Jump to content

hux

Members
  • Content Count

    436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hux

  1. If you honestly think victims should be investigated as thoroughly as perpetrators, should somehow be tried as to why they didn't prevent the assault, then you are insane.

    1)Strawman. Where did I say victims should be investigated as thoroughly as perpetrators? I'm arguing in favour of relevant past behaviour being applicable to the case. There is no witch hunt to expose their sexual life.

    2) There's something called innocent until proven guilty. Whether or not someone is a victim or perpetrator... is yet to be determined. That you already seem to know that every accusing woman is a victim and every accused man, a perpetrator... is telling. This isn't the 1950's.

     

    And if you are talking about women raping men,(which I just discovered, much to my surprise, happens to roughly 1in1200 men) then I don't hear anyone advocating that those women be let off the hook. And, if it did happen to you, would you want your entire sexual history paraded before the court? Would you think it was relevant to whether or not you had been attacked? But probably you were talking about those drunk guys who allegedly couldn't give consent because they were not in their right minds. . And, as I mentioned earlier, not only do I think this is difficult-bordering-on-impossible to prove, but I feel that if one, willfully and without coercion, gets so stinking wasted that they are saying things they don't remember, they should probably be held accountable for what they have said. So to answer your question-if someone's, man or woman,intoxication is self inflicted and they are still verbal then I believe they can give consent.

    The current feminist narrative is very much that an intoxicated woman (to any extent) can NEVER give consent. She is always a victim of rape. If you're saying you disagree with the vast majority of feminists then does that make you a misogynist?

     

    But I also stand by my statement that in the vast majority of cases a man so drunk he doesn't even remember meeting the woman will be incapable of achieving and sustaining an erection. In my long association with drunks and barflies the only men I've known who were potent when extremely drunk were also men who did not blackout when they drank.

    Irrelevant. You're essentially dismissing it as 'none that big a deal'. The fact remains that not one woman has ever been convicted for sexual assault based on the premise that an intoxicated man cannot give consent. Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of men being convicted under exactly the same circumstances.
  2. this does not "clearly benefit juries in rape cases", as you said, but it does benefit rapists who wish to get away with their crime. The only way that knowledge of a victim's past can 'help'a jury is to give them an excuse to blame the victim for the crime and say s/he deserved to be raped/assaulted/mugged/robbed.

    Except my point has consistently been that the knowledge acquired by looking at her past relationships was not remotely connected to her sexual behaviours -- it was, in fact connected to her history of blacking out and forgetting whether or not she had had sex. I'm sorry but THIS information is entirely justified in being provided to a jury (and does not result in victim blaming at all). You're conflating knowing facts about a person with knowing inconsequential trivia and then using that trivia as a means of undermining the accuser's character.

     

    They're very different things.

     

    But since you have since admitted that you meant it as an insult I am left to wonder if you are indeed a member of those "small minded male chauvinists and misogynists who feel threatened by the very idea that women are equal", another reason I feel the comparison to Trump's rhetoric was valid.

    I suspect many people who disagree with you are haters of women and Trump supporters.

     

    Ad hominem.

     

    Dismissed.

     

    In response you admit you were trying to be insulting by using the term 'the feminists' and start throwing around Trump-like and bullying insults such as 'gibberish' and 'moronic notion'

    1) Nope: I said feminists because they are the ones who object to the potential setting of a precedent. I see no-one else who does.

    2) I attack the post; not the poster.

     

    This is nonsense. The outrage over exposing the woman's past transcends all classes and genders, and is global,except in places governed by Sharia Law. And what in the world do you mean by "a different standard be applied to men and women in rape cases"?

    Do you even know the facts of this case or is this just the Dunning-Kruger effect in action? There is no outrage relating to the... disclosure... of the woman's past experiences. None. Except for feminists.

  3. In the vast majority of cases a man who is too drunk too remember any of it will not be able to, uh, 'perform'. And a man picking up a woman at a bar has, de facto, since that is the only reason men 'pick up' women, consented. And the issues are completely different since women risk far more anytime they have sex than men do. And I believe that for something to be rape there must be penetration of the victim

    Trump speech writer... Ha ha ha, that's a good one. Except... nope, it really isnt. It's actually indicative of a closed minded fool who can't win an argument without resorting to idiocy. Well done.

     

    I'm terribly sorry to carve a window in what (is fast becoming clear) is an echo chamber for you people (perhaps that explains the laughably low membership) but... carve I must.

     

    Firstly, trying to make the distinction that rape must involve penetration is disingenuous semantic bullshit designed to move the goalposts. From this point on we will use the words 'sexual assault' so you can't get away with yet more intellectual dishonesty.

     

    Secondly, you think men can't get erections when intoxicated? A basic Google search ought to help you out (or even a basic understanding of anatomy). You think that when young boys are sexually assaulted they don't experience erections... or even arousal? I guess that means they must have consented.

     

    Women have been known to experience orgasm when raped. That doesn't mean they're giving consent either. The human body is designed to respond.

     

    So I'm gonna repeat the question again and maybe you and your echo chamber gang can muster up an answer (that doesn't involve... ha ha ha, you like Trump). Seriously... what a stupid response that was.

     

    If a man is severely intoxicated and a woman has sex with him... was he capable of giving consent? (bearing in mind, his penis is designed to respond to physical stimuli).

  4. You were the one that used the term 'very definition '. I, not Hazel, was trying to show what that definition was. Gibberish would be questioning someone finding a word pejorative that you meant pejoratively. And I can't think of a more moronic notion than that men are raped by women

    Interesting.

     

    So if a man is intoxicated and a woman has sex with him, he consented?

  5. I don't but you do. "the feminists are angry" - So why not people are angry? Some folk are angry? You asserted 'the feminists" were angry. A group, not even just "feminists". You lumped them all into one group so you could imply dismissal of their response. I am quite sure non-feminists would have been angry at the situation too.

     

    Why on earth would non-feminists or people in general be angry with the situation? Most reasonable people acknowledge that knowing about the past experiences of both the accused and the accuser can often reveal very pertinent information that benefits the jury enormously when it comes to producing a correct verdict.

     

    The only group that I see strongly rejecting that... is feminists.

     

    Hux seems to be under the impression that feminists come in one form and one form only without rational thinking. I can't argue with that bullshit.

    If I had a small-minded view of the movement and only wanted it to represent a tiny sphere of thinking... then I might point to something stupid like the dictionary definition.

     

    I can't argue with intellectual dishonesty.

  6. The 'very definition' of feminism is;

    Merriam-Webster:

    Definition of feminism;

    the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

    There is a vast difference between 'caring about the treatment of women', and viewing them as completely equal as human beings. I care about the treatment of farm animals but, human chauvinist that I am, I do not view them as equals.

    And as far as hearing 'feminist' as a 'pejorative label', that is because that is the way it is often used by small minded male chauvinists and misogynists who feel threatened by the very idea that women are equal. The use of 'feminist' rather than 'concerned citizens ' in your post makes it sound like this is only a problem to some hysterical women, rather than to society as a whole.

    Sorry but you're talking gibberish. The notion that I should use "concerned citizens" rather than feminists is moronic especially when I'm disagreeing with their particular concern (knowledge of past behaviour setting a precedent) because it is exculsively built on a feminist ideology rather than a rational, concerned society at large.

     

    Concerned citizens are not the ones objecting to something that clearly benefits juries in rape cases -- feminists are. Concerned citizens are not the ones who demand a different standard be applied to men and women in rape cases -- feminists are.

     

    It is their ideology relating to this specific issue that I (and concerned citizens) object to; not the dictionary definition.

     

    And if the dictionary definition of feminism (equal treatment) is something you approve of then presumably you will join me in campaigning to ensure that the policy of not arresting or convicting women who have sex with men who are intoxicated is quickly changed -- yeah... didn't think so.

     

    When feminism becomes a dirty word, perhaps hiding behind the dictionary definition is a strategy you might want to reconsider. Perhaps actually looking at the actions of feminists might be a better place to start.

     

    And, all in all, isn't it sad and ridiculous that we as a species, here in the ultramodern 21st century and after 50,000 years of social evolution, still need movements and terms to define one who has the temerity to suggest that all human beings are equal, and should have equal rights and opportunities? The very idea that there is still rampant debate on these issues shames me as a human being. Maybe we are not superior to farm animals after all.

    Again, I ask you to join me in criticising the police for the disgustingly low rate of convictions against women who had sex with men that could not possibly have consented. Because after all... this all about equal treatment is it not?

     

    When your ideology is about the dictionary definition, you've got my support. When it demonstrably is not... you don't. That really shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

  7. I absolutely love it when one expresses a concern about how women are treated that they get labelled 'feminist'. As if that's enough to dismiss the opinion. Get us, women being hysterical.

    I think you'll find that caring about the treatment of women is the very definition of feminism. The fact that you seem to view this as a pejorative "label" is interesting though.

     

    Past sexual history has no bearing on the case in hand.

    Except for the fact that this case patently demonstrated that knowing about the woman's past sexual history completely (and correctly) changed the outcome of the trial.

     

    But apart from that... yeah, no bearing whatsoever.

  8. People on this thread are clearly ignorant of a lot of the facts. Firstly, the woman NEVER accused anyone of rape; she simply said that she did not remember what happened. The police and the CPS brought the case against Evans.

     

    In the first trial, Evans was found guilty of rape based on the notion that she could not have possibly given consent due to being so intoxicated. The problem here is that Clayton McDonald, who also had sex with her, was found... not guilty.

     

    Confused yet?

     

    A second trial was obviously necessary. Before the second trial, the defence appealed for witnesses, information etc and an ex came forward and pointed out in court that she regularly used to forget that she'd had sex with him too. She would ask him the next day if they had which he thought was strange because he didn't think she was actually that drunk.

     

    This new information is what the feminists are angry about (information about the woman's past relationships) as they feel it sets a precedent.

     

    As far as I'm concerned, this new information proves that knowing about past sexual relationships is in fact... entirely justified.

  9. I don't agree about the protagonist leaving the room meaning the narrator must leave the room too. As long as the narrator is simply describing events in that room and not hearing thoughts, it can work.

     

    Tolstoy hears the thoughts of more than one character in Anna Karenina and, you know... it's quite a good book apparently. Hemingway did it a lot too.

     

    I think over-the-top criticisms of "head hopping" is something that writers who heavily utilise first person narrative are guilty of.

  10. What's your opinion on this?

     

    When a narrator goes from one character's point of view to another's.

     

    It's generally considered a big no no, but I've seen it done by writers without too many problems and don't view it as the major crime that others seem to. I've also noticed that a lot of writers who avoid head hopping don't have a problem with heart hopping (telling the reader about other character's feelings).

     

    I've seen plenty of writers use an omniscient narrator who knows the feelings of other character's but not the thoughts. Is it simply because head hopping can reveal plot details whilst heart hopping cannot?

     

    - Peter's daughter was clearly anxious and worried (reveals nothing).

     

    - Peter's daughter was thinking about all the people she'd murdered (reveals everything).

     

    I also don't find it jarring as long it's clearly explained who's head we're in. I actually think it can be very effective when the book is following two characters (which explains why romance novels do it a lot).

     

    Thoughts.

  11. I think it would more accurate to say that modern books have dumbed down a lot rather than past books were smarter.

     

    People want to be gripped by the first paragraph now.

     

    None of my favourite books grabbed me on page one (Crime & Punishment aside) and I do find a lot of modern fiction utterly soulless and obvious.

     

    Books now have more in common with songs and movies in that there's a never ending slew of new, forgettable material.

     

    Stewart Lee sums it up succinctly... http://youtu.be/-yUDh_IErT4

  12. But the fact is, the little Englanders did vote for Brexit and there won't be another referendum or a general election to undo it. They have made their bed, now they can lie in it. I hope their children can forgive them.

     

    We racist, little Englanders are ecstatic with our decision. All we have to do now is start building the concentration camps and wearing white hoods.

     

    Hysterical gibberish for the win.

  13. Hitler was not a vegetarian - and in any case, Godwin's Law awards me victory in this argument.

     

    I accept that not all Leavers were inspired by anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiment, but I still haven't heard a cogent argument put forward for the Leave side that did not involve immigration or race. Oh, apart from the 350m for the NHS...

     

    I just saw Pavlovian reactions. Pavlov says "migrants" and the dogs vote Brexit.

     

    Godwin's law is used to confirm an argument's parralel... not mock one. Perhaps learn the difference. Stupidity awards you a loss, sweetie.

     

    You're clearly an ignorant individual who, like other ignorant individuals, wants to invoke a left/right narrative. The goodies versus the baddies, the black versus the white. An infantile understanding of the world and how it works.

     

    The left were as vocal as the right in the referendum. Your narrative is wafer thin. Perhaps, start by broadening your news outlet horizons.

  14. You may know a man by the company he keeps.

     

    Just to clarify - I am not accusing you personally of anything, just noting that if you want to avoid being thought a racist it might be better to avoid siding with racists.

     

    Utter gibberish.

     

    Are vegetarians in league with Hitler?

     

    Grow up!. This is exactly the rhetoric that people got sick of hearing. It's become a disturbing trend in western society for idiots to attempt to shut people down by calling them [insert brand of bigotry here] in lieu of a reasoned argument.

     

    The good news is... those days are gone. You're not getting away with it anymore.

     

    And by the way, the leave vote won... because of traditional labour voters.

  15. I went with the novella format because it's my first attempt and it follows the perspective of only one character so dragging it out into a novel would probably be a mistake. I'm definitely gonna look into putting it on Amazon first (seems to be a more financially beneficial route) but how do you publicise the book? Just rope friends and family into leaving good reviews? Target certain forums with spam?

     

    And you mentioned cover design. I wouldn't even know where to start with that.

  16. The book is, in fact, closer to 30 thousand words now. I would rather go down the route of getting published in the old fashioned way because I tend to think it validates your own opinion of your work. The amount of truly mediocre stuff I've seen online suggests that a lot of those people are not only kidding themselves but are also being unhelpfully indulged by this new format. I don't really want to do that to myself. It would be my least preferred option.

     

    Does anyone have any experience/insight regarding getting published Amazon? It looks pretty easy so I suspect I'm missing something.

  17. I'm close to finishing my first book and wondered how best to proceed. In my head, it's a short story but its over 20 thousand words so I guess you'd call it a novelette or novella. It's a science-fiction story that utilises tropes and themes seen many times in sci-fi so nothing hugely original but I like to think it's very readable and has a compelling story. I also like to think that my use of language is very good.

     

    So what's the step? Send it to publishers? Send it to agents? Put it online?

     

    The internet age has changed things a lot so some advice on how to go forward would be welcomed.

  18. The no vote will use immigration to get votes but its a red herring. Most of the immigration that people take exception to isn't even connected to the EU anyway. The economy is also a red herring.

     

     

    It's worth noting that people aren't just voting for the short term issues.

     

    Long term, here's what you're ultimately voting for; a United States of Europe. If you think that's something we should be a part of and you consider that utopian, co-operative union to be a beautiful idea that will bring the continent together... then vote yes.

  19. Leaving would be a mistake economically but it's the longer term concern that a lot of people are thinking about. The United States of Europe is where the union must inevitably lead and denying that is disingenuous. You either buy into that future or you don't. Cameron got the concession of less political intergration but so what, that's only in the short term.

     

    Then there's the utter lack of democracy. Even the yes vote acknowledge this but say we can reform the system once we're in. That's a bit like electing Hitler and saying now he's in, let's make him less of a Nazi. A very strange tactic which ignores a very disturbing element of the union.

     

    Then we have the problem of understanding the question. You're asking the public to vote on a question they don't fully understand. You might as well ask... should quantum mechanics be involvd with elephants? Most people will vote no because they haven't got a clue what the question even means.

     

    I'm inclined to vote to stay in... but I'm still extremely unhappy about so much of it.

  20. It helps if you have some personal experience of what Kafka is describing. I remember when I was brought into my manager's office and told that something had happened which required that I be suspended with immediate effect. They didn't give me any further information. I spent nearly a week running through every possibly thing it could be in my mind. What did they think I'd done? What had I actually done? I even found myself creating worse case scenarios for the most basic or innocent of things in my life and twisted them until they were dark, sinister and deformed.

     

    I was guilty.

     

    In the end, it was nothing but if they'd told me I'd committed murder, I was so ridden with anxiety, I might have believed them.

     

    Kafka was genius.

  21. Isn't this why Hardy invented his own environments? To stop pedants from gushing a slew of anal bilge into his face

     

    No, I don't really care.

     

    Had AJP Taylor wrote that the Nazi's invaded Grimsby with a self conscious dragon called Keith, then I might be more concerned

  22. Has anyone read this - i'm about halfway through it and i'm really enjoying how accessible it is and the subject matter - i guess some similar recommendations would be good too as i'm looking for books that are written in a similar vein but on other topics - i've already bought "how mumbo jumbo conquered the world" by Francis Wheen which looks like it might be the same kind of easy to read book

     

    any thoughts

     

    (haven't posted for a million years....glad the sites back)

     

    (still blue on blue i notice)

  23. I'm doing a degree in mental health and my next assignment is about mental health in the media and intertextuality

     

    i'm looking for books that have characters with a mental health problem - it doesn't have to be a severe mental illness (in fact, the more subtle the better but i'll look at anything to be honest)

     

    i've already read Mrs Dalloway and the hours (intertextuality) and would like to find a few more (it would also be quite useful if any of these books were turned into movies or have influenced other art forms)

     

    thanks

×
×
  • Create New...