Self defense is rape culture?

Post Reply New Topic

Disagreeing with your reasoning is not a personal attack, no matter how much you wish to present it as such.



Whereas I could sit here and read your false allegations all day long. I disagree with you. Accept it and move on.

Do you think you are alone in having experienced obnoxious behaviour? Do I need to give personal accounts of my own experiences in order to justify holding an opinion on a subject? I certainly don't think so.



I speak as someone who disagrees with you. You seem to have a hard time accepting this. You've just implied my opinion is the one that is less valid on experiential grounds. At no point have I rejected your right to an opinion, nor your right to express it. I am under no obligation to agree with it, or even respect it.

If you want to challenge my views, show the same respect I've shown you by doing so on the grounds of my actual opinions rather than those you would like to project upon me.



I haven't noticed any misogynists in the thread. Would you care to point them out? Are you labelling them solely on the ground that they disagree with you? Does that make you a misandrist for disagreeing with a man?



Asking a stranger "Can I f**k you?" in rude and invasive manner is not verbal abuse. It might be shocking, it might cause you discomfort, it might even trigger a panicked flight-or-fight response, it most certainly is not socially acceptable, but it does not constitute verbal abuse or "a verbal attack".



{{Citation needed}}



As is clear from your anecdote, that was your decision.



Rather than respond to any of this nonsense, I'm going to invite people to play their own game of "spot the logical fallacy". So far this entire post has been one continuous, unsubstantiated attack on my character, and has failed to address any specific point I've made.



Ah, so now you're comparing me to the random obnoxious guy. Am I doing this wrong? Was I supposed to subject myself to your will after your diatribe?



As did you:

"Yes I got him to submit"



I'm pretty sure I'll survive your half-baked attempt at character assassination, thanks all the same. I agree with you, you do seem to have a tendency to allow emotion to override reason without considering the consequences.



The same people who told you that your actions were wrong earlier in the thread, the people who leapt to your defence, seemingly solely on the grounds of your gender, or some as yet silent people whose approval you're making a plea for?



Victims cannot be attackers and vice versa? What a ridiculously black and white view of the world you have there. Also, see earlier quote where you yourself said you made him your victim.



On the contrary, I don't think you've learned anything valuable from your experience. From my vantage, it seems that all you've done is confirm your pre-existing biases.

So you expect her to let the man force himself upon her and violate her and not do nothing even though she has a gun? In that kind of scenario its too late! If a gun was pointed at him and threats were made he would back off and run away but if he persisted *bang dead* and she goes to jail for murder?

He said

"Can I f- you?!"

I said:

"Can I punch you in the mouth?!" and I demanded an apology which was warranted. I also got it.

I have noticed that those who accuse me of attacking him have not called his behaviour an attack.. Only "obnoxious". Double standard even though my actions were in defense.

NOT ONCE did I physically physically attack him so stop saying attack. I did threaten to punch him the mouth in a response that was derived from something HE said. He verbally attacked me. That choice was his.. it was not based on instinct or defending himself. He just saw a woman stepping off a bus with her guard down and wanted to get some sort of power trip.

What he said was threatening sexual assault. What I said was well deserved and what I felt was not wrong. If people want to stop women reacting like I did they need to stop men from attacking them IN THE FIRST PLACE. If not you're just being apologists for misogynistic filth.

And if people are going to respond to me.. don't cut and edit my posts to suit yourselves and ignoring the things that are inconvenient.

Remember three pages ago when you accused her of "chasing an obnoxious man down the street to harangue him in feminist dogma"? I'd say that qualifies as misogyny.

Stop trying to downplay the man's behavior as merely obnoxious. "Obnoxious" is talking on your phone during a movie. Catcalling is hostile and abusive, not obnoxious.

Has anyone misrepresented you by responding line by line? Can you provide an example?

It's a fairly common form of response to posts where a variety of claims are made on the internet, there's even a word for it, 'fisking'.

Funny you should make that claim though, as you yourself are not actually addressing anything anyone is saying, but rather repeating yourself, mischaracterizing others, and launching multiple personal attacks, which in case you've forgotten in your long absence, are somewhat frowned upon here, while ignoring most of what is actually being said. There's a word for that, too.

I'd say that qualifies as a difference of opinion, while calling someone a misogynist qualifies as a personal attack, something you should probably try and avoid doing less than 24 hours after joining the site. Straight into PPR too, not the usual route Aspies seeking support take...

He asked for examples of misogyny and I gave him one. That's not an attack. And I don't appreciate you trying to threaten me. So you joined the site in 2008, and have over seven thousand posts. This gives you power over me?


And just what is that supposed to mean?

Point out where I threatened you and/or said I had any power over you; I'll wait.



It means that's it's rather unusual for someone to join the site, go right to the politics section, and jump into several of the most contentious threads with a series of highly aggressive posts within minutes of joining (I was on last night, I saw the time stamps), seeing as how this is an Autism support site and most people come here seeking support and information, as opposed to a political battle. It's, how shall we say, suggestive.

Personally I don't care who joined when, or what their motive, I'm happy to have a debate with them.

Completely irrelevant to this discussion, and it's none of your business what support I need or want. Why even bring it up?


Go on? Suggestive of what?

I appreciate the thought.

I'd be happy to debate, if debate were on offer, but so far all I've gotten has been hostility and insults, and coming from a suspicious user profile, I'm not particularly interested in sinking time into that.

That is your choice.

Not to belabor the point, but look at adifferentname; he's putting a ton of time and effort into patiently explaining his arguments, rebutting responses, and clarifying his positions, and his "reward" for all that is repeated insulting insinuations and attacks on his character, along with his arguments essentially being hand-waved away. Now, my experience has unfortunately been that that's par for the course when debating feminists, but it's disheartening nonetheless.

Getting back to the original topic, though I've seen it made multiple times here on WP in recent months, I haven't really seen anyone defending the "women have no responsibility for their own safety" premise explored in the OP video.

No, civil harassment does not have to be a credible threat of violence in the US, just reasonably threatening and or annoying. And yes, telling someone can I F You in a hostile voice does most definitely rise to that level of threat in the US. Perhaps not where you live, but yes, in the US.

Here is an example of the law here:

And yes state laws do amplify the general federal regulations on civil harassment, in the US.



Almost every woman would find it alarming and seriously emotionally distressful for a strange man to ask her can I F you coming off a bus in a hostile tone.

The fact that you cannot understand the gravity of this, is also amplified by your statement that you see most human beings as 'colourblind' and the world with a myriad of tones. You treat people like objects here. That is sufficient metaphor for color blind.

And if this were a science forum, understanding emotional content of human communication might not be so important, but in fact it is a religion, philosophy, and politics forum where all three are arts and not a science. And literally impossible to fully understand without understanding the emotional content of human communication as that indeed is what they are, arts of emotional human communication.

They are not science; they are art of emotional human communication with concepts that are rife with human emotional content as well (yes, technically, you can enter a Political Science course in college, but in the real world emotions most definitely do run politics; cognitive empathy is the real expertise that counts for those who manipulate it to their advantage).

I was simply wondering why you are so rude to people. And now I see why. You are not doing it on purpose. And perhaps you are one of the few people here who are seriously autistic to the point where there is no way you can help it.

It is a spectrum. Some people can learn cognitive empathy, and some folks simply cannot, it seems.

I was one of the ones that could. Perhaps you are one of the ones that cannot. If so, I do not hold that against you, and from now on, since you admit that you see humans as 'colour blind' for metaphor and the rest of the world in a myriad of tones; I will accept you for how GOD makes you. And no, the GOD of nature I know, does not play fair.

And even if you were a psychopath which I feel 100 percent sure at this point, you are not; I would accept you the same, as that can be an innate issue too.

In other words, I feel you need support here too, even if I don't personally agree with your behavior as it 'affects' others emotionally. And even a faux debate section here, is probably the only place you may find acceptance, considering the apparent level of the severity of understanding cognitive empathy.

No, you do not effect or affect me at all. Simply as I have been to hell. Real hell. Not the fairy tale stuff.

You have a difficult time understanding intent, and that is to be expected too. I was not talking about my personal way of life, I was talking about the culture I live in, and the fact that at least women are respected overtly and protected as such, where I live, no matter how much I have a distaste for rigid polar gender expectations, as humans are a spectrum in gender and sexual orientation too.

I think you are being honest, and I appreciate that the most. As with all challenges come gifts, and that seems to be one of the ones, that come with a severe issue of understanding cognitive empathy. One has to do that to be able to lie, as well.

Please don't take offense; I am blunt as well; but always honest; believe it or not; and no I do not expect you to believe that at all. In fact, I'm not sure you could, and that too, is part of the issue. Sometimes folks can tell with intuition, without needing reams of evidence. This is why I do know you are honest; I do not need reams of evidence.

In other words, I just treated you like a human being, if you caught that, friend. And no I am not being sarcastic when I call you friend; I see you that way and most others regardless of how they see me. That too is part of the human condition; philosophy style. :) Yes, my style.

And you would be mistaken. Feminist =/= woman. Go back a few pages and you'll find we've already addressed this.



Not by any reasonable moral or legal definition it isn't. Just because you aren't comfortable with something, it doesn't make it abuse.



"where I live" is the country that America based its legal system on. Our two legal systems are still incredibly similar, especially regarding common law, and yet strikingly different at times. You would have to do a great deal of reading to appreciate some of the subtleties and nuance though.

In this instance, it does indeed require a credible threat of violence. Either you don't speak legalese or you've chosen to post this out of context. Either way, I'll translate the part you've quoted from Cali law.



We have three things that constitute harassment under California law. They are as follows:

1. Unlawful violence
2. credible threat of violence
3. knowing and willful course of conduct

This must be directed at a specific person - i.e. an individual rather than a series of different people.

We'll rule out 1 immediately. No actual violence took place.

Here is part 2 of that code that you didn't post.



We can also rule out number 2, As the man walked away immediately after his question, there is no grounds for a "reasonable person" to be in fear for their safety. Note that "reasonable person" is a hypothetical member of society who is defined as being "average".

And part 1



This was not a pattern over a period of time. It would take even a half-assed lawyer approximately 2 minutes to show this, and to point out that asking questions - no matter how rudely - constitutes freedom of speech, which trumps every state law there is.



What a delightful misrepresentation of meaning. I'm quite aware of the potential for a human being to be upset by something they find distasteful or intrusive. It just happens to be irrelevant to the discussion. What we find distressful does not entitle us to abuse the rights of other human beings.

You have again chosen to project your own meaning onto my words. For clarification, the reason most human beings are "colour blind" is because we have a tendency to have black and white opinions. Who am I treating as an object? I place myself among "most human beings". This was not objectification, it was pure philosophical sophistry.



This is not the first time that you have tried to make this spurious argument. I'll repeat what I posted in response last time. This is not the aghogday forum, you don't get to choose how people express themselves. More pertinently, logic and reason are philosophical staples, no matter your desire to exclude them.



A bold claim, unsubstantiated with evidence. The creation of an art can be an emotional undertaking. The experience of art can be emotionally moving. The art itself is devoid of any emotion bar those which it's perusers choose to project upon it. Emotional appreciation of art is a subjective non-standard that serves no purpose in the quantification of proper behaviour in society. This is why we have developed clinical, cold, legal definitions. This is why we no longer burn witches or form angry mobs to storm the baron's castle. It is not enough to scream loudly and point your finger in a decent society.

Pure and applied logic is a legitimate philosophical stance. You don't have to like it, but it's not going anywhere.



So on a forum for autistic people you have subjectively stated that you think an autistic person is rude and blamed autism for the subjective rudeness? Do you believe this is appropriate? I am not my condition. It's ironic that this is where you would choose to take your argument after the lecture on emotional context.



Whereas others learn something resembling it, apply it inconsistently and only with people that do not challenge or disagree with their ideology.



Your concept of god has no definition or context outside your own mind. Having read your crazed-stream-of-consciousness posts in the past, I'm fairly convinced that you believe yourself to be god.



Case in point, here you make a magnanimous pretence of god-like powers of forgiveness.



Now you seem to think that my presence here - and by logical extension the presence of others - is somehow subject to your approval. You demonstrated this earlier too, with your attempt to re-codify the rules of this board according to your personal interpretation.



You've included hell within your god fantasy.



On the contrary. I refrain from making assumptions about intent, because I prefer not to make the mistake you frequently have within this thread.



A culture which you whole-heartedly approved of whilst extolling the virtues of forming gangs to beat the snot out of people for the heinous crime of being rude. You've posted your opinions here, not those of your community.



I am being honest, not that this has any meaning beyond the subjective, but that does not denote an inability to empathise. Ignoring emotional pleas does not equate to a lack of empathy in the same way that not stating a love for football does not equate to hating football. If I choose to disregard emotional arguments on the grounds of my personal ideology then that should be respected. Instead you're trying to pigeon-hole it as a flaw. Again, this is ironic when you consider the subject matter.



I am not personally offended by anything you have posted, despite the fact that much of it can easily be construed as offensive. Personal slights or derogations demonstrate nothing about the target, only the author.



Yes, you treated me like a human being. You started out by drawing a false impression based on an extremely limited sample of my being. You continued to make derogatory assessments of my being based on this extremely limited sample and drew conclusions based merely on your own projections.

You are not my friend, nor I yours. There is no ill-will towards you (or indeed anyone) on my part, however.