Easiest $100 ever, Gary.
Except, of course:
Yeah. Definitely not worth it.
You know, kids reading this thread really could learn a lot. They could learn the methods trolls like SA use. Here’s one: IMPLY STRONGLY and then dance around and say, “Ha-ha, show me the exact words or admit I never said that!”
Let’s practice, kiddies:
“I said she stole my money. I NEVER called her a thief!”
“I said that kid has the IQ of dirt. I NEVER said he was stupid!”
“I said she had sex with anyone who’d pay her money. I NEVER called her a whore!”
But be careful, kiddos! Don’t try this with judges, parole officers, your parents, or any rational human being. It doesn’t work on anyone but kids like SA.
I hope nobody’s considering actually accepting a check from this guy, or indeed touching anything he has touched.
If you do decide to conclusively cite his casual pro-rape policies for the reward, at least arrange for a sterile transaction like a bank transfer or PayPal.
I’d have suggested telling him to make a cheque out to his nearest rape crisis centre, but let’s be honest he’s never going to acknowledge the actual meaning and implications of his bilge, so why worry?
But in the case of the alleged attempted rape, it’s the entire incident that you characterized as NBD:
As you noted, saying that the blister you got from holding an exploding firecracker is NBD is not the same as saying that holding an exploding firecracker is NBD.
The analogy to that in a case of attempted rape would be if the victim got, say, a slight bruise which was NBD. Which is not the same as claiming that the attempted rape itself was NBD.
But what you said, in fact, was that the attempted rape itself, even if it happened exactly as she alleges, was not “all that serious”—i.e., no big deal.
So no, your inaccurate firecracker analogy doesn’t let you off the hook here from having tried to normalize and minimize the crime of attempted rape.
This is nonsense. You (and others) keep characterizing what I said as “no big deal,” when what I actually said was that “it wasn’t that serious.”
The distinction then?
The comment, “not that serious,” was intended in comparison with rape, which many of the board’s nimrods were attempting to characterize it as having been.
And this is undeniably true. What Ford is claiming was clearly less serious than full-on rape.
But people of your, shall we say, persuasion, have taken this perfectly innocuous and factually valid comment and attempted to construe it as though I were saying that what happened to her was “no big deal,” and that I’m attempting to normalize and minimize sexual abuse.
What I said was correct, your interpretation is wrong, and it would behoove you on an intellectual-honesty level to acknowledge this.
:dubious: An odd claim from someone who has frequently commented on the general viewpoints and specific remarks of, e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bernie Goldberg, “birther” conspiracy theorists, and many other conservative sources.
Whatever your personal habits or choices may be about your consumption, or lack thereof, of specific right-wing media products, you’re clearly getting a lot of exposure from somewhere to right-wing talking points, and it shows in the rhetoric of your posts.
:rolleyes: Let’s review again what you went on to say immediately after the “not that serious” comment:
In these remarks, you were very clearly expressing the opinion that the behavior alleged by Ford was not only “less serious than full-on rape”, but so comparatively “commonplace” and trivial that its victims did nothing about it and just forgot about it, and that seemed to you like an appropriate course of action.
Yes, that sends the very strong message that you’re characterizing that kind of attempted rape as “no big deal”.
No, my own comments, plus my descriptions of how girls back then viewed such attempts, were made for the precise purpose of illustrating how much less serious than actual rape this kind of behavior is.
You said it again. How do I get my $100??
(Psst. You don’t get to say how the girl felt)
So if someone grabbed you, pushed you into a room, turned up the music, pinned you down, and held a hand over your mouth so you couldn’t breath, you would be inclined to see that as minor? Never mind the fact that he was literally trying to get into her pants at the time.
Also, who the hell cares what society accepted as normal back in your days, which I gather is why you keep bringing up how women used to feel. How is that relevant? Society used to think that slavery was normal too.
Silly girl. It’s no big deal when it happens TO A WOMAN because that’s just part of being a woman. It’s the flipside to all the attention and free drinks and shit. It’s part of how things are meant to be. Doing that shit to a man is fucking gross and humiliating. Treating him like a bitch. It’d be okay for a man to kill a man who did that to him.
In fact, so “much less serious than actual rape”, according to you, that you even asserted it wasn’t considered “morally wrong”:
Yes, Starving Artist, that really does send the very strong message that you’re characterizing that kind of attempted rape as “no big deal”.
No matter how much you now attempt to deflect that message by claiming that you only meant that attempted rape wasn’t as big a deal as achieved rape.
SA is typical of all conservatives.
#Jail!!!
I am just waiting on another giant Bill Clinton to pop up again. Those are always so cheerful.
Sarcastic paraphrasing: “You people are attempting to construe human meaning from my words.”
:DBill:)Clinton:DCheerful enough?
CMC fnord!
I’m going to go out on a really long limb here and suggest that attempted rape is just as fucking scary, threatening and dehumanizing as an actual rape.
It doesn’t make the perp a better person, it doesn’t absolve them of ANY culpability in my eyes. That they didn’t get to finish what they intended in no way diminishes the fear that the victim experienced. Sure, maybe there’s no physical damage to the victim, but the emotional and psychological scars remain, as has been evidenced in this very thread.
Again, for all those sharing their stories, thank you and sorry.
Well, we all know rape isn’t so much about sex as it’s about scaring and overpowering the victim.
Four posts over a 13 year span (one from 2005, one from 2009, and two from 2011) is frequent?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Besides, Bernie Goldberg was a career journalist for CBS and quite liberal in his views. It’s just that he was just intellectually honest enough to call out media bias once he got fed up wit it.
And the other posts were the result of my investigating comments made here on the Dope. People would assert claims about these people so I would do a Google search to see what they were talking about.
Further, you seem to have missed that in two of those four posts I was on the side of those here who said the people or claims in them were wrong.
I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh and haven’t for over 25 years, and only occasionally for a couple years prior. I didn’t watch Bill O’Rlley’s show, I’ve never watched Hannity’s show, and as a matter of fact I don’t watch anything on Fox, and as of now I couldn’t name more than one or two of their on air talent, which come to think of it would be Hannity and Shepard Smith.
The fact is I don’t watch more than three or four hours of TV in a month, and I haven’t for many years. Most of what I do watch is either on DVD (A&E’s Nero Wolfe, for example, or various movies) or Perry Mason reruns on ME TV. I don’t have cable or satellite television because it would be a waste of money. I also don’t listen to the radio except for music, and I haven’t for many, many, many years. Like, for almost 30, and even then it was Bruce Williams’ show, which focused mainly on advice regarding financial issues.
So you can infer what you like from my “rhetoric,” but your current inference is factually wrong.