From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Forget it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:04:33 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug19.063315.24538@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> 	Well, tyhis will be my last post in this thread, as several things
> have become obvious.  Several things that, while they might be appropo to
> discuss via e-mail, if I cared to invest the time on an irrelevant
> argument, are pointless to discuss in this forum.
> 	I have noticed, and I wonder if anyone else has also, that DC seems
> only interested in telling people that they are wrong.  Even if a person
> dissagrees with him on a matter of opinion, he will insist that they are
> wrong.  Even if a person repeatedly points out that it is a matter of
> opinion, or personal choice, DC will post several hundred lines of
> arguments that will say that you are still wrong.  I feel that an opinion
> can be prooven neither right nor wrong, but, apparently DC disagrees with
> me on that too.
> 	DC, I must ask you:  Why must you feel the need to prove some
> irrelevant point to everyone who disagrees with you?

ONLY when the person stating their views tries to force other people into
adhering to their "opinions". If someone says rape films are wrong, and a
listing should not be posted, they are telling other people "You should not do
that."--they are trying to force their opinions on others by telling me and
others waht we can and can not do.

Someone states that rapists should be executed, and if a few innocent lives are
lost, oh well. I attack that because the person is advocating a position which
would severly curtail the rights of people, and with the popularity of people
who preach intolerence, like Pat Buchanen, I am going to slam down every person
I come across who advocates such narrow views that infringe upon others.

With you, it is a bit different. You are not merely advocating a position by
walking people out, you FORCE them to acccept your help. You go farther than
either of these, because you bypass the whole public debate and political
process of having your views accepted--you simply do them.

Let me explain quite clearly what would happen if I found out you gave me an
involuntary escort. I would confront you while we were out on the street. If
need be, I would call the police from the nearest pay phone. While they were
talking to you, I would continue on my way unbothered. Now, would you do the
same actions the next night or not? How long until you finally gave up your
forceful guardian role on me?

And bucko, your logic paints into a very small corner here. If you decide not
to escort me out, after X amount of trips like this, then you only escort 
people who do not make it a hassle for you. If that is the case, then what you
are saying is if a woman does not want you following her home, she must expend
the effort to make you so miserable that you get disgusted with her and leave
her alone.

And why should anyone be forced to expend so much effort in an attempt to not
have you forcing your views on them.

You know, your argument of "It is my right to be out on the street." sounds a
lot like the same thing that protects the bad guy in "Cape Fear". The law says
that he is allowed to interact in society until he breaks specific laws.
However, no one who watches said movie believes he has a "right" to follow them
around EVEN IF the law says he does.

But, since you are protecting people from themselves, I guess that makes it all
O.K., right?



>   What should it matter to you, if someone other than yourself's rights are
> violated?  You have stated repeatedly how stupid I am for risking my life
> to help someone I do not know, then you say that I am violating that persons
> rights!  What do *you* care about other people?  

Because I care about everyone's rights. I worry about the rights of rape
victims and potential rape victims. I care about th rights of accused criminals
and innocent victims. I care about homosexual rights despite the fact when they
stand up there in gaudy drag and lisp their rhetoric in public, I can't stand
them. I hate RAP groups, but I worry about their rights--as well as the rights
of their customers--when some old and intolerant judges and legislators try to
ban their music.

I worry about the rights of ALL people because as long as SOME people can stand
back and say, "I believe that this is wrong, therefore, you must change.", I
know someone is going to try it with me, and my family, and my friends.

As for it being stupid, I agree that it is stupid, however, one should not be
stopped from doing stupid things, only warned and then let go on their merry
way.

You just refuse to let them go on their merry way.

> 	You have stated several times that you would refuse someone who
> weas not a friend or family member some protection, yet, when the
> (according to you) "moral rights" of a person who you do not know are
> possibly violated, you immediately attack?

State it correctly. I object to, and find no reason why I should be EXPECTED to
sacrifice my safety for someone else--because if I am expected to do so, I lose 
mcuh of the right to decline risking my life.

See, I am protecting my right to decline to risk my own life, and I am
defending the right of another person to risk their life if they so choose. I
have no objection to you dressing up in drag and walking down dark alleys so
you can lure rapists in--that is stupid, and your right. I do not object to you
walking a willing person through a bad neighborhood and then wlaking back
alone. Once more, not a wise move, but it is your right. 

But you force your views on others, and deny them their right to not have you
interfere with their decision. 
  
> 	DC, if you do not care to risk your self for someone else, then
> fine.  I hope that the majority of people out there do not feel the same as
> you.  But, I cannot say what the majority thinks, because no one has posted
> to this thread, except for once, other than you or I.  And, they dissagreed
> with you to some extent.  I vaguely recall you responding to them telling
> them in essence, that they were wrong.  I might guess that a few people who
> may have otherwise posted decided not to, due to the possibility of you
> posting huge follow ups and attempting to get them into an argument that is
> pointless.

Perhaps. And perhaps it is becuase they are afraid of the same thing that has
happened to you--I do not let it go as long as you are claiming you have the
right to inflict your views on another.
  
> 	DC, I do not care if you say I am wrong, or if you say that I am
> violating someones moral rights.  *I* know that *I* do the right thing for
> me, and I sure as hell help other peoplr.  Sure, it's their choice to do
> what they want, but, I draw the line at letting people risk themselves for
> no gain.  Yeah, I know, I know, I am not letting others live their own
> lives, whatever you say.  Right, like, preventing someone from getting
> attacked is going to remove all the controll from their lives.  You know,
> maybe so...  *sarcasm time*   
> 	Perhaps we should all be like DC, and not stick our noses in when
> there is a personal risk, but, only interefere with peoples business if we
> can't be hurt by it.  Thats the idea, now!  Hey, who cares if you cannot go
> out at night because its too dangerous to go alone, who cares if your
> friends won't help you.  Hey, as long as they don't bother me...
> 	*sarcasm off*

*Sarcasm time*

Well, maybe you would like it is we were all like you. Then we would have
people patrolling beaches to remind us of using our sunscreen. We would have
people telling us to buckle up if we chose to risk our lives while driving. We
could have people patrolling garbage cans to find out if we ate too much fat in
our diets, and then have them picket grocery stores in an effort to stop them
from selling unhealthy items.

We would have even more 'Moral Majority' groups trying to force televison
stations, movie studios, radio sattions, and book publishers to not make
material which will 'harm our thoughts and moral fiber'.

We would have disgruntled hosewives trying to force the closure of strip joints
because they force their husbands to love them less.

We would have people enacting laws requiring a bicyclists to wear a helmet
while riding to protect them from their accidents.

We would have voter referendums in Oregon which state homsexuality is as
deviant as child molesting, and that the state can not only permit, but
encourage discrimination of homosexuals to protect our society from itself.

Oh, gee, I'm sorry. Those last four examples were not sarcastic. They are
all real examples, and pretty much similar to what you do--interfere with 
another person's right to make their own mistakes.


> 	Anyway, I realized, too late, alas, that the only thing being
> accomplished from this thread was to give DC a chance to argue.  Thats all
> he does, here, is dissagree with people.  I think I have seen 1 post of his
> which actually had some relevance to preventing rape.

Go back and re-read. Or, you joined the newsgroup real recently.

> 	Now, why do I say that it seems like DC only likes to be here to
> argue?
> 	1)  Several times in his posts he referrs to various "thrashings"
> of others posts, or "defeating" their arguments.  Sounds like he is trying
> to 'win' or proove something.  From the fact that he is a non interference
> type, I assumme that he is jealous of people who are willing (and,
> sometimes dumb enough :)) to go out and help someone.

Nope. I only object to people forcing their views on others. When someone does
that, they are fair game.

> 	2)  Frequently he will ask multiple choice questions, and, then,
> seconds later in the same post, he will say "Surpirise!"  as though anyone
> reading them could not POSSIBLY have had an answer to those questions that
> could have been even remotely correct.

No, not anyone, just you.

> 	3)  If anyone ever tells him one of his arguments does not fit,
> pretty much all he says is "Your examples just go to furthur proove my
> hypo."  C'mon, DC, not EVERYONE on the net who responds to your posts could
> be such total loosers that they are 100% wrong ALL of the time.  I only
> recall one thread (the handguns one) in which you agree with someone, and
> that is basically because they said that they agreed with your previous
> post.

Gee, have you forgotten all the times I have said it is your right to escort
any willing participants? Or your legal right to trail them if they disagree?
Perhaps you missed the time I agreed when you said she let femisinst dogma
dictate her actions? Were you asleep when I posted that you were right that men
are biologically more muscled and better fighters than women?

Did you skip the posts where I agreed it was O.K. for Kimmy to not fantasize
about rape, as well as O.K. for him to fantasize about rape? Or when I told him
it was perfectly valid for him to raise his children with the notion that
fantasizing about rape is wrong? Perhaps you were in the bahamas when I agreed
with him (and lots of other people) that if someone is fixated with rape
fantasies they should seek medical help.

Should I waste bandwith by going on?

Which helps prove why I do not trim the posts anymore. Too many people like you
suffer from 'out-of-sight, out-of mind' syndrome. Unless it is directly in
front of you, all that you remember is where I have disagreed with you, and you
twist that into an extreme verison of diasgreeing. 

I have agreed with you on quite a few points. Who agreed with you that a person
should not worry about being called a 'wus'? Who agreed with you that
total inactivity in a life-threatining situation (another's life) is NOT the
right course of action?

You suffer from selective memory.


> 	4)  He makes personal attacks towards other people who disagree
> with him, without ANY provocation whatsoever.  Of course! I forgot.  When
> he complained that ATAYLOR (whom he has referred to me as, in his last
> post, so what the hell, I'll bring that in too) began name calling, and he
> complained that this was done (quoting her, approx, now) "just to get your
> attention"  Fine, I can see having a problem with that.  
> 	BUT, then when HE does the same thing to someone else, he justifies
> it by saying "But, you ARE an idiot" and then tries to prove it!  Boys and
> girls, sad but true, and no matter how hard he tries to deny it, DC is a
> hypocrite, and that may be the least of his 'virtues'

Before I called you an idiot, you made derogatory statements about my fears of
being called a 'wus'. You throw the first punch, you expect me not to respond?
Calling you an idiot was hardly hypocritical, it was a counter-punch. And if
you don't like it, maybe you should not have thrown that first swing.


> 	5) In one of my articles, he criticized my spelling (whats the
> point of using up even more of my time when posting by spell checking, if
> the words are easily recognizable?) and other petty shit.  Does not sound
> like a person who wants to find the meat of the argument, but rather petty
> shit that is totally irrelevant.

Hmm, let's look at that "petty shit". Did I or did I not say I was not
critisizing your post? Did I or did I not say that you might wish to learn to
spell that word if you are going to use it so often. Did I or did I not say
that I was not faulting you because I misspell plenty of words myself.

Once more, your selective memory is at work, trying to turn what I say into
something different.

> 
> 	So, what I ask of other people is that they look at the 'evidence'
> (in quotes, because, after forging quotes is apparrently something that
> EVERYONE [excluding DC] does, in vain attempts to refute his 'thrashing
> arguments') here and then decide if it is worth responding to DC's posts in
> future.  Because, since I am such moral slime that I could not possibly
> have a valid point to my name, even if I were a cactus, I will not waste
> time responding to his posts.

Claiming I made up quotes 'eh? I want you to state exactly what I claimed you
said that you did not say.

As for claiming that you do not have any valid points to yor name--that is what
is known as hyperbole. It is an attempt to state that the other person's views
are so extreme that they can not be right. IF I state everything you say is
wrong, such a position MUST be wrong itself, therfore I am wrong.

You will note this device does NOT work, as I have stated here, and in the past,
that you have several valid points.

But, your selctive memory (or is is selective presenting?) is hard at work once
more. (And I thought you wrote you remembered what you said--OH! I get it, You
remmeber ONLY what YOU said. O.K., I understand now.)

> 	DC, if you really get off on just arguing, go to a bar and start an
> argument there.  Drunks are the easiest to argue with, BTW, since you like
> 'thrashing' peoples arguments so much...

A drunk is easier than you? Geez...I gues alcohol DOES really deaden the brain.

> 
> 	Sign me,
> 
> 	Disgusted with how much time I wasted by just giving DC another
> chance to try and make himself feel valid in life...
>       Sam

The major fallicy here can be divided into three statements:

1. I did not write you first, you wrote me in an attempt to push YOUR views.
2. I do not feel a need to feel "valid in life". Living and having fun are
justification enough.
3. Arguing with you may have been satisfying when I was 18 or so, but all it
does now is dullen my skill sbecause it is so damned sloppy.

DC

PS. Where are those cites about seatbelts causing harm in accidents?