Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.
Comments
-
-
magicbastarder wrote: »
Prominent skeptic Richard Dawkins opined that Watson had nothing to complain about because Muslim women suffer genital mutilation. By the same token, Western men should suck it up when they’re asked, nicely, to show some manners in the the elevator. Don’t they realize that Muslim women are being genitally mutilated?
(From the above link)
This is what's annoying me, Dawkins is being pilloried, this blog and others (sink I think?) have made this point repeatedly, I don't think it's correct.
Let's look at this from another perspective, let's say the WHO was spending a lot of time addressing and debating diseases and conditions that affect rich white men, distracting the organisation from other larger health issues which ruin the lives of millions of people from poorer areas. It would come under massive criticism for that stance, it would be seen as everything that is wrong with self-obsessed self-important white privileged men hijacking a cause and diverting money and energy to things that are important to them.
If fledgling skeptical/atheist feminist movement does the same, concentrates and makes a large issue about a something which let's be fair in not currently a huge concern to a large portion of the 3.5 billion women alive today. It may be to RW and mods of tLL, but for billions of others the appropriateness of exactly when and where a white college educated man can approach another white college educated woman and proposition her is not exactly a high priority.
Dawkins is not saying they can't complain - rich white men can complain and raise health issues that concern them, and certainly women are free to raise issues like this one, the problem would be when they want to take a movement or organisation along with them and focus on these issues (because they affect them) to the detriment of other causes.0 -
Yes, where I mod is clearly clouding my judgement. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again...Ickle Magoo wrote: »I mean in terms of attacking the views - he is not alone in puting areas of secularism that many others deem pointless and hysterical and easy to live with on a platform under the banner of rational and just and up for discussion and change in the western world but when others do likewise suddenly it's okay to pull the "Geez, there are worst things in the world" card.
It was cheap and hypocritical - he completely dismisses RW domestic pet peeve as being unworthy of complaint while there are greater ills in the world while refusing to apply the same rationale to his own. It also suggests that she cannot both want men to stop hitting on her as well as wanting women's rights to improve - presumably most here have and are able to air their views on secularism in Ireland without being accused of being uncaring or devaluing the issues in other countries? Why the double standard?0 -
I really have become so sickened by this issue. The ridiculousness of it all.
The people running the blogs writing such dribble about Dawkins should be ashamed of themselves.
Was Watson 'right' to voice her discomfort ('rape concern' according to so many supports of RW on the net) at the situation she found herself in ? It's her video she can talk about whatever she wants. It was a complete non-event as far as I can see.
Was Dawkins 'right' to voice his FGM is important so Rebecca Watson's discomfort about been chatted up in an elevator doesn't matter ? Probably not. Ill phrased definitely.
But none of that is important. The **** storm that happened afterwards is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
The extremist nonsense been shouted around because of this.
Richard Dawkins a misogynist, really ?
Rape victims sending letters to him because of RW's 'discomfort' ?
Really. We are supposed to be the rationalists ? Because this is not rational.0 -
Advertisement
-
I wonder did Dawkins think she named the guy when he first posted? given she didn't, it makes it more of a general statement and pretty harmless.
I do think she overreacted but she has every right to do so. Seeing as she didn't name the guy she was just telling her experience of it and not being a dick.
Just to clarify, I don't want that to sound like I'm saying victims should STFU about their attackers, just that whilst I don't think she was in any way a victim, she didn't cause any grief to the guy she took exception to.0 -
If the initial responses had been a rational and tempered:Was Watson 'right' to voice her discomfort at the situation she found herself in ? It's her video she can talk about whatever she wants.
Was Dawkins 'right' to voice his FGM is important so Rebecca Watson's discomfort about been chatted up in an elevator doesn't matter ? Probably not. Ill phrased definitely.
Then I doubtvirmilitaris wrote: »The **** storm that happened afterwards is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
Would ever have taken place...virmilitaris wrote: »The extremist nonsense been shouted around because of this.
Richard Dawkins a misogynist, really ?
Rape victims sending letters to him because of RW's 'discomfort' ?
There are some seriously worrying views and comments from both sides, some of which do nothing but cement the view that within the movement some women are hysterically over-reactionary and some men are needlessly dismissive and misogynistic - which really shouldn't be the kind of advertising/members the atheist/skeptic movement is looking to attract.
Out of the many different ways of approaching the subject, RD chose to wade in to the topic the way he did and is being judged for it, just as RW is now the focus of much ire for choosing to make a plea in the manner she did and her subsequent behaviour - that's the price of choosing to publicly comment on a divisive topic in the manner they did.
I also think it's more than a little disingenuous to infer one side of any polarised discussion is responsible for creating the polarisation.virmilitaris wrote: »Really. We are supposed to be the rationalists ? Because this is not rational.
It really isn't.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »There are some seriously worrying views and comments from both sides, some of which do nothing but cement the view that within the movement some women are hysterically over-reactionary and some men are needlessly dismissive and misogynistic - which really shouldn't be the kind of advertising/members the atheist/skeptic movement is looking to attract.
Why do you label some men in this misogynistic but you don't label the women misandrist ?
I'm not annoyed or trying to defend my fellow male apes as I feel no more comradeship to a man as I do to a woman. I'm just curious to see whether I have missed something or if the word misogynistic gets thrown around more easily than the word misandrist ?I also think it's more than a little disingenuous to infer one side of any polarised discussion is responsible for creating the polarisation.
I was commenting specifically on the most serious nonsense in respect of our community, from what I would have considered rational thinkers, which I see as what is been thrown at RD.
I've quite possibly missed a lot of the crap but from what I've read the extremist **** been thrown at RW is in the form of comments on blogs by trolls of which the most educated seem to be calling her a feminazi or telling her she should be glad of the attention because of her looks. i.e. From nobodies in particular with no particular standing in the community making schoolyard insults. (name calling, threats etc)
The **** been thrown at RD however is from sources that should have more cope on and have really damaged their reputations and the community because of it. Bloggers such as the blaghag etc. i.e. From usually good sources making serious accusations. (RD is misogynistic, RD should listen to these rape victims etc)
In my mind the latter is far more serious than the former in respect to the stability of the community.
Again I haven't read anywhere near all of this. I've read a bit of the thread on PZ's blog, skepchick and blaghag as well as some links offered here so if I've missed most of this **** show and RW's getting similar abuse from reputable sources then I'm sorry for not including it but it wasn't important to my point which was this is damaging the skeptic community.
Rational people are acting irrationally, that's my biggest concern here.It really isn't.
Well how about throwing down the old flag of truce on boards.ie then and maybe show the rest of the interweb how to behave like reasonable people ?
I think Dawkins' comments were phrased very badly and he should apologise. I think RW's initial comment was reasonable although I still consider it a non-event, but everything after from her was in very bad taste and makes her look every bit as bad as Dawkins did with his initial comment.
So how about it ?0 -
I stopped following this days ago, how is this still ongoing?0
-
I stopped following this days ago, how is this still ongoing?
Because the initial proposition has scratched the surface veneer of the so-called athiest-rationalist-feminist community and exposed the ugly bones of your common or garden 'cult of personality'. Disagreeing on the issue is not enough, the opponents must be discredited, excommunicated, relegated to the past for the crime of having a different opinion on a silly issue of little consequence that has little to do with rationality or atheism and has to be squashed and creaked into a bed made for feminist outrage.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
virmilitaris wrote: »Why do you label some men in this misogynistic but you don't label the women misandrist ?
I'm not annoyed or trying to defend my fellow male apes as I feel no more comradeship to a man as I do to a woman. I'm just curious to see whether I have missed something or if the word misogynistic gets thrown around more easily than the word misandrist ?
I haven't seen any comments regarding this issue from women who seem to have an innate hatred for "men" - men who are instantly dismissive and rude and incapable of respectful discussion, yes - but not the entire gender. I'm not suggesting they don't exist, I know there are certainly a few loopers about but I hadn't seen any with that particular theme posting...maybe I stopped reading before the worst descended?virmilitaris wrote: »I was commenting specifically on the most serious nonsense in respect of our community, from what I would have considered rational thinkers, which I see as what is been thrown at RD.
I've quite possibly missed a lot of the crap but from what I've read the extremist **** been thrown at RW is in the form of comments on blogs by trolls of which the most educated seem to be calling her a feminazi or telling her she should be glad of the attention because of her looks. i.e. From nobodies in particular with no particular standing in the community making schoolyard insults. (name calling, threats etc)
The **** been thrown at RD however is from sources that should have more cope on and have really damaged their reputations and the community because of it. Bloggers such as the blaghag etc. i.e. From usually good sources making serious accusations. (RD is misogynistic, RD should listen to these rape victims etc)
In my mind the latter is far more serious than the former.
I think he's getting a lot of flack because he's a very big fish who used a third party blog to ridicule a woman who has nowhere near his status about a subject close to many women's hearts - and tastelessly parodied a subject that many women [and men] feel very strongly about to do so. Double bogey.
In the interests of rationality; perhaps they have a point? Perhaps it is difficult for a septuagenarian to understand the plea RW made or the reason some women resonate with that? Perhaps the reason for his ill-thought out or ill-timed response is ignorance? And maybe he isn't alone there and that's the issue?virmilitaris wrote: »Again I haven't read anywhere near all of this. I've read a bit of the thread on PZ's blog, skepchick and blaghag as well as some links offered here so if I've missed most of this **** show and RW's getting similar abuse from reputable sources then I'm sorry for not including it but it wasn't important to my point which was this is damaging the skeptic community.
Rational people are acting irrationally, that's my biggest concern here.
Well that's an oxymoron - maybe they aren't rational people after-all? Could it be that highlighting that is what actually caused the polarisation? It could be it's an argument that needs to be thrashed out - there are clearly enough standing in opposition that the issue is worth acknowledging and given some thought to...not that I agree with how some are choosing to do that.virmilitaris wrote: »Well how about throwing down the old flag of truce on boards.ie then and maybe show the rest of the interweb how to behave like reasonable people ?
Throw down the flag of truce? How fittingly dramatic!
I haven't lifted a flag, tbh - I could understand RW's initial point and have been one of the few voices trying to explain why RD was out of line, why RW had the right to make the initial point and had a reason for doing so that should be respected...in a forum where the natural demographics mean any discussion on gender lines are very one-sided - and despite it being deemed appropriate to point out that I mod a forum aimed at women because presumably that gives more weight to the dismissal of my views?
Nope, no flag here - as I stated in one of my first posts, I was surprised at the general vitriol directed at RW from the outset - and surprised at the lack of rational thought shown. Especially given many of the negative comments and dismissals came from (the inevitable trolls that show up for their own sad kicks and giggles aside) a usually enlightened and thoughtful community which trades on fighting to get the wider population to understand and respect a minority viewpoint in the name of fairness - and of course I was [am] very disappointed in both RD's response and those that lauded it.virmilitaris wrote: »So how about it ?
:cool: >-O-<0 -
So... I'm on the Dart at the moment, an attractive human of the female sort is sitting in the next set of seats... if I approach her do I need to worry that I might look like a rapist? I have enough trouble approaching women as it is... but now even a polite "Hello." could leave her thinking "is this man some pyscho who'll follow me home and rape me?"
oh problem solved, while I was writing this on my phone she got up and got off the train.
The thing that most upsets me about this is that the sorts of men that will listen to the advice will over apply it, while more overbaring men wil not pay the slightest attention.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »I haven't seen any comments regarding this issue from women who seem to have an innate hatred for "men" - men who are instantly dismissive and rude and incapable of respectful discussion, yes - but not the entire gender. I'm not suggesting they don't exist, I know there are certainly a few loopers about but I hadn't seen any with that particular theme posting...maybe I stopped reading before the worst descended?
Wasn't it you who linked the blog where the woman said she's worried about been raped every time she meets some guy and leaves his number and name on her computer monitor every time she goes out ? That's not misandrist ?I think he's getting a lot of flack because he's a very big fish who used a third party blog to ridicule a woman who has nowhere near his status about a subject close to many women's hearts - and tastelessly parodied a subject that many women [and men] feel very strongly about to do so.
Which subject would that be ? Because most people attacking him seem to think that subject is potential rape which I hope you agree is nonsense.In the interests of rationality; perhaps they have a point?
Who in particular ? The women claiming Dawkins was ridiculing rape and rape victims or the women claiming they can't meet a strange man anywhere without fear of getting killed / raped ?Perhaps it is difficult for a septuagenarian to understand the plea RW made or the reason some women resonate with that?
A "plea" which is constantly transforming before our eyes.
Asking for men not to approach her / women in such a situation as she found herself in because it made her uncomfortable. No issue with me. I can understand it even if I don't completely agree with it. Relatively speaking a complete non-issue but it's her video she can say what she likes.Perhaps the reason for his ill-thought out or ill-timed response is ignorance? And maybe he isn't alone there and that's the issue?
Or perhaps the hysterical ravings of many feminists to his response is ignorant and they are incapable of discussing this issue objectively because to do so would mean Dawkins was guilty of been ill-mannered and not guilty of crimes against womankind ?Well that's an oxymoron - maybe they aren't rational people after-all?
Indeed. I'm beginning to have my doubts.Could it be that highlighting that is what actually caused the polarisation? It could be it's an argument that needs to be thrashed out - there are clearly enough standing in opposition that the issue is worth acknowledging and given some thought to...not that I agree with how some are choosing to do that.
Fair enough. Let's thrash it out but let's do so sensibly then.I haven't lifted a flag, tbh ....
No I suppose you haven't.
But you do seem unwilling to call out many of the feminist bloggers spewing complete rubbish (rape victims letters etc) as well as RW herself who might have been firmly on the right side when this began, is now most definitely as wrong as Dawkins was. Or have I missed it ?
Just one incident in particular where she called out that student is enough to show why she is also in the wrong.
Actually Screw it. Here's it said better than I could. If you don't agree with this video would you care to explain why ?
0 -
virmilitaris wrote: »Wasn't it you who linked the blog where the woman said she's worried about been raped every time she meets some guy and leaves his number and name on her computer monitor every time she goes out ? That's not misandrist ?
I don't recall ever making such a link, no. Iirc, I linked to a male blogger...and also quoted a male blogger as well.
Have you actually read the thread virmilitaris?virmilitaris wrote: »Fair enough. Let's thrash it out but let's do so sensibly then.
I've done enough thrashing for one thread...I think at this stage all those who were going to "get it" - have already...and those who don't and don't want to, have a whole world of posts, blogs and articles to try to better understand, should they ever wish to.virmilitaris wrote: »No I suppose you haven't.
But you do seem unwilling to call out many of the feminist bloggers spewing complete rubbish (rape victims letters etc) as well as RW herself who might have been firmly on the right side when this began, is now most definitely as wrong as Dawkins was. Or have I missed it ?
If you'd read the thread - you'd know that wasn't true...and you'd also know I don't think it detracts from the initial point being made or the embarrassing lack of understanding that followed, either. It just seems to give those that had no time for the complaint in the first place justification for discrediting the complainant - while conveniently ignoring the wider issue it raised.virmilitaris wrote: »Just one incident in particular where she called out that student is enough to show why she is also in the wrong.
And if you'd read the thread, you'd have seen my view on that, too.
Nite nite.
<adds any number of vids and blogs from males who do get it> and demands to know how I can't now be declared right.
Doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »I don't recall ever making such a link, no. Iirc, I linked to a male blogger...and also quoted a male blogger as well.
Have you actually read the thread virmilitaris?
I asked it as a question. I wasn't sure if you did link it hence the '?'
But you must have read it then in which case do you not label such comments as misandrist or not ?I've done enough thrashing for one thread...I think at this stage all those who were going to "get it" - have already...and those who don't and don't want to, have a whole world of posts, blogs and articles to try to better understand, should they ever wish to.
Everyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't get it ? I know that you are intelligent enough to retract or rephrase that.
I do get it. I'm pretty sure most of the posters here get it. I understand and even agree to an extent with it. The guy in the elevator clearly didn't employ good social skills.
I even agree that RW was reasonable to ask men not to behave like that to her and that it would be good advice for all would-be suitors of others to employ more tact in their dealings with the opposite sex.
Where we part ways is when hysterical nonsense comes into it such as the accusations of potential rape.If you'd read the thread - you'd know that wasn't true...
Where have you dismissed the latest actions of RW or the bloggers coming out with the accusations of potential rape ? Apologies if I missed it. I have skimmed the entire thread but it's long and I did come late.and you'd also know I don't think it detracts from the initial point being made
No it doesn't and I said as much in my last post. In fact I went out of my way to say it. Have you read the thread ?<adds any number of vids and blogs from males who do get it> and demands to know how I can't now be declared right.
I'm beginning to see a pattern to many of the RW supporters posts. You seem to think having males that agree with your position should add extra weight to it when dealing with other males.
I didn't post that video because it was posted by a female, I posted it because I happen to agree with the person posting it.0 -
virmilitaris wrote: »Where we part ways is when hysterical nonsense comes into it such as the accusations of potential rape.
Except if you'd read the thread properly, you'd know we don't part ways...virmilitaris wrote: »Where have you dismissed the latest actions of RW or the bloggers coming out with the accusations of potential rape ? Apologies if I missed it. I have skimmed the entire thread but it's long and I did come late.
I've continually made comments that the initial issue highlighted was as far as I agreed with RW - which have continually been ignored.
I can't put it any clearer than THIS with THIS added caveat.virmilitaris wrote: »I'm beginning to see a pattern to many of the RW supporters posts.
And equally, I'm beginning to see a pattern from some of her detractors - failing to read what has been written, failing to acknowledge the actual position people hold in favour of arguing hysterical straw-men, a wish to concentrate on how silly a portion of OTT posts are rather than the balanced opinions of all the others who are trying to make a rational point...if that's your MO, fine - but don't then complain that the "movement" is getting a bad name or being dragged down, because doing the above is no different to the hysterics and refusal to see a middle-ground that those you are complaining about, are guilty of.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »And equally, I'm beginning to see a pattern from some of her detractors - failing to read what has been written, failing to acknowledge the actual position people hold in favour of arguing hysterical straw-men, a wish to concentrate on a portion of OTT posts rather than the balanced opinions of all the others who are trying to make a rational point...if that's your MO, fine - but don't then complain that the "movement" is getting a bad name or being dragged down, because doing the above is no different to the hysterics and refusal to see a middle-ground that those you are complaining about, are guilty of.
And where is this middle-ground ? What points of mine do you disagree with ? Lets summarise again.
1. I agree RW had every right to ask men not to approach her in that way on her video because it made her uncomfortable. I also agree her advice holds true for anyone approaching the opposite sex.
1.b RW and her supporters have since made it into a ridiculous argument and damaged their reputations by accusing Dawkins of nonsense like misogyny and sending him letters from rape victims etc.
2. I agree that Dawkins comments were ill-mannered and didn't belong on that topic. His original comment especially was very badly put and has damaged his reputation.
2.b Dawkins has remained fairly silent so I can't fault him here. His supporters on the issue have made themselves look as bad as RW's except most of the supports on the Dawkins side are nobodies.
Is this not the middle ground ? Is this not the reasonable position ?0 -
It is, of course....but it would be dishonest to claim those were the views I was responding to.virmilitaris wrote:I've read some horrendous ****e from certain people on this thread, such as the man shouldn't have approached her alone, he should have done it in public.virmilitaris wrote:How dare a man approach a woman in private and politely proposition a woman!:rolleyes:virmilitaris wrote:Should women who don't wish to be propositioned wear some kind of symbol, let's say a star of david for example, to indicate they are not interested in being approached at that time ?
In response to my sayingIckle wrote:Surely the most reasonable view is that both sides aim to meet somewhere in the middle - rather than only taking into consideration the views or feelings of one, or the other?
The response wasn't it was indeed sage advice, it was:virmilitaris wrote:How can we possibly take the feelings of either party into account when we cannot know those feelings before hand ?
And you didn't say she had every right to ask men not to approach her in her video, you said;virmilitaris wrote:Would it be appropriate for my Asian friend to make a youtube video telling black people to take the feelings of asians into account when they are going about their business and not to initiate conversations in such circumstances ?
andvirmilitaris wrote:I didn't say she shouldn't feel uncomfortable, I'm saying she has no right to tell 'men' not to do something because it makes 'women' uncomfortable when that 'something' is perfectly normal and natural.0 -
Weird one I've just noticed on skepchick:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Basically, get a vaccine at TAM this weekend and Elyse Anders is offering to hug you.
Two weeks ago, I'd have said this was a great idea. A bit of fun, a bit of a laugh, lots of warm feelings while improving herd immunity
But following the Dawkins/Watson spat, I'd be afraid that something -- anything -- would be misinterpreted as hitting on Ms Anders. Should be interesting to see how many men offer to get themselves vaccinated.0 -
Advertisement
-
On the phone so not going to quote you. You need to read what I said and what I am saying now. I haven't changed my position.
E.g
I just said she was reasonable to ask men not to approach her (emphasis on her) in that way. She has no right to tell (emphasis on tell) men not to approach other women in that way.
I said her advice is good for potential suitors to take. Emphasis on advice.
I can't go through it all now but you get the idea.0 -
Weird one I've just noticed on skepchick:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Basically, get a vaccine at TAM this weekend and Elyse Anders is offering to hug you.
Two weeks ago, I'd have said this was a great idea. A bit of fun, a bit of a laugh, lots of warm feelings while improving herd immunity
But following the Dawkins/Watson spat, I'd be afraid that something -- anything -- would be misinterpreted as hitting on Ms Anders. Should be interesting to see how many men offer to get themselves vaccinated.
But Ms Anders is offering a hug - offering...can you not see a difference between approaching a women in a lift at 4am to invite them to your room and a woman offering a hug at a busy event? Seriously?
I'm getting more disappointed by the post.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »But Ms Anders is offering a hug - offering...can you not see a difference between approaching a women in a lift at 4am to invite them to your room and a woman offering a hug at a busy event?
But I wasn't referring to the elevator incident here.
On the contrary, what I'm concerned about here is the different perspectives that could be taken of it. As above, two weeks back, I'd have viewed women as equal to men, and a hug at random like that was no different to hugging a man in that kind of social situation. It's a friendly human thing to do. I would have liked it.
Two weeks later, I now understand that there are a significant number of women out there -- what portion, I've no idea, but they're certainly voluble -- who view me as a possible sexual predator and potential rapist. I have no desire whatsoever to put myself into a position where I could be viewed as a potential rapist. Hence, while I would have supported this kind of thing two weeks back, I certainly wouldn't be offering myself to be hugged today - in the specific context of the fight that's arisen, and the open, public distrust that has boiled to the surface.
BTW, I've just read the first bit of Watson's latest post:
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/frequently-answered-questions/
In which she says "All men are not rapists. Most men aren’t, even!".
Most men aren't rapists?
That's a trifle ungenerous of her, wouldn't you agree?0 -
In which she says "All men are not rapists. Most men aren’t, even!".0
-
Weird one I've just noticed on skepchick:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Basically, get a vaccine at TAM this weekend and Elyse Anders is offering to hug you.
Still, a hug's a hug.0 -
-
-
Yes, of course I can
But I wasn't referring to the elevator incident here.
okay...On the contrary, what I'm concerned about here is the different perspectives that could be taken of it. As above, two weeks back, I'd have viewed women as equal to men, and a hug at random like that was no different to hugging a man in that kind of social situation. It's a friendly human thing to do. I would have liked it.
Two weeks later, I now understand that there are a significant number of women out there -- what portion, I've no idea, but they're certainly voluble -- who view me as a possible sexual predator and potential rapist. I have no desire whatsoever to put myself into a position where I could be viewed as a potential rapist. Hence, while I would have supported this kind of thing two weeks back, I certainly wouldn't be offering myself to be hugged today - in the specific context of the fight that's arisen, and the open, public distrust that has boiled to the surface.
That's your prerogative, of course...and I do realise it is just the flip side of the "I don't know how many men are rapists so I'm just going to presume all", presumably we're going somewhere with this...Oh yeah, it's the position you've all been arguing is so irrational...and I don't think anyone here has actually suggested.
Would the most rational solution not be, yet again, somewhere in the middle? Perhaps a public acknowledgement that a hugging event is an appropriate place to hug the person who invited you for a hug which nobody should take the wrong way or they are likely to make people feel anxious and be considered a weirdo - while it's not appropriate to go up and hug people we don't know because it is likely to make them feel anxious and make us look like complete weirdos...and then everyone could apply that rationale across the board? I'm pretty sure I've already said as much pages ago...BTW, I've just read the first bit of Watson's latest post:
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/frequently-answered-questions/
In which she says "All men are not rapists. Most men aren’t, even!".
Most men aren't rapists?
That's a trifle ungenerous of her, wouldn't you agree?
We're wandering into a completely different topic from the one I thought was worth defending...
Tbh, it could be worse, should could have used unqualified statistics in size 7 font instead. Most aren't - at least she's conceded that much...it should be the vast majority aren't rapists but it's a start back on the road to rationality on that particular hot potato, at least.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »Most aren't - at least she's conceded that much...Ickle Magoo wrote: »it should be the vast majority aren't rapists but it's a start back on the road to rationality on that particular hot potato, at least.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »We're wandering into a completely different topic from the one I thought was worth defending...0
Advertisement