John Cuthber

What was said (and I questioned) was "Trump at the very least knew the business of economics." Now you might try to claim that since he's a businessman, he knows the economics of business, but that's a different subject. That's why it's not abandoning all logical common sense to question it. Also since he famously started out with a "small loan" of a million dollars from his dad and ended up bankrupt, repeatedly, I rather doubt he even understands that.

Well, one problem is that most victims are not gymnasts, nor anyone in such a situation. Another is that the mechanism you called for is already in place- they are called chaperones. A third issue is that most pop stars etc flashing their bits are male; but most of the victims of sexual assault are female. ""to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining Now my manner may well be patronising, but, since it's the manner I use pretty much all the time, regardless of whether or not the person I'm addressing is male or female (And, remember, most of the time, on line, here's no way I can tell) it can't be mansplaining. OK, that's that bit of nonsense out of the way (feel free to start another thread about if if you want). You are missing the point that it's a human trait to regret things that are perceived as the cause of something bad. Normally that's a good thing- it stops you doing that thing again. But in some cases it's a bad thing because it makes you think something was your fault when it wasn't. It even makes you think that when it's totally ****ing obvious to all and sundry- even passing police officers- that it's not your fault, but the fault of the attacker. If the victim thinks it is their fault because they took the short cut through the dark alley- or whatever then the victim is factually incorrect. It's the perpetrator's fault.Do you realise that? If it is the perpetrator's fault that they attacked someone (and I think we agree that it is) then it's not the victim''s fault. If it's not the victim's fault, yet they blame themselves, it's a mistake on their part to do so. And that leads you to wonder why they think it's their fault. Well, just maybe it's because people have been telling them that "women who get into the car of a stranger are acting stupidly and deserve what they get" or "it's their fault for taking the risk".

Really? When?

Come off it. Anyone who reads the thread can see that (1)Two other people corrected you and that (2) even when you were told you were wrong about what she did you just guessed again and had to be corrected again. You didn't "correct yourself"- others had to do that for you.

Like Trump, she's been bankrupt. It seems some voters think that makes them sound businesspeople. Having said that, it's hard to imagine her doing a much worse job than Trump. Presumably, if we tell Raider than she's a white male, he won't bother to check It's always good to announce that you plan to ignore it when someone points out you did something dumb. That way nobody expects you to learn from the experience.

Nice try, but it's a straw man. The real question is "How many locks should I fit?" If I already have locks and an alarm, but some determined crook breaks into my house, is that somehow my fault? If I'm already taking such precautions as I reasonably can and yet there's still crime, is that my fault? The problem with your argument is that , sure the victims may blame themselves + say " I shouldn't have been there" (That's human nature as already pointed out). But there's always "something I could have done to prevent it" so there will always be the regret that "I didn't do that last thing" That's going to always be the case for all attacks. If she took a different route home and avoided the alley, it just means the attacker would have had to wait a bit longer in the alley until someone else turned up to be his victim. From my perspective, that's not an improvement. Do you think it is somehow better that the second girl was attacked, rather than the first?

If I slip on ice and stub my toe I'm going to say "I wish I had been more careful", but in reality, you can't always make perfect decisions. I wish I had bought bitcoin when I first heard of it. That doesn't mean it was a foolish decision I made, just a practical one. The decision made by the attacker was the one that should be questioned, not that made by the victim. Ironically most of the time, of course, it is "worth the risk". Most people who drink too much or walk down dark alleys are fine. And that's why people do it. It's not sensible to change the behaviour of half the planet for the sake of a few deadbeats. And did you have a look at the answer to the (far too common) question "what were you wearing?"?

Did anyone suggest that we stopped anyone taking such precautions? When you say that the argument fell apart you puzzle me. Where do you think it was even started? As far as I can tell, nobody said that. If you think they did, please quote where they did so. Plenty of people have said that the focus of the discussion shouldn't be in what the women do- but that's a different issue.

For that to work there has to be more that women can do to avoid being victims. Have you any suggestions? For example, do you think they should dress more modestly? My view is that women are already doing practically everything they realistically can to avoid being harmed and there's not much more they can do. That option is saturated- or at least well into the realms of "diminishing returns". And if I'm right in thinking there's not a lot more women can do then the only option worth talking about is trying to change the behaviour of the men.

Just a thought. It seems likely to me that most women are probably already doing pretty much everything they can to avoid trouble. In that case there's not a lot of scope for improvement. If we want to reduce the incidence of attacks still further then we should focus on the group who don't seem to be particularly motivated to reduce attacks yet are uniquely placed to do so- the bad men. iNow's idea would achieve that.

No It's not remotely close to what I said. What I said was that what a bunch of (mainly if not entirely) men say will have an effect on the actions of other men- especially if what is said is seen as condoning that action by transferring responsibility (at least in part) to the victim. Somehow, in Zapato's and Mig's heads, that has become "As to mechanisms for bringing this change about all we've gotten is that women should continue to be assaulted ( without taking precautions )as that will bring about this change.". Now, among other things, that's a silly idea because it's what's happened since the dawn of humanity and that status quo never worked yet. And, at the risk of repeating myself, the "reason" or "precaution" depending on what way you look at it, turns out to be a myth. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/powerful-art-exhibit-powerfully-answers-the-question-what-were-you-wearing_us_59baddd2e4b02da0e1405d2a

This, on the other hand, is rather more interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/powerful-art-exhibit-powerfully-answers-the-question-what-were-you-wearing_us_59baddd2e4b02da0e1405d2a

OK, let's have a look at what you said "I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss". It implies that you somehow have to make that choice; do you- or do you not- "let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss". Otherwise it's a bit meaningless. Forgive me if I mistakenly assumed that you posted something with an actual meaning. For that choice to be meaningful there have to be two valid options; the one where "the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss" and the one where they don't. And, that requires a situation where the dregs at least might determine what you discuss. Unless the dregs are participating in this discussion, they don't (and can't) determine anything here. Consider, for a moment, the situation where you made the other choice- the exact opposite of what you said "I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss". How was that going to happen unless the only people who can determine what you discuss (here) are the dregs?

But I'm not saying you shouldn't discus it. I was asking if you realised that , in saying things like "she failed to assess the risks properly" you are offering support to those sh**s who think "she asked for it"? I'm not saying you can't discuss it, I'm asking if you understand the consequences of saying it? Now, since (1) the only folk who can prevent you discussing it here are the Mods, and (2)you said that you were being prevented from discussing it by the dregs of society my point stands. Or do you accept that, in fact, the dregs of society are not telling you what you can discuss? Obviously, if you stop making the assumption that you were right about that, the problem goes away.

What has been proposed, and labelled, as "risk mitigation" is actually "risk transfer" from "my daughter" to "someone else's daughter." It just means the attacker will pick someone else. Perhaps it's because I don't have kids that I can see that as not solving anything. How did you get the idea that anyone was determining what you could discuss? In particular, you are discussing things on this site where only the Mods make that determination. Are you calling them the dregs of society? Cough Telling children what to do falls squarely in the realm of education.

Do you accept that, while people are saying " women should be careful" these inadequate men will read it as "it's the woman's fault for not being careful"? You don't need to say it in so few words. As long as you are considering how "she" was dressed, "he" will take it that her attire was the "cause". And it therefore doesn't matter what your intent is, or how carefully you word stuff, what they will hear is "she shouldn't have dressed like a slut".

Who is "clarity" and why would I wish to communicate with them?

It's a very human response; "let some other parent suffer the tragedy of their daughter getting attacked instead of me". Does it make the world a better place? The point is that, when everybody's daughter goes out dressed like a nun or whatever, there will be just as many attacks and the dicks responsible will still pretend that it's the victim's fault because you told them it was OK for them to do that. Similarly, if all the women go out stark naked then there will be pretty much the same number of attacks- the dicks responsible will make their choice of victim on some other basis and, by extension, you will say they were right to do so. The problem here is not women's clothes. The problem is that there is a set of men who feel that they are "entitled" to get their leg over without regard for anyone else's feelings about it. By saying "they were wearing a short skirt" you are validating that entitlement. You are perpetuating thee myth that "they deserved it" or even "they were asking for it" -which is exactly the sort of thing those inadequate blokes say. You talk of risk management. What you are doing is risk transfer. You propose to move the risk from your daughter to some other poor soul's daughter. That's not really solving the problem.

There is no evidence that she received any meaningful or effective training. The "training" didn't actually help as shown by the fact that she still lost her job etc. She actually acted, not as part of some trained team, but as a disgruntled individual. Since the training (whatever form it took) seems to have achieved nothing, it isn't relevant.

Get a mirror. Really? Where?

That misses the point. There will still be just as many bad people if all the women dress like nuns or dress like whores. All your approach does is choose a different victim, and it's naive to think otherwise

You seem to have missed my point. The training didn't actually work. As that wiki page says "She acted as a private citizen "tired of giving in"" So she wasn't in a meaningful sense "trained" which rather undermines your claim that "They were all trained activists performing calculated, risky activities meant to further their goal."

On a related note, why is Trump so bothered about a book? It's not as if many of his supporters actually read much.

Would you like to tell us what particular training you think Rosa Parks had received? Also, can you explain what that training did in terms of, for example, stopping them losing their jobs or receiving death threats (as Rosa Parks did). Ever heard of love?

No it isn't. The definition of irrational numbers is that they can't be written as a ratio of two integers. The fact that surds are irrational is a consequence of that definition, but not part of it.