Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

If it were me I would feel uncomfortable too. I am not precious or a drama before anyone says it. I am simply aware of the dangerous women alone at night can face and while not the worst thing the man could have done to her I do think it is completely inappropriate for a man/woman to ask a total stranger for sex in that manner.

As for Dawkins, he may have been making a good point but as usual he was dismissive and condscending about it which wouldn't encourage anyone to listen to him.

If I woman I had just met in a lift asked me to come back to her hotel room for sex I would be uncomfortable, I would think it was very weird, I would think there is something wrong with this women.

I wouldn't say I just escaped a potential murder.

Does that mean she wasn't planning on killing me? No, she could have been. It just means that she probably wasn't, my life probably wasn't in danger, but I still wasn't going to stick around to find out.

Watson was right to feel uncomfortable about what happened. That though doesn't justify a position that she escaped a raping.

Such a position is only justified in the first place with the idea that all men are potentially thinking of raping women. Remove that assumption and the position that she escaped a sexual assault seems as much an over-reaction as the idea that I escaped a potential murder by not going with the woman in the elevator.

Zombrex

Justicar wrote: »

When a professional mathematician/logician tears asunder a fallacious chain of reasoning, it doesn't, alas, make him a troll.

No, trolling makes them a troll. Please go away.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

I've seen American sitcoms. I was just pointing out that it wasn't as overt as asking 'want to get down and dirty'. I'm sure it was probably a round about proposition, but it was put forward in the most inoffensively worded way humanly imaginable.

strobe wrote: »

To be fair he asked her {paraphrasing from her vid} "Don't take this wrong, but I thought you were really interesting, would you like to come up to my room for some coffee to talk more". It's hardly asking if she wants to "get down and dirty".

Kizzonian wrote: »

what are u insinuating? She was tired thats why he said coffee he didnt talk to her maybe he didnt have the courage there is absolutely nothing going on this is stupid wtf im leaving this thread now lol

gypsy_rose wrote: »

i do find it a bit sad though, what if a man meets a woman he genuinely just wants to hang out and be friends with, can he not ask her to go somewhere without worrying that she thinks hes coming onto her?

MrStuffins wrote: »

4 pages of posts in this thread! All because some bloke chanced his arm in a lift! Jaysus!

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Is the world actually so mental that a guy can't hit on a girl without it being some sort of pseudo-sexist issue?!

If this IS to be deemed as sexist or misogynistic, then surely there's an epidemic of misogyny every night of the week, in every pub, club and bar the world over...

MrStuffins wrote: »

Just because she doesn't like it, doesn't make it mysogonistic. She can say it's inappropriate but it doesn't make it so! Grabbing her boob would've been inappropriate. Asking her back for coffee? Not at all!

Monty,

These are some examples of what I was talking about. Posters seem to feel Watson was incorrect to feel uncomfortable, that is ok for strangers to proposition women alone.

At least thats how I read it.

Justicar

sink wrote: »

The difference lies in the level of social relation on which both scenarios take place. The black man on bus scenario is merely an action, it does not involve an interaction with a third party. The man in the elevator scenario is on the level of social contact, it not only involves a third party but also necessitates a response from the third party and is a rare interaction.

So, you're saying the thing that logically distinguishes one situation from the other is on the degree of social relation?

What if I'm the bus driver? What if I have my feet sprawled across the aisle? What he's a polite black man and says good evening to me? What if he doesn't exact change?

I do not think you've done the remotest bit of work in disturbing my argument in the slightest. All you've said, at base, is that it deals with some level of social relation and action. These features are common in both situations.

In the elevator, it's just social interaction. Just an action - talking.

On the bus, it's just another social encounter - perhaps some chitchat as I'm telling him to get his ass to the back of the bus, or whatever.

I see no feature that is logically distinguishable in one case from the other.

I might be a bit slow; can you explain this social "level" of relation, and how that relates to "action"?

AudreyHepburn

Wicknight wrote: »

If I woman I had just met in a lift asked me to come back to her hotel room for sex I would be uncomfortable, I would think it was very weird, I would think there is something wrong with this women.

I wouldn't say I just escaped a potential murder.

Does that mean she wasn't planning on killing me? No, she could have been. It just means that she probably wasn't, my life probably wasn't in danger, but I still wasn't going to stick around to find out.

Watson was right to feel uncomfortable about what happened. That though doesn't justify a position that she escaped a raping.

Such a position is only justified in the first place with the idea that all men are potentially thinking of raping women. Remove that assumption and the position that she escaped a sexual assault seems as much an over-reaction as the idea that I escaped a potential murder by not going with the woman in the elevator.

Of course it doesn't mean he was going to rape her. But it was an inappropriate thing to do, I think we can agree on that.

But I feel that many posters think she should not have felt uncomfortable, that what he did was ok.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course it doesn't mean he was going to rape her. But it was an inappropriate thing to do, I think we can agree on that.

I wouldn't do it, but then I don't pick up as many girls as some other guys do.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I feel that many posters think she should not have felt uncomfortable, that what he did was ok.

Can you please stop asserting this without backing it up?
Oops, I'm an idiot, I missed your previous post. I'll look at it now. Apologies!

sink

Justicar wrote: »

So, you're saying the thing that logically distinguishes one situation from the other is on the degree of social relation?

What if I'm the bus driver? What if I have my feet sprawled across the aisle? What he's a polite black man and says good evening to me? What if he doesn't exact change?

I do not think you've done the remotest bit of work in disturbing my argument in the slightest. All you've said, at base, is that it deals with some level of social relation and action. These features are common in both situations.

In the elevator, it's just social interaction. Just an action - talking.

On the bus, it's just another social encounter - perhaps some chitchat as I'm telling him to get his ass to the back of the bus, or whatever.

I see no feature that is logically distinguishable in one case from the other.

I might be a bit slow; can you explain this social "level" of relation, and how that relates to "action"?

It's part of sociology. My argument stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relations

Justicar

Wicknight wrote: »

No, trolling makes them a troll. Please go away.

And I have pointed out to you some of the distinctions between trolling and refuting a poor chain of reasoning. This would fall into the latter category. But I'm glad we're both sufficiently reasonable to note that an subject which falls into some predicate is a subject that falls into some predicate. I suppose the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

Not to put too fine a point on it: merely because you fail to appreciate what it is that satisfies the question "what is a logical structure" doesn't, alas, mean that I'm trolling.

You must do much better than this.

AudreyHepburn

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I wouldn't do it, but then I don't pick up as many girls as some other guys do.

Can you please stop asserting this without backing it up?

I did back it up above.

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what missing the point though.

If Watson was going to be raped in that elevator she was going to be raped in that elevator. The way to avoid that is to not go into an elevator on your own at 4am. It isn't for the rapist to not say something a bit creepy while in the elevator with her. That has got nothing to do with whether he will or won't rape her.

What we are really talking about here is the illusion of safety, not safety itself. What people, including Watson, were really saying is Guys don't say things that remind women that they can be raped, it is uncomfortable and upsetting

That is a world away from actually raping someone or putting someone in a position where they have a genuine threat of being raped.

The idea that if this guy was going to rape her but then just didn't say what he said it would have been all ok is some what ridiculous. This is Hollywood bad guy syndrome. The rapist isn't going to shout 'I'm going to rape you now'.

Rapist come in all shapes and forms, date rape, marital rape, stranger rape - there seems to be a lot of professing to know some kind of hive-mind that rapists operate with...

Anyway, sure, the best way to avoid such situations is not to put yourself in them - rather than asking folks to show a bit of cop-on and self-restraint clearly the rational thing to do is all hide away so we never have to happen upon such people...still missing the point, really. A hotel elevator at 4am should be safe for a lone woman to traverse without being made to feel uncomfortable due to an unsolicited approach.

I think RW is perfectly right to make a suggestion that the world would be a less uncomfortable place by giving the kind of guys who think a 4am proposition to a lone women in an enclosed area is a good idea just because they are so socially retarded they can't make the same approach when in the bar/lobby/whatever, something to think about.

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I feel that many posters think she should not have felt uncomfortable, that what he did was ok.

If you see that in what people are writing I've missed it. Most of the comments I see from people who are on the other side are people saying it was a bit creepy but trivial.

Justicar

sink wrote: »

It's part of sociology. My argument stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relations

You're saying that the thing which demonstrates my chain of reasoning is a citation to a sociology entry wikipedia? Further, not only will show that reasoning flawed, it simultaneously show that it was "pitiful" and "ridiculous"?

One of us has a great deal more confidence in wikipedia than the other it appears.

Who knew: sociology entries on wikipedia could bring ruin to logically sound and valid chains of reasoning. I will definitely have to see about getting a grant to do some research on this particular death-knell.

Dave!

I've only bothered reading snippets of Justicar's posts, but he's going on ignore already... Tiresome stuff...

AudreyHepburn

Wicknight wrote: »

If you see that in what people are writing I've missed it. Most of the comments I see from people who are on the other side are people saying it was a bit creepy but trivial.

I.e. she is overreacting by being uncomfortable.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Monty,

These are some examples of what I was talking about. Posters seem to feel Watson was incorrect to feel uncomfortable, that is ok for strangers to proposition women alone.

At least thats how I read it.

Ok, thanks for digging those up. I don't think any of those are arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable though. They do seem to agree that it wasn't a big deal.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Rapist come in all shapes and forms, date rape, marital rape, stranger rape - there seems to be a lot of professing to know some kind of hive-mind that rapists operate with...

No one has said otherwise. But again if this guy was a rapist and was planning on raping Watson in an elevator he was going to rape her in an elevator.

No one as far as I can see is saying It was stupid of Watson to go to an elevator on her own at 4am, she might have been raped

Again this seems more about the illusion of safety than actual safety. Watson was no more or less at risk of rape after this guy said what he said than she was before he said it. She was no more or less at risk of rape if he had never said it at all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Anyway, sure, the best way to avoid such situations is not to put yourself in them - rather than asking folks to show a bit of cop-on and self-restraint clearly the rational thing to do is all hide away so we never have to happen upon such people...still missing the point, really. A hotel elevator at 4am should be safe for a lone woman to traverse without being made to feel uncomfortable due to an unsolicited approach.

This demonstrates exactly my point. Being made to feel uncomfortable and being unsafe are entirely different things. And vice versa, feeling comfortable is not the same as being safe.

If this guy had not said anything to Watson but was a rapist she is no more safe in that elevator than if he had said something. In fact she is less safe, since after the proposition she probably was hyper aware of him.

Instead of saying I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while being safe what Watson is really complaining about is I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while not being reminded that I'm not safe

Again being comfortable is not being safe and vice versa.

Justicar

Dave! wrote: »

I've only bothered reading snippets of Justicar's posts, but he's going on ignore already... Tiresome stuff...

Yeah, logic is difficult and tiring for a lot of people. It's why so many students fail mathematics and logic classes every term. It takes a good amount of effort.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I.e. she is overreacting by being uncomfortable.

Well no - she's overreacting by thinking it's a big deal, and then by going on an epic rant about rape and sexual abuse when Dawkins satirised her position. Dawkins specifically says that she's entitled to feel however she likes.

Privileged Rich White Old Guy wrote:

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I.e. she is overreacting by being uncomfortable.

She is over reacting by the notion that she escaped a potential raping.

I've no issue with her being uncomfortable, I would be uncomfortable if a woman in a lift asked me back to her hotel room. I would think 'Weirdo'. I wouldn't think I've just avoided by murdered.

robindch

Justicar wrote: »

Suffice it to say, some people here have been arguing on a rather curious set of facts which are either a.) not borne out by the evidence or b.) omit countervailing evidence even when said evidence is on the same document. I am under the impression that one of them is a moderator.

If it's me, then please let me know where I've posted something false.

Having said that, and read your longish post above, I have to say I'm not much closer to understanding your view of the incident, or gained anything more worthwhile than a general belief that you can't stand Rebecca Watson. Nor, in any case, would I wish to wager more than the cost of half a penny toffee that you actually are the guy in question, so I'm disinclined to put any more effort into parsing your posts.

And drop the "delenda est" nonsense -- further use will result in carding or a forum ban.

sink

Justicar wrote: »

You're saying that the thing which demonstrates my chain of reasoning is a citation to a sociology entry wikipedia? Further, not only will show that reasoning flawed, it simultaneously show that it was "pitiful" and "ridiculous"?

One of us has a great deal more confidence in wikipedia than the other it appears.

Who knew: sociology entries on wikipedia could bring ruin to logically sound and valid chains of reasoning. I will definitely have to see about getting a grant to do some research on this particular death-knell.

If a wikipedia entry is so unsatisfactory I recommend reading 'Economy and Society' - Max Weber , which will provide you with better insight.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Nor, in any case, would I wish to wager more than the cost of half a penny toffee that you actually are the guy in question, so I'm disinclined to put any more effort into parsing your posts.

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

No one has said otherwise. But again if this guy was a rapist and was planning on raping Watson in an elevator he was going to rape her in an elevator.

No one as far as I can see is saying It was stupid of Watson to go to an elevator on her own at 4am, she might have been raped

Again this seems more about the illusion of safety than actual safety. Watson was no more or less at risk of rape after this guy said what he said than she was before he said it. She was no more or less at risk of rape if he had never said it at all.

I thought it was about her discomfort - and the reason for that discomfort. That her first thoughts at being propositioned may be fear and then annoyance of being made to feel fearful due to someone else's social ineptitudes is not the same as accusing that particular man of being about to rape her.

Wicknight wrote: »

This demonstrates exactly my point. Being made to feel uncomfortable and being unsafe are entirely different things. And vice versa, feeling comfortable is not the same as being safe.

If this guy had not said anything to Watson but was a rapist she is no more safe in that elevator than if he had said something. In fact she is less safe, since after the proposition she probably was hyper aware of him.

Instead of saying I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while being safe what Watson is really complaining about is I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while not being reminded that I'm not safe

Again being comfortable is not being safe and vice versa.

I don't know if I agree that was the point being made - and I'm not sure of the distinction being made between wanting to feel safe and not being reminded that potentially she isn't safe - I imagine both hold just as true.

If the guy was a rapist it would have been a completely different blog. From what I've read I don't believe RW ever refers to him as potential rapist or infers all men are rapists. I think the point RW was making is why discomfort is felt - and that it is inextricably linked to the very real risks posed by some men to women...culminating in a plea to guys who needlessly place women in a position of feeling uncomfortable by approaching them in inappropriate places and at inappropriate times, to just think about what they are doing if they want to avoid being thought of as a complete oaf. Pretty basic stuff until Dawkins wades in with his dismissive bucketful of hypocrisy.

Justicar

robindch wrote: »

If it's me, then please let me know where I've posted something false.

I didn't take notes of who said what wrong. Like I said, there was an awful lot of stupid crammed into 22 pages. Further, it would appear you have no plans to demonstrate reading comprehension. I clearly, explicitly stated that it wasn't a complete argument; for that, there was magically mysterious other place on the internet where it's being held hostage.

Having said that, and read your longish post above, I have to say I'm not much closer to understanding your view of the incident, or gained anything more worthwhile than a general belief that you can't stand Rebecca Watson.

Well, I am certainly in no position to argue that you should be able to understand fairly straightforward language and simply put chains of reasoning. So, I think we're agreed there.

Nor, in any case, would I wish to wager more than the cost of half a penny toffee that you actually are the guy in question, so I'm disinclined to put any more effort into parsing your posts.

You didn't put in any in the first place, otherwise the very first paragraph wouldn't have confused you. Nor would the comedy label on the video have escaped your steely mind. Nor would you be somewhat not quite sure about whether or not I hold Rebecca Twatson in high esteem. These are fairly obvious, and to help it along just ever so slightly, I did you the courtesy of writing it down for you. I know, that's my folly, but I wasn't in the mood to draw big bird pictures with ugly crayons.

And drop the "delenda est" nonsense -- further use will result in carding or a forum ban.

No, please! Anything but that! Do NOT throw me into the briar-patch! But you get down with your bad self breaking me off right and proper with the powerful, important internet button pushing skills you have going on there.

Also, and again I know you're not good at reading so I'll type this slowly for you, I said I only came here because of the trackback, and that I would be happy to answer any questions. In the interim time, I thought I'd try out your little community here and see what kind of thinking goes on. I'm unimpressed let's just say. I was quite patent about those two things - you know, showing up as a courtesy to disabuse some of your less intellectually fortunate members. I note that you are one since it would require almost no research beyond reads words on a page to know that I'm not the real elevator guy.

Seriously, you've demonstrated a near perfect ability at being functionally illiterate; your members here en masse lack the capacity to understand logical predicates of first order logical structures--we're not talking predicate calculus stuff here--and then the asshat who thinks a logically sound and valid chain of reasoning is vulnerable to the great juju powers of wikipedia. C'mon, surely you guys can find some smarter* people to chat on here.

Congratulations. Here's a fortune cookie. Wait, give that back. I'll read it for you to again, you know, help you out.

Why oh why do I even bother slumming in places like this. They told me you guys would be half-retarded; I just couldn't listen. Well-played there I suppose.

For you though, since I'm such a nice guy, I'll formal, proper latin instead of that nasty slang.

Ceterum censeo Rebecco Twatson esse delendam.

*the trick is getting them to want to stick around

I think you are the kind of people Bertand Russell had in mind: most men would rather die than think. And most do.

Tootles. =^_^=

liamw

Dave! wrote: »

I've only bothered reading snippets of Justicar's posts, but he's going on ignore already... Tiresome stuff...

You made a wise decision...

Justicar

liamw wrote: »

You made a wise decision...

Wise isn't really a word you guys should be using amongst yourselves. Just sayin'. =^_^=

enfant terrible

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think RW is perfectly right to make a suggestion that the world would be a less uncomfortable place by giving the kind of guys who think a 4am proposition to a lone women in an enclosed area is a good idea just because they are so socially retarded they can't make the same approach when in the bar/lobby/whatever, something to think about.

I don't think she'll be getting many approaches now

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If the guy was a rapist it would have been a completely different blog. From what I've read I don't believe RW ever refers to him as potential rapist or infers all men are rapists.

She doesn't. Her initial objection was that it was sexist and objectifying (which is of course bad, done with that sort of thing). She does though endorse others who have said the potential rape situation.

When we feel uncomfortable about something that has happened to us we naturally look for a rational reason to justify such feelings.

That doesn't mean though we don't find reasons that are huge over reactions. When this is done in the context of, say black men, people have no trouble combating the over reaction with the notion of not justifying racism under the argument that it made you uncomfortable. After all just because some black men commit crimes that doesn't mean a white person made uncomfortable by a black man should dictate to black people how not to make white people uncomfortable. Such arrogance would be seen as highly inappropriate.

This balance is something that seems to be largely missing, or at the very least some what social unacceptable, when it comes to women and their fear of men.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Pretty basic stuff until Dawkins wades in with his dismissive bucketful of hypocrisy.

Dawkins waded in to the potential rape situation nonsense.

strobe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Monty,

These are some examples of what I was talking about. Posters seem to feel Watson was incorrect to feel uncomfortable,

That was obviously not what I meant by my comment. In fact my very first post in the thread made that painfully clear...

that (it) is ok for strangers to proposition women alone.

As opposed to propositioning women in front of a bunch of people? ('Cause that goes down really well...) :that smiley I despise:

Bob Cratchet

What if it was a women asking a man back for a coffee, would it have been such a bid deal ? - These high horse feminists and their ego's make me laugh.