the time.
P.S. After re-reading my post, I realized I was unfair to the men that actually understood our points. To you I apologize and thank you for your understanding.
Tough shit. Your hurt feelings don’t mean much against the threat of violence she has to worry about. I’d think she was stupid for not crossing the street to avoid you.
Then you of all people should understand why a woman would try to avoid that same situation.
Uh, and you wonder why women avoid you late at night? Let me set you straight. The majority of the women in this world would not stand a chance against you without a gun or knife. If she didn’t have one, her best bet is to do her best to get as far away from you as possible.
Do you wear a sign or something? “Hi, I’m not a rapist. I would never dream of hurting a woman.” Wouldn’t you rather your daughters be too cautious than not enough?
But there’s still a possibility that you are that type of person, just there is a possibility that this guy is a rapist. You’ve completely ignored this comparison, and instead compare the possibility that you are a torturer to the possibility that there exists a rapist, which is a completely unfair comparison.
No, it doesn’t draw a distinction; all it does it establish a relationship. For the statement “If you were any dumber, you’d be a rock” to be true while “You are a rock” to be false, there must be some levels of intelligence A and B such that A is my level of intelligence and B is the level of intelligence of a rock, and no level of intelligence exists between A and B. This is a strange situation. Normally between any two points there is another point in between. Therefore, the only way A and B to not have anything between them is for them to be equal. For instance, between 3 and 4 there is 3.5. Noramlly if someone were to say “If x were any lower, it wouldn’t be positive” it would be perfectly valid to conclude that x can’t be positive.
It is NOT perfectly valid to conclude that “x” can’t be positive in the scenario you outline above. I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time seeing this. Again, take a look at the rules behind an if/then statement. The “if” posits a change in the status quo. That change has not occurred when the statement begins. That’s where the “then” part of the statement kicks in.
It’s valid to say “If Sauron invites people over to torture and kill them, then you will be tortured and killed if he invites you over.” That’s a valid if/then statement. It can be refuted, however, if I can show that I do NOT invite people over to torture and kill them – for example, if I prefer to do my torture and killing at my victim’s house. Or if I don’t torture and kill people. All you have to do to disprove an if/then statement is negate the first half of the statement. It follows logically that if the requirements for an action to occur don’t happen, the action itself doesn’t happen.
Let’s take another example. We can say “If you stick your hand into sulfuric acid, then you will be hurt.” It stands to reason that if you DON’T stick your hand into the sulfuric acid, you WON’T be hurt. The first half of the if/then statement must occur to make the second half true. That’s the very essence of an if/then statement. To say that it automatically equates to a specific result is ludicrous; the statement itself posits at least two outcomes to a situation.
