I should have known better than to answer you in good faith. It’s a mistake I’ll try not to make again! ::sobs brokenly, runs up the stairs and slams bedroom door::
sigh
The purpose of the rape victim hypo is to point out the lack of general applicability in the proposed rule concerning “tone deafness.” The point of the analogy was to pick facts as different as possible from the first scenario, in order to explore what the essential element of “tone deafness” are. It is NOT to say that the hypothetical facts were similar to those in the first scenario.
Do we really have to keep going with this endless cycling over the phrase “tone-deaf?” Does it really matter? Can we just agree that expecting an apology was delusional, and it would be equally delusional for the Smarts to expect one from Elizabeth’s captors?
Now, now **Dio **- don’t ref the thread or you’ll piss off villa.
Not to mention the fact that Ginnie Thomas wasn’t the victim you should have been equating with Elizabeth Smart … if anyone, it should have been Anita Hill. Ginnie Thomas wasn’t the victim of shit.
How tone deaf would you have thought whatshisname-the-rapist to be if he called Smart and demanded an apology for sending him to prison?
ETA: yes, I know, bad analogy … Clarence wasn’t punished at all.
Yes and no.
My agreement on the former arises from my personal conviction that Hill did not lie in a major way. I think she shaded her testimony to cover gaps in memory, but I believe SHE believes she was telling the truth. Under that real-life circumstance, it’s delusional to expect an apology.
But I don’t agree that’s true “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” It’s true for me, based on how I feel about that past event.
My disagreement on the latter is based on the knowledge that rpsits have been known to apologize to their victims – sometimes for genuine reasons of remorse and more often for self-serving ones involving parole or probation.
Elizabeth’s rapist is a diagnosed psychopath. That means he is psychologically incapable of remorse, and I’m sure the Smarts are aware of that.
Too bad Bricker fucked up this thread because it’s difficult get down to a proper pitting of the Ms. Thomas Teabagger like the above
How about this?
“I apologize for the fact that my testimony was unable to stop the admittance to the Supreme Court of a strange man with sexual obsessions that he couldn’t keep out of the workplace. Look on the bright side though, Ginni. I can call you Ginni, now that we’re phone pals, right? Anyway, you wouldn’t have been able to lasso in such a stud if I didn’t turn him down. America may have lost but you definitely won, eh? BTW, what exactly are your qualifications for being in the teabagger party? Spill, girl! I won’t tell anyone. Promise!”
I thought the DSM-IV dropped “psychopath” in favor of “Antisocial Personality Disorder.” No?
Anyway, is there any psychological reason a psychopath (or an individual suffering from antisocial personality disorder) couldn’t apologize in order to get favorable parole treatment?
Yeah, it’s a goddamn shame the usual hen party can’t commence.
The problem is that analogies are fairly useless when it comes to issues such as whether a statement is “tone deaf”. “Tone deaf” is such a subjective term and has so much to do with so many specifics relating to the precise situation, the precise connection of the sayer and the sayee to that situation, etc., that it’s nearly impossible to come up with a truly meaningful analogy. So all that’s going to happen when you offer up an analogy is that it will hijack the discussion, and nothing will be resolved. One might even claim that for you to bring up this analogy was tone deaf 
(This is eerily similar to the big Michael Moore-ACORN pimp kerfluffle from a while back, where people were criticizing ACORN pimp (O’Keefe?) and you set up an analogy comparing him to Michael Moore and (as many of us perceived it) accused us all of being hypocrites, yada yada yada…)
Seems to me that you could only have a hen party if female chickens could post on a message board. According to whocares v. whogivesafuck in 1300 BCE, it was established that female chickens could not participate in many human activities due to the lack of opposable thumbs. Some would say that chickens have no thumbs at all. Hell, they only have rudimentary digits in their wing structures. Although their theropod ancestors most certainly had digits. However, we can’t really go over these thought experiments due to the premise established by who, oh whatever.
Now some of you may be wondering whether I’m purposely misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase “hen party” to distract from the fact that Bricker is really trying to accuse me of being a superficial woman with nothing to contribute to such an important topic as Ginni Thomas and her bat droppings. All I can say to that is, I’d now like to debate the true meaning of the word “party”, whether hens can participate in such events, and, if not, would they be able to if they had opposable thumbs or, at the very least, properly developed digits.
In a related note, this Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill thing almost got me fired.
At the time, I had just started my professional career in software development, and was working on telephony system software. I had to set up a phone system with named subscribers, so I picked names that were in the news at the time. Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and stupidly, I also used ‘Long Dong Silver’.
A tester found a name display bug, and in the defect report described the displays, of course referencing the names on the subscriber accounts. A developer was offended, and I was called onto the carpet.
So, Bricker, are you just going to keep ignoring all of the trucks I drove through the gaping holes in your argument and hope no one else notices them?
Don’t make me laugh when I have to pee, damn your eyes.
But aren’t we all?
And in a related note… inasmuch as Ms. Hill apparently teaches law, I wonder if the FBI had to explain to her that there is no violation of federal law committed by calling someone and asking for an apology.
The moment you drive a truck through a hole in my argument, I will address it. Promptly.
Unless, of course, you know them to have a heart condition, and your intent is they die as a result of laughing their ass off at your utter gall for asking.
Might have some forseeability problems in a getting a conviction, but that sure 'nuff would be probable cause.
AFAIK, she wasn’t reporting Ms. Thompson. It’s my impression from what I read that she submitted the call to them because she thought it was a harassing prank, not genuine. Was I mistaken?
Liar. Or you’d have attempted to refute every point where I demonstrated that you’re wrong.
Assuming there was no more to the phone message than has been posted publicly, I wondered what violation of law she felt warranted the attention of the FBI?