Juliann, Sophistry, and Rape

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, "swept it under the rug" in the sense that they excused the bishop's lack of tact. Once again, it is the girl who is blamed.

So you don't mean "sweep it under the rug," you mean excuse his behavior.

Yes, as in "swept under the rug of priesthood authority." Or, "whitewashed."

ONce again, yes or no, is a fat girl who loses weight more likely to get a date?

I have no idea, Mak. Your question is very reductive and oversimplifies the issue a great deal. Would she be more likely to get a date amongst the TBM males described by Beastie at BYU? Well, yes, I suppose she would. But does that justify the bishop's lack of tact?

Let's rephrase your question a bit: if investigators are told the truth about Joseph Smith's moneydigging activities and court appearance, would they be less likely to convert? Yes/no?

[_Yoda]

Let's be clear about one thing - any girl who is not dating due to her weight already knows this is a problem and doesn't need someone else pointing it out to her. She sees it in the mirror every day and is likely already filled with self-loathing due to it.

So how is she to be helped?

Having been overweight in the past, I can tell you that being overweight is normally a sign of symptom of some other problem. There are also health and genetic cases to consider. In my case, it was escapism. I was using food as a drug, in a sense. It was my comfort. I ate when I was happy; I ate when I was depressed, etc.

And just telling someone to lose weight is not the answer. First of all, they have to WANT to lose the weight, and take the steps necessary to do it. If they have a substantial amount of weight to lose, they will likely need the guidance of a doctor and a nutritionist.

My wake up call was when I was too winded to walk from the parking lot into work in the morning. I weighed 270 pounds. I'm 5'7. It took me a year, but I lost 130 pounds, and have managed to keep most of it off. (I had a baby not too long ago, and still have a residual 10 pounds to lose)

My point is....being overweight is complicated...and pointing out the obvious..."You would be more attractive if you lost weight"....in my estimation is not helpful.

.

[_Bond...James Bond]

So how is she to be helped?

And just telling someone to lose weight is not the answer. First of all, they have to WANT to lose the weight, and take the steps necessary to do it. If they have a substantial amount of weight to lose, they will likely need the guidance of a doctor and a nutritionist.

My point is....being overweight is complicated...and pointing out the obvious..."You would be more attractive if you lost weight"....in my estimation is not helpful.

Not to mention that telling someone to simply lose weight could often lead to someone losing weight to the point of becoming too thin. No one should be giving advice about health issues unless they're a trained nutrionist or doctor.

[_Fortigurn]

Yes. Tomorrow, you get into your car and drive to the store. It's raining outside. You know perfectly well that rain increases the likelihood of an accident, and yet you fire up your engine anyhow. As you turn at the stop light, you are t-boned by a reckless driver. You chose to drove on the rainy day. So is the accident partially your fault?

No the accident is not partly your fault. The accident is, however, an event which you chose to risk in the full knowledge that circumstances prevailed which significantly heightened that risk.

But that means that people don't carry any responsibility whatsoever for making a bad decision.

No it doesn't. In my post I made it entirely clear that the individual is completely responsible for the decision they made. They are not necessarily responsible, however, for events which may occur as a result of that decision.

[_maklelan]

I find it stunning that you would mention being "inconsiderate" and "rape" in the same breath.

Once again you manage to avoid engaging my argument and instead use ad hominem. By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to the rest of my post. You only picked out a couple of straggling issues to argue with.

Add alcohol to the equation and their predisposition to rape becomes more likely.

Men are "predisposed" to rape? Well, hey, at least you are copping to it.... Unbelievable.

Drunk men are more likely to do it, yes.

I've never said they were hardwired for it, but you seem to really want to push this point.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on what your views are! As it happens, I very, very strongly disagree with you, and do not think that most men are either "hardwired" nor "predisposed" to rape. Further, I don't think that even *drunken* men are "predisposed" to rape. You seem to be imagining some kind of TBM dystopia which will help you to justify your implicit desire to frighten and control women, and to force them to fit into this neat little LDS behavioral pigeonhole.

You fail to address my points. I'm done with this thread. All you do is throw stupid ad hominem at me while you dodge the issues I bring up and put words in my mouth. TRather than try to find out what I'm saying you just tell me what I'm saying and then tell me I'm mistaken about what I'm saying when I disagree with your assumption. Have a good time.

[_maklelan]

No it doesn't. In my post I made it entirely clear that the individual is completely responsible for the decision they made. They are not necessarily responsible, however, for events which may occur as a result of that decision.

So they're not responsible for the consequences of their decisions, just the decision in and of itself (which means absolutely nothing).

[_Fortigurn]

No it doesn't. In my post I made it entirely clear that the individual is completely responsible for the decision they made. They are not necessarily responsible, however, for events which may occur as a result of that decision.

So they're not responsible for the consequences of their decisions, just the decision in and of itself (which means absolutely nothing).

They are not necessarily responsible for the consequences of their decision. They are completely responsible for the decision they took to take the risk. If I am driving correctly, and a drunk driver runs into me, I am not responsible for him running into me. I am responsible only for deciding to drive, fully aware that I am taking the risk that a drunk driver may run into me. This does not mean 'absolutely nothing'.

On the other hand, if I am the drunk driver and I made the decision to drive regardless of the fact that I was aware of my drunken state, then I am fully responsible for the crash which results from my decision.

[_maklelan]

They are not necessarily responsible for the consequences of their decision. They are completely responsible for the decision they took to take the risk. If I am driving correctly, and a drunk driver runs into me, I am not responsible for him running into me. I am responsible only for deciding to drive, fully aware that I am taking the risk that a drunk driver may run into me. This does not mean 'absolutely nothing'.

On the other hand, if I am the drunk driver and I made the decision to drive regardless of the fact that I was aware of my drunken state, then I am fully responsible for the crash which results from my decision.

What if the other guy saw you coming, knew you were drunk, but figured you'd stop, so he didn't brake or turn?

And if you get in the car with a guy who's driving drunk? He's not "hardwired" to crash his car, but it's inevitable that it'll happen at some point. If you hop in the front seat with him because he seems like a nice guy and he crashes, are you going to get indignant with everyone for asking why you got in the car in the first place?

Thanks for engaging my arguments. I'm done with Scratch, but as long as you're willing to debate I'm available.

[_Mister Scratch]

I find it stunning that you would mention being "inconsiderate" and "rape" in the same breath.

Once again you manage to avoid engaging my argument and instead use ad hominem.

How is my comment an example of argumentum ad hominem? I did not mention anything about your character or person whatsoever.... To the contrary, I dealt only with your language, and your post.... How does that somehow constitute an ad hominem attack?

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to the rest of my post. You only picked out a couple of straggling issues to argue with.

By the way, you have been derailing my thread with silly and ineffectual defenses of the Brethren's ridiculous statements about women and victims.

Incidentally, which portion of your post would you like me to respond to? The part where you oversimplified my citation of stuff from the Brethren? The part where you are painting a "gloom and doom" TBM worldview? What, Mak? You are going to have to be specific, I'm afraid.

Add alcohol to the equation and their predisposition to rape becomes more likely.

Men are "predisposed" to rape? Well, hey, at least you are copping to it.... Unbelievable.

Drunk men are more likely to do it, yes.

That's not what you said, though. Look again, my dear boy. You said, "their predisposition to rape. Face it: you believe that men are automatically programmed to rape.

You know, it is not bad in and of itself that you think this.... I just think that you are wrong, and in fact I think that it is unhealthy to believe that men are "predisposed to rape."

I've never said they were hardwired for it, but you seem to really want to push this point.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on what your views are! As it happens, I very, very strongly disagree with you, and do not think that most men are either "hardwired" nor "predisposed" to rape. Further, I don't think that even *drunken* men are "predisposed" to rape. You seem to be imagining some kind of TBM dystopia which will help you to justify your implicit desire to frighten and control women, and to force them to fit into this neat little LDS behavioral pigeonhole.

You fail to address my points.

Which points? Can you not be specific?

I'm done with this thread. All you do is throw stupid ad hominem at me while you dodge the issues I bring up and put words in my mouth.

Okay. First, where did I engage in ad hominem? So far as I can tell, I have been relying solely on your own words.... Second, which issues have I dodged? Third, am *I* being accused of "dodging issues" by the same young man who refused to fork over the full story about Church finances? Hypocrisy is an ugly thing, Mak! Fourth, where have I "put words in your mouth"? If you mean that I have been interpreting your posts, well then, by all means, feel free to correct me, my dear boy!

TRather than try to find out what I'm saying you just tell me what I'm saying and then tell me I'm mistaken about what I'm saying when I disagree with your assumption. Have a good time.

So you are quitting yet again? Come on, Mak. This is not what the Savior wants you to do.

[_Fortigurn]

They are not necessarily responsible for the consequences of their decision. They are completely responsible for the decision they took to take the risk. If I am driving correctly, and a drunk driver runs into me, I am not responsible for him running into me. I am responsible only for deciding to drive, fully aware that I am taking the risk that a drunk driver may run into me. This does not mean 'absolutely nothing'.

On the other hand, if I am the drunk driver and I made the decision to drive regardless of the fact that I was aware of my drunken state, then I am fully responsible for the crash which results from my decision.

What if the other guy saw you coming, knew you were drunk, but figured you'd stop, so he didn't brake or turn?

That's his decision, the responsibility for taking the risk is his.

And if you get in the car with a guy who's driving drunk?

That's your decision, for which you are responsible. The responsibility for taking the risk is yours.

He's not "hardwired" to crash his car, but it's inevitable that it'll happen at some point.

No it isn't inevitable.

If you hop in the front seat with him because he seems like a nice guy and he crashes, are you going to get indignant with everyone for asking why you got in the car in the first place?

Well of course not. If you make the decision to take the risk, then you've made yourself responsible for increasing your personal risk of harm.