Rape, Victim-Blaming, and... random stuff about religion

Post Reply New Topic

I was just pointing out that official classifications regardless of source can be inaccurate. The US for instance has a separation of Church and State, yet shocking amounts of religiously motivated policies are pushed time and time again. The fact that the country supposedly has this devision, when we see that there hasn't been a single openly non-Christian president for instance, is misleading.

North Korea is arguably the most religious country in the world, if we see some of the Kim personality cult.

Maybe it's just me, but I see no point in adding to a discussion where the opening poster wants to talk about topics they know nothing about.

I agree. But, there certainly are some professing a Christian faith, that attempt to lead us to believe that Obama is a practicing "Muslum". Part of the widespread phenomenon you allude to.

Who are we talking about? If it's me, I know more than you think. I lack experience, but that's not because of me being unaware of anything. As for estimating people's intentions, I'm about as close to omniscience as it gets. Say, do you remember HipsterChick? I had no idea who it was, but I had a very-developed sense saying what it was. If you ever come across a similar situation, remember this: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Also, don't be a white knight acting on good intentions alone, but I suppose that's something most people have yet to learn.



Before you advise others to start 'screen testing', I suggest you start learning how to perform screen tests yourself.

It's funny - who was right in their judgment of that situation? I was - it was a troll, and a transparent one. I received a lot of flak for having a little fun and using his one-dimensional fiction to bring up a known and oft-observed pattern in human behaviour. It's a bit disappointing, though, that not a single person who opposed me and called me a sore loser acknowledged I was right after the thread was locked and the user was banned for being a sockpuppeting troll.

My lack of experience in the dating field is not because I lack understanding of any situation. I know full well what people do, what their intentions are, what their biologically- and culturally-ingrained tendencies are, and what their individual motives are. I'm simply not adept at responding to them. The detector is present, but the actuator is not. That's why I called that troll out right after reading his first post, while you fell for it.

Now, this entire post might read like a personal insult, but that's not my intention. It's simply me responding to your personal insult by reminding you how I, throughout that discussion, had a better track record for being proven right in my suspicions of motives, and better senses in detecting them.

Yeah, HipsterChick was a bit too much of a flake, and I honestly found it too rude to be real that she didn't reply to any well-intentioned posts.

But what can you do. Us aspies tend to be trusting.

I'll admit, I had my doubts on HipsterChick but when I give out help here I give it out regardless if the person is a fraud, a troll or genuinely needing it.
I think there's a lot more to be said about a person wanting to help than a person wanting to tear another person down from every wall.

I congratulate you for noticing they were a troll (or hoping they were) earlier than me but it didn't actually accomplish anything.

So, how's my judgment? Can you explain, then, why I don't know what I'm talking about?

There are two types of people with Asperger's syndrome that I've met. One type that's trusting, and somewhat naive, and occasionally bound to get in trouble, but liked and respected for that. The other type looks for signs or indicators of something going wrong very actively, could be described as mildly paranoid, and is disliked for those traits even when they're useful.



Wasn't hoping. This was not wishful thinking. I'm also active in another community for a hobby of mine, and it used to be dominated by sockpuppets. I succesfully picked every one of them out, because they had glaringly-obvious common characteristics, I argued them out of the way, and they all admitted defeat or were banned within a short amount of time. I've seen more dodgy accounts on this forum recently, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt for at least having somewhat-credible back stories.

If you had definitive answers on blaming and rape this topic would have reached 2-3 pages of agreement and possibly a few side comments from the more autistic of us that are rather bitter. But as it stands I see a lot of counter arguing for 8-9 pages. I'd like to think my comment is justified. Your comment on screen testing is fairly justified. But bear in mind, while I am of the trusting brood I am trying to welcome new posters here regardless if they are sock puppets or not. That is something you do as a community orientated person, and it is not a bad trait. I shouldn't be hounded for wanting to include everybody. I give a fair few people a chance here and even throw bones to people I don't like.

It can be a hit and miss either way. In one scenario, you are trusting people who give indicators that they may betray your trust, and in the other, you may misinterpret signs and end up mistrusting someone who is trustworthy. I can see why the latter may be disliked (imagine how you would feel if someone mistrusted you for no reason)

Anyways, good job for pointing it out.

Hipsterchick didn't comment on it either way after people started saying she is actually a guy. And also said she/he wouldn't post a pic of herself no matter what. lol

HipsterChick was easy to pick out though, especially in that second post.

Why? People denying something does not make the person arguing in favour of a point ignorant or inexperienced. How would science work if there was no room for discussion whatsoever and everything believed now by undergraduates would be taken for truth until the end of time itself - after all, if they can't convince others easily, they must not be knowing what they're talking about, right?



What, the one about settling for a poet? It had a tiny amount of literary value - I'd expect it to be said by a greasy old man in a disreputable stand-up cafe.

Sometimes, when you look at a situation from the outside, or from your unique point of view (everyone has one), you miss what is actually going on. The best way to avoid that is to take in information from all sides, considering all options, and also where the person who is giving the opinion is coming from (where is their information coming from? is this opinion or fact? are they backing up what they are saying?). Then a consensus would have been reached faster.

That one, plus the original was seeping with deceit. When he wrote the recap of his date with the rapist, it became obvious because the description was a textbook example of s**t you can read on lovefraud.

Then again, with hipsters you never know because they are so screwed up in the head in many ways that delusion and their reality is joined at the hip.

Guys pretending to be girls often put words like "chick" in their username to make sure everybody sees that they're allegedly female.

And use pictures of Zooey Deschanel as their display picture