Your Most Controversial Opinions!

If you say so. Lord willing you'll never have occasion to find out. No, they thought they had killed a person. Maybe of them were interviewed after the fact and, at the time, they had thought someone had died as a result of the shocks.Many of the subjects offered to return the payment they had received to participate in the experiment in order to try to convince the experimenter to terminate the experiment; when refused, most of them continued anyway. The fact that they offered to return their payment proves that they weren't simply "playing along" in order to earn some money.

I'm curious what evidence you have for this apparently counterfactual statement. From where I'm sitting, men constitute more than 95% of convictions for violent crimes, which pretty strongly suggests that, in fact, men and women are not equal in their aggressive tendencies. Nobody ever died from losing a friend. Your attempt to equivocate boorish social manners with rape and murder is specious at best. And your boldly inaccurate statements and sweeping generalizations of differing gender trends - "nature made women to be gossips" - are hamfisted and ridiculous, and I notice that you supply absolutely no evidence to suggest that these are anything but society's stereotypes for how the sexes are "supposed" to be.

The rapist. Duh.See, prosecuting someone for committing a crime against you isn't contingent on you meeting society's expectation that you "take responsibility", etc. Society is the one with the responsibility to make public streets safe for human travel. Not rape victims.I don't disagree with your recommendations for personal defense - indeed, I've advocated them in the past - but you need to be more careful how you frame it. Not everybody has the physical capacity to be a martial artist - the handicapped, for instance. Not everybody has the time. And insinuating that, if a woman didn't study martial arts for six months, she has no right to walk down a public street without being raped is pretty insulting and demeaning.

People don't commit suicide because they get picked on. They commit suicide because they're mentally ill. See "clinical depression." No, it's not. But bullying wasn't the topic, and being bullied isn't as bad as being raped. (I've asked.) And your references don't even begin to support what I asked AO to support.

From what basis do you conclude that they aren't? I mean, I'm sure it makes you feel better to see yourself and your friends as being "too good to rape", but that's what everbody said about most people who rape.Look, you can believe whatever you like, I guess, if that's what it takes to make you feel better about yourself. I'm committed, personally, to not telling myself lies just to feel better. I've made no such statements. To the contrary - I admitted that I've been sexist (very sexist), and merely stated that I try not to be, now. I've even come right out and told you that I'm not willing to assert that I'll never rape. (I hope I won't, though.) Self-serving? I've been self-depricating at every turn.It's been you guys who are so adamant that you're "good guys", that you could never be rapists or zap people with lethal electricity or be abusive prison guards (or even simply turn a blind eye to abuse) - in the face of a mountain of evidence that people exactly like you do those things all the time.So cram it up your ass. I've provided a considerable evidentiary basis for my conclusions about human nature, including my own. You all have provided absolutely nothing to indicate why you should be believed when you assert so arrogantly that you know you'll never participate in a barbaric act. We're just supposed to trust you, I guess, trust that, by amazing coincidence, EvC Forum has managed to attract every perfect human being on the internet. Lucky us!

Except, Asgara, I'm not the one who said that. In fact I specifically disagreed with that not more than 20 minutes ago. Faulting rape victims for not "being aware of their surroundings" isn't part of any feminism I've ever espoused. It's simply blaming rape victims for their rape.It's fine for you to disagree with me, I value as many different perspectives on this as possible, but if you're going to make this personal, make it about what Crash does and doesn't get, do you think it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to accurately represent my views as you disagree with them? Because he's being a concern troll. Because his entire contribution to this thread has been to try to construct a false parity between male and female propensity for violence to salve his ego. Because his entire argument boils down to nothing more than "sure, men might be responsible for 95% of violent crime; but I got flipped off by a woman, once."It's ridiculous and demeaning in a culture where sexism and sexual entitlement run rampant, and males are privileged over females at nearly every turn.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I didn't say that's what Archer said. Look, read the thread if you want to participate. Nighttrain, message 182:

quote:

---

If women are too naive or reluctant to learn the basics of self-defence and still venture into precarious situations, then who`s responsible?

---

Maybe you're having difficulty since this is a rhetorical question? Let me spell it out to you - NT thinks the answer is "the stupid woman who couldn't be bothered to learn to fight physically stronger human beings almost twice her size and weight."

Funny, I guess, that I've done exactly that several times now. But, you know, I guess that can just be another falsehood you tell yourself to feel better. I don't understand what you mean about "dividing groups." What makes you think that the groups aren't already divided? What makes you think that anything Schraf and I have said is divisive?These seem like nothing more than empty phrases you're throwing out, again all with an eye towards making yourself feel better. (Empty nonsense usually has that effect.)

Remove the economic incentives to criminality. His personal attitude isn't predictive on the matter, to my understanding. Then I don't understand what we're arguing about. I don't believe I've ever said that men should be introducing themselves as potential rapists. It's my hope that those who realize their potential will be able to make the right choice in an ambiguous situation. It's my fear that those who don't see any potential in themselves for rape will rape, simply because they will take sexual advantage in an ambiguous situation, saying to themselves all the while "hey, I'm no rapist; therefore what I'm doing right now definately isn't rape."

What would you have done as the unwitting subject of the Milgram experiment?

What would be a relevant example of that?

Since you, as the stripper, have made it precisely clear what you're there to do - provide a visually stimulating performance, not have sexual contact - what leads you to believe that that's a "dangerous situation"?

Right. The aftermath of a physical violation. Without the physical, the aftermath isn't anywhere close to as bad.How do I know this? Because every human being has lost friends in their lifetime, but the people who are raped suffer far more than most. Hence, rape is worse than having one of your friends turn on you.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I think they should. I don't think anybody should go through life assuming that they're completely incapable of monstrous acts, because the people who do think they're incapable seem mor elikely to commit them, simply because while they're committing them, they'll refuse to admit that anything that they're doing is monstrous.People who think they're better or different than everybody else are a lot more likely, in my opinion, to simply wave away any evidence to the contrary; much more likely to think that the "rules" simply weren't meant to apply to them.

This is a false attempt to turn my logic on its head. Your reasoning is false because of what we know from human psychology - people almost always think the best of themselves rather than the worst. People give themselves the benefit of the doubt. Almost nobody thinks of themselves as a bad or evil person, or as incompetent at what they do. (No matter what you ask them to rate about themselves, if you ask a random sample of people to rate themselves compared to "average", 70-90% of those polled will rate themselves "above average" or greater.)What you don't seem to understand yet is how many good people wind up doing horrible things. I mean, how do you think it works? The German Army in 1935 simply managed to attract every psychopath in Europe? The Milgram experiment, coincidentally, had every sociopath in town sign up for the experiment?Good people do bad things. Part of it is their desire to be accepted and do what authority tells them. Another part of it is that they always tell themselves how good they are as people, and therefore whatever they're doing can't actually be that bad.