<p>I find the “you obviously cannot read” and “you have reading comprehension problems” comments which often find their way into contentious threads to be particularly uncivil. Those kinds of comments add absolutely nothing to intelligent discourse and are just plain ugly. I think we are all better than that, surely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the personal attacks on 07dad are ok with you?</p>
<p>I think Hunt’s been quite clear and nowhere is he blaming the victim for what happened to her.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4, I would normally agree with you, but in this case the misstatement of what other posters have said has been so relentless that I think it’s kinder to attribute it to failure to read carefully than to malice.</p>
<p>Hunt, I asked you before, with respect to your post 336, why do you use tricky or hot potatote language?</p>
<p>You said this - “It’s particularly tricky when there are disagreements about whether the behavior is risky, and whether people “should” be able to engage in the behavior without being victimized. For example, women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want–but are some clothing choices “risky” in certain situations? It’s a hot potato issue”</p>
<p>Isnt it clear – why is this tricky or a hot potato whether women should be able to engage in any legal behaivor?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Malice is even too kind. It’s more like stupidity or maybe I should spell it “stupiditye”.</p>
<p>Hunt, </p>
<p>It’s nothing new for you to think I’m unfair. We’ve tangled on these issues and others before. We have very different values. When someone posts that if girl invites a boy to her house and provides the alcohol that’s evidence that she’s “ok with” being sexually molested IMO he has distorted values. I think that when a poster speculates that there’s a 25% chance that a PARTICULAR young woman who was sexually molested sexted and then goes on to speculate about how that would play out in a civil action in her particular case he’s missing a sensitivity chip that should be part of the make up of everyone. YMMV. </p>
<p>Maybe I’m subconsciously trying to get this thread shut down. I think it’s outlived it’s usefulness. I did request it be closed down before, but apparently did not do it the right way. As I now understand it, I have to claim that some particular post was offensive in order to get a moderator to decide whether it should be shut down.</p>
<p>So, if you’d like to report my messages or anyone else’s to the moderators, please do. I’d actually like the thread to be shut down at this point.</p>
<p>I said in my first post that I didn’t want for this thread to focus on the actions of the kids involved but rather on the policy questions involved. I realize that I can’t dictate the direction the thread would go in…and if I didn’t before, I sure do now.</p>
<p>
Sigh. If you read what I said–and I already explained this before–I clearly said that women SHOULD be able to wear whatever they want. But it’s a “hot potato” because some people think it’s risky for women to wear revealing clothing in some situations. This is DIFFERENT from whether they should be free to do so. There is obviously disagreement about whether it is, in fact, risky. Maybe it isn’t. But it’s a hot potato because some people can’t manage to discuss the issue of whether it’s risky or not without accusing others of trying to blame women. You pretty much proved my point–as I said before.</p>
<p>Jonri said:
How true. I still recall that you made the single most offensive ad hominem attack on me that I ever received on CC, and that’s saying a lot, since I used to hang out on the politics forum. You have no clue about my values at all.</p>
<p>I think your use of hot potatoe and tricky indicates that the answer is not clear. It validates, to some extent, those beliefs. There should be no uncertainty.</p>
<p>
So tell me, do you think a young woman exposes herself to any risk if she wears “provocative” (defined however you like) clothing to a party at a frat house where there will be heavy drinking? What is the risk, if any? If there is a risk, are there ways she could minimize it? Please note, I fully believe and agree that a women should be entirely free to wear whatever she wants to a frat party or anywhere else, and that she shouldn’t be subject to any victimization, or even the risk of victimization, because of what she is wearing. But note the specific questions I asked.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>You’ve made over 8500 posts on CC, NOT including those in the Parent Cafe. My opinion of your values is based on having read thousands of them. For you to say that </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is just plain silly. My opinion is based on your posts. You may NOT like my opinion; that’s fine. I don’t like yours, as I’ve already acknowledged. But if you think that I have “no clue” about your values based on reading thousands of posts from you on CC, then I can only conclude that your writing skills are abysmal or my reading skills are. I conclude the former; I suspect you’ll conclude the latter.</p>
<p>“When you say you “doubt this study’s veracity,” are you saying you doubt that what the students reported about their behavior is true or that you doubt that the researchers accurately reported the facts they acquired during the research?”</p>
<p>What I am saying is that I question the methodology of the study and that there could be bias due to the subjects being from one specific area in TX. It is a small sample. 1000 would be all right, if it was a representative sample of the population. If you want to believe that 1 in 4 teens text photos of their genitals, as 07dad stated, be my guest.</p>
<p>Hunt, what you said was this </p>
<p>“It’s particularly tricky when there are disagreements about whether the behavior is risky, AND whether people “should” be able to engage in the behavior without being victimized”</p>
<p>Note the word AND. YOU re linking tricky with risky behaivor and should. IMHO, there is nothing “tricky” about whether women should be able to wear whatever they want. YOU, by use of the word tricky, are saying that this is not clear. Otherwise, you would not say tricky, but wrong.</p>
<p>
I give up.
I give up on this, too. Think what you like, and let the insults roll.</p>
<p>I can no longer edit my post # 471. This time, I failed to express my thought clearly. What I was trying to say is more like this:</p>
<p>If after reading thousands of your posts on CC, I really have “no clue” as to what your values are, then either your writing skills are abysmal or my reading skills are. If I really have a mistaken idea of your values, then I suspect the fault lies in your writing skills and you would probably blame my reading skills.</p>
<p>But, personally, I think I have a pretty good idea of what your values are from your posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope everyone on this thread agrees with this statement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I generally agree, but there have been some instances on this thread, IMO, where there has been a blatant disconnect between what a poster said and what another poster interpreted that poster to mean. The most egregious example of this was kayf’s response to razorsharp’s post #430. It was a complete non sequitur. Take a look and tell me how in the world a person who was reading with the intent to understand could interpret the post as kayf did. </p>
<p>As for the notion that we should stay on the original topic: Is it necessary for people to reiterate, with every post, their belief that Savannah was treated egregiously by those boys and that the boys acted in defiance of all that is decent? I have said as much and I passionately believe this. But I do not like to think I have to reassert my bona fides as someone who is against rape every time I utter a comment on this thread.</p>
<p>I also believe that in a thread where people have talked about rape as being an opportunistic crime, it is reasonable to discuss the fact that it is not wise to create opportunities where you put yourself at risk of this crime. </p>
<p>And, finally:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? No, I do not want to believe that. I have not drawn any definitive conclusions except that it appears this phenomenon is likely more widespread than any of us would like to think it is. My larger point was that I do not have any reason to question the “methodology” of the Texas study. And unless you know something about the study design that I don’t, neither do you. You can question whether this sample is representative of the US as a whole; I certainly do not think it necessarily is or that the study draws that conclusion (I shared the researchers’ conclusions upthread; they did not make any sweeping generalizations but expressed appropriate concern about what this could mean to public health professionals who work with teens). I don’t have any reason to believe, though, that the Texas study or any other study is flawed just because it was limited in scope!</p>
<p>You may not like response to "The boys have no money themselves and their parents are not likely responsible for the criminal acts of their children. I can’t see the girl going through the stress of a civil law suit that would be public and probably on TV if Ky allows TVs in the courtroom. " but I find it reaching it on your part to say it is non sequitur. I find it outrageous for someone to say that the parents are not likely responsible and I responded. </p>
<p>I find that some posts minimize what Frey and Zehnder did. I find that unconscousnable.</p>
<p>Kayf, please explain how you get this, “… but Razor, join with others in the smug assertion that girls can not win in the legal system, that they must not drink with boys, etc or its all on them,” from what razorsharp said. </p>
<p>I read post #430 as razorsharp wondering whether a young woman would want to go through the stress of a civil suit (as we all know, it could be harrowing) and whether, as a POINT OF LAW, the boys’ parents could be considered responsible. How is this “smug”? How does it have anything whatsoever to do with the question of whether girls should “drink with boys”? Your post had me scratching my head, frankly.</p>
<p>Razorsharp–
</p>
<p>Well, I gave a partial answer in post # 427. When a poster goes ballistic and starts using disparaging and pejorative adjectives aimed at an adversary poster it weakens their argument on the subject at hand. Combine that with that poster not answering direct inquires about their own position on the adversarys posters points and the strength of the non-answering posters position on its issues suffers. </p>
<p>Usually after several pages of posts on a thread, the battle lines have already been drawn. Unless a new person to the thread is on the fence on the issues over which battle has been drawn before they start reading, they often jump in and cue their own indignity and outrage from the posts of those with whom they identify. So, if I chose to respond (which I dont), Id have to do it over and over. </p>
<p>Another way of responding is to agree concerning certain characterizations. For instance, being labeled a zealot on a certain issue. Zealot sounds like a bad word (maybe), but it really isnt if you look it up. The significance is the subject upon which you are zealous. When OP called me a zealot (actually or impliedly) I got to once again focus the discussion on MY issue, – the role underage alcohol and a permissive attitude towards it plays in all this. </p>
<p>Of course, I could have gone back and posted the actual sentences in OPs original post where alcohol involvement in the situation was mentioned and the sentence where it was dismissed out of hand. But, anyone who is really interested (and does not already have a made up mind), will have read that post. Besides, it gets into well you wrote, did not, did too. It is a Sister Mary Elephant moment to me. And, it often ends up like post # 475, with well I actually meant or perhaps I wasnt completely clear. So, I just dont go there.</p>
<p>Also, the TOS tells us not to engage in personal attacks. I get amused at how often a poster, who is adamant that this law should be fully enforced, as part of their argument, may not adhere to that TOS.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how an individual could ever be bound by an agreement (the plea deal) to which she was not a party. The victim isn’t even a party to the case, technically; only the prosecutors/people are. So what would be the source of a judge’s power to tell a private citizen that she would be in contempt for telling her own story? I don’t get it.</p>