From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Summary...
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:22:12 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug19.000254.19033@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> 	*SIGH*  Seems DC still want's to trell me that I am wrong...

That is because you continue to insist that your actions are right.


> 	DC, remember, what is wrong for one can be right for another. 

Yes, and YOU decide what is best for both you AND your unwilling escortee--and
give her no say in the matter whatsoever.

> I could give example after example of situations in which your average
> person would agree that sometimes one person has the right to do something
> that others do not.  Besides that, I neverstated that anyone else than
> myself would be wrong in following someone to escort them.  I did say that
> people should excercise caution and good judgement in choosing to do so, if
> there is any doubt that they can handle themselves.
> 	Anyway, the pathetic examples of:  Should I go to the beach and
> tell people to wear sun block, or should I go to people getting into cars
> and say "Buckle up." and also, my favorite, should I go to bookstores and
> tell people not to buy a book because I did not feel that it was any good.
> All those examples are irrelevant, due to one factor: Degree.

Oh? Let's see.

> 	I seriously doubt that anyone will die or be injured from reading a
> book, (although, when I was recovering from a spontaneous pnuemothorax I
> was advised agains reading Dave Barry, because the laughter could cause a
> recollapse).  As far as the sun block goes, they are putting themselves in
> danger, but the danger is *quite* long term, and I boubt that if someone
> does not wear sun block that they would be turned into a quivering mass oif
> cancerous cells in a matter of minutes.  

ALL the MORE reason for you to warn them now! You advice will protect them
from a lifetime of over-exposure. And, if you doubt this is a serious issue,
the Surgeon General has issued stats on how many people are expected to die
from skin cancer over the next thirty years as a result of exposure now.

But, since you brought up long verses short term, are you saying that if the
danger is immediate, THEN it is O.K. for you to warn people?

Then I suggest you go out to the local beach and satrt erecting umberellas to
shade people, as you do not get skin cancer over time--you get it NOW. It takes
the ten to twenty years to develop into something likely to be detected.

So, if you went and warned people at the beach today, you could be saving lives
today.

Now, how is being a busybody at the beach different than out on the street?

Let's look at your next fallacy.

					  Buckling up?  Some evidence shows
> that you can actually increase your danger from certain types of accidents
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cites please for this statement. I dispute it as valid in this argument.

> by wearing a seat belt, and, also, it is my belief that a person who gets
> into a car accident can actually learn something from the experience. 

Such as what it is like to be impaled on a steering wheel? What it is like to
hear the ambulance driver punding your chest as you try to breathe but can't?
What it is like to drive a mototrized wheelchair with your mouth?

What can someone learn besides the fact that they should have been wearing
their seat belt? 

									Most
> rape victims do learn something also, though, that they can become a
> victim, and that it is best to reduce ones chances.

Hmmm, sounds awfully like the seatbelt hypo after all.

Maybe you SHOULD be warning people to buckle-up after all.

> 
> 	As far as the slander thing you talked about again, may I point
> outthat it seems that your position on that has flipped.

No, you just can't read AND understand unless everything is placed in absolute
context, which is why I do not trim the posts.

> 	First you say (approximately) that anyone would obviously see
> 'ignorant slut who drips puss' as an opinion.  I disaggreed with you there,
> pointing out that puss dripping and slutishness were reasonably proovable
> or unprovable, but that ignorance was in the eye of the beholder.

Calling someone a slut is unprovable, as you can not prove someone is a slut.
Tell me, what is a slut? Someone who sleeps with a lot of men? How many? Why
should she be called a negative phrase for exercising her rights to be sexually
active?

Calling her a whore IS provable, if she accepts money for sex.

Saying she drips puss--no one DRIPS puss. Puss drains.   

								I also
> pointed out that many people are unfamilliar with, say, english as a
> language, and thus take what they hear literally (the fucking house fucking
> job deal)  Your response?  What does it matter?  How is that relevant?

Lawyers are in the phone book. Look one up if you want legal advice on this, as
I only offer my legal opinion when I disagree with statements you have made. So
far, you have not made claims about this, only asked questions.

> 	It shows that not everyone can be counted on to see an opinion as
> an opinion, not a fact.

So? How does that affect the fact that whether you state it as fact or
opinion, the law looks upon it KNOWING it is your opinion and treating it as if 
you claimed it was fact or based upon fact.

(No one says, "In my opinion, X is a scum. BUT, I am not basing that upon any
facts whatsoever. So, I encourage no one to believe me, but rather to ignore
me." with any kind of honest conviction.)

> 	Second, after I posted my response stating that your puss slut
> example was off because it could be looked at as a fact, you then tell ME
> that that is indeed correct, acting as though YOU had dissagreed with the
> possibility that it would be taken as an opinion by everyone.  But, of
> course, you are the one who stated that it was only possible to take it as
> an opinion in the first place...

No, I did not switch my opinion. Please go back and re-read. It is possible to
make factual statements about people. (She has slept with four different men in
the past two days.) It is possible to make claims based off of these facts.
(She is a slut.) However, someone who hears you KNOWS that when you are calling
her a slut, it is opinion for the most part. However, the courts treat it as
if you were claiming that her "sluttiness" were a fact. Now, there will always
be the possibility of people who are so poorly educated in idiomatic
expressions that when you say something (I got fired) they might
mis-understand it. However, it is because they do not understand WHAT you are
saying that the problems arise.

> 	DC, I become tired of this.  You go say one thing, then change your
> position, attempting to be subtle, and also, you continually attempt to
> tell me what my morals are.  

OK Ataylor--whoops, I mean Sam, WHERE have I changed my position? I am calling
you in on this one. You are fabricating this in an effort to slide by, and I am
not letting it happen. You can call me insensitive, arrogant, and 
self-centered, but calling me a liar, hypocrite, or someone who changes my tune
is not a smart move.

I am claiming YOU have deliberately fabricated that claim in an effort to
discredit me.

As for telling you what your morals are, forgive me if I state you take the
actions you claim to take.


				I would suggest that you look out for your own
> morals, and let others do the same.  I object to behavior that I see
> frequently, as being immoral if I were to do it, but I cannot usually say
> that it would be morally wrong and then take a stand.  Suffice it to say, I
> am violating no ones rights by following them.

Correction--you do not violate their LEGAL rights. You DO violate their right
to NOT walk with (in front of) a bodyguard watching over them.

  
> 	Finally, edit your damn posts.  You *publicly* agreed to do this,
> yet you do not.  *I* don't have to read something that I wrote in order to
> remember the gist of what I said. 

No, I agreed to put it to rest--you then kicked in with a summary of the 
discussion and posted your opinions on my views. If you don't want bandwith
wasted, why the damned summary? And, if you wanted it put to rest, posting your
interpretation of my views was NOT the way to do it.  

					Perhaps this is not true for you, but,
> then, perhaps if you cannot remember what is going on you should just give
> up news groups?

>       Sam

I remember fine. You are the one who has claimed I have switched things around.
I am calling you on that one.

No, maybe YOU should give up newsgroups, as you appear to be either unable to
understand direct statements, or you are willing to make false claims.

Neither of those are good for debate. Arguing, sure. Debate, nope.

DC

PS. Since you do not appear to know this little gem, I'll state it clearly--If
you want a convesation to end, as you have claimed, you do not achieve that by
continuing to talk on the same subject, as you have done.


Newsgroups: talk.rape