Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (35482)	4/20/1999 11:12:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<I don't think any of us disagreed with these thoughts, E. I am sure that I didn't. I'd have to go back and print out all the posts, and read it all again, to make sure, but that's my impression. I hesitate to say the next thing, because I am sure you are going to challenge me to say where you said this, but what I was arguing against was a tone of "business as usual" for some men who practiced rape. That it was in some times, and in some places, normal, and expected behavior. The example of soldiers was given, I don't remember who first. I wonder if you think that using an army to invade the territory of another nation is normal, and expected behavior, as well. I would say not.>>> I won't go back either (well, i might, mightn't I?); but I'm telling you that those thoughts are precisely what I was trying to get agreement to, and did briefly, on the part of a number of people; we almost had a general sign on to Steven's statement, which bit the dust when you specified that all rapists were insane, and then statements began being made again about "rape" (all rape) and how adjunct sex was to "it" (all of it) to 'rapists,' (all rapists.) I think you now find it incredible that that statement was taken exception to, Blue. I found it incredible at the time, myself. I myself didn't mention marauding armies, though might discuss that phenomenon in a separate discussion. Gotta rest up first. I didn't say or imply 'business as usual,' not in words or in tone; I characterized rapists in the strongest negative terms. I called them, all of them, monstrous, and criminals. In one post, the one in which I replied to your statement that all rapists were 'insane,' I made a point in which I used the words 'a shit' to describe a rapist; as soon as you indicated that you assumed that that was the sum of my condemnation of that rapist, I came on to make clear that of course the shitty rapist was also a criminal; but that i thought there was little evidence that would justify calling him 'insane' in the case I had postulated, simply because he neither before nor forever after gave evidence of insanity. (You never replied as to whether not guilty by reason of insanity should be an acceptable defense for all rapists.) I believe your position remains that all rapists are insane. Blue, there would have been no long, repetitive argument here if everyone agreed with my statement, " <<<<For some men, force is their fetish. It is what turns them on sexually.Sexually. For some men. Some men are guiltless psychopaths. For some of them, the violence is only wasted energy, and only done to get what they, guiltlessly, want: sex with that person at that moment.>>>> But if everyone now does agree to it, I'm relieved. Maybe what happened was that the horror of 'business as usual' where rape is concerned was triggered where it didn't apply, and caused an inability to perceive what I was, in fact, actually saying. Which from the beginning was only what i said in the above quote.

To: Ilaine who wrote (35482)	4/20/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<but what I was arguing against was a tone of "business as usual" for some men who practiced rape. I wonder if you think that using an army to invade the territory of another nation is normal, and expected behavior, as well. >>> With this statement, you leave on the table the implication that I, somewhere, somehow, characterized some rapes as "normal and expected behavior." I'll give you ten million dollars if you can show me where.

To: Ilaine who wrote (35482)	4/20/1999 1:18:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Blue, I was the poster who brought up the conquering armies example. Yes, it is true, that, in certain circumstances, rape has indeed been considered "normal" and "expected" behavior. And yes, "using your army to invade the territory of another country" has also been considered "normal" and "expected" behavior. Surely you know some history. If I say that something is a fact, that does not mean I APPROVE of that fact. I know that black-widow spiders devour their mates in the "act of love", for example. That does not mean I APPROVE of it. It is revolting, and suggests that if there is a creator God, he sure as heck is not benevolent. As far as sex is concerned, my own belief is that it is, in itself, neither good nor bad. It can be put to good ends (e.g., love), or to bad ends (e.g., rape). I prefer the former, but recognize that the latter occurs. Period. Joan