UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2016, 03:24 PM   #1101
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
I'm sorry but no. Donald Trump is a 30 on that scale, considering that Politico Magazine did a study and found that he lies, on average, once every FIVE MINUTES on the stump. It's even more blatantly obvious when you look at Hillary's Politifact page and that of Trump side by side. Among other things, you see that:

1. Trump has the same number of "False" statements as Hillary has "True" statements (Spoilers: It's a high number)
2. Trump has significantly more statements in the three false categories than Hillary despite Hillary having more statements overall.
3. 2/3 of Trump's statements are some form of false- the same can only be said for a quarter of Clinton's statements.

I understand that you hate Hillary Clinton and are either a blind Trump supporter or a massive troll but if you're going to come into a debate thread it's nice to at least have your facts straight beforehand.
Politifact is sadly hilariously biased. It used to be way better but it favors Democrats (and Hillary in particular) to an enormous degree. It's nowhere near the resource it used to be.

Trump exaggerates, Politifact claims Pants On Fire. Hillary lies, Politifact finds reasons why they're sort of true. I've seen the lies! She says she always opposed LGBT rights. She said she "didn't know where Sanders was when she tried to pass health care all those years ago" (guess who was standing behind her on the podium). None of these things made it onto Politifact...

It's really frustrating to see a normally unbiased source fall so far, especially since they still claim themselves to be unbiased.

Quote:
No, they were expecting them to be decent human beings who don't commit sexual assault. Shockingly there's a difference. And that is absolutely not what he's saying; he's clearly indicting the people who think co-ed service is a good idea at all and is co-opting the horrific struggle of sexual assault survivors to do so. So fuck him.
What?

a.) The American coed service has a HUGE problem with sexual assault. It's absolutely massive. Those facts and figures are 100% true - there are tens of thousands of unreported sexual assaults in the American military, and only a couple hundred convictions. Only 588 were even brought to trial.
b.) You think that bringing this problem to light is "co-opting the horrific struggle of sexual assault survivors"? Do these sexual assault survivors just not count? Is it because they brought it on themselves by joining a coed military?
c.) That's not going to happen without real consequences for sexual assault. Tens of thousands of men have successfully gotten away with sexual assault because the military didn't want to do anything about it. Clearly they can't keep it in their pants, and clearly they will continue not to keep it in their pants, and yet the military does nothing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...sault-victims/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual...tates_military

http://www.protectourdefenders.com/factsheet/
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 03:40 PM   #1102
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Oh, brother...
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:00 PM   #1103
SoS
Ducks gonna duck
 
SoS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
I've never seen someone so expertly misinterpret and twist my words to accuse me of the things I was accusing someone else of. I'm genuinely impressed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Why are you always a pretty princess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows View Post
Because I look damn good in a dress.
Fizzy Bubbles Team
PASBL
Wild Future
SoS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:04 PM   #1104
Sparkbeat
I make cryin' babies weep
 
Sparkbeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,243
You're doing it again @Deo.

But anyways, Shuckle I don't think Josh was saying that it wasn't a problem by the "expecting them to be decent human beings" statement. And to be completely fair, based on the tweet alone and no other quotes he may have said on the issue, it's too vague to completely pass judgement on what he meant. Both Shuckle and Josh's interpretations are completely valid based on that tweet alone. He could mean that they should be separated, but he could mean that the military was stupid for doing it without any measures of precaution for the people involved to help prevent this very real thing from happening. You can make assumption based on his other stances, sure, but in my opinion, Trump's too much of a wild card and I still have trouble believing he'll do half of what he says.
__________________
FB Profile | ASB Squad | WF Quest Log
Sparkbeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:24 PM   #1105
Miror
Marsh Badge
 
Miror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,755
How about we move to a more fun subject and with the big primaries' polls closing in about two hours, let's make some predictions on where we think states will end up going.

Personally I'm thinking Sanders will take Missouri and Illinois, Ohio is really a tossup but if I have to choose I'll say Clinton has it, and then Florida and North Carolina both are Clinton.

On the Republican side, Trump will have Illinois and Florida for certain, Kasich will take Ohio, and I suspect Trump will win both Missouri and North Carolina as well but I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz won either or both.

So, for simplicity:

Florida: Clinton, Trump

Ohio: Clinton, Kasich

Illinois: Sanders, Trump

Missouri: Sanders, Trump

North Carolina: Clinton, Trump
__________________
Miror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:25 PM   #1106
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkbeat View Post
You're doing it again @Deo.
Well I guess I just won't reply at all anymore, then.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:26 PM   #1107
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Miror, the hero the Debate forum needs.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:33 PM   #1108
Snorby
Snackin'
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
[3/14/2016 10:04:25 PM] MMS: Bernie will take Illinois and Missouri by sizable margins, eek out a win in Ohio, come close in Florida (say, 10 points down or less) and keep NC to 15 or 20
[3/14/2016 10:04:39 PM] MMS: those're my predictions and it'd be awesome if I'm somehow right XD
[3/14/2016 10:04:43 PM] Miror: Mhm XD
[3/14/2016 10:05:11 PM] Miror: Anything besides Trump on Republican? XDXD
[3/14/2016 10:06:43 PM] MMS: I'll say Kasich will win Ohio, Rubio will drop out, Cruz will win Missouri
[3/14/2016 10:06:48 PM] MMS: Trump gets everything else

My predictions from last night.

*crosses fingers they ring true*

Also @Shuckle

Sorry but you don't get to contest one part of my argument with the classic "bawww liberal media" argument that literally every conservative candidate and pundit makes and then not even acknowledge the rest of it and act like you won :v
__________________

Click on Fawful for my ASB squad summary. Other links coming soon.
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:37 PM   #1109
Miror
Marsh Badge
 
Miror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,755
Oh also, something intriguing for the Democratic side that I already have talked to Snorby about but it's concerning the whole polling situation with Michigan, where Sanders had his incredible comeback since the polling was so off. Well, with the vast majority of polls, they tend to focus on the "likely voters" demographic, typically meaning those who have participated in the most recent presidential primaries/caucuses for the particular party. Hence, they focus a lot on those who voted in 2008. Michigan (and Florida, which will matter later) moved their primary to before when the DNC wanted them to have them, and thus were penalized at the time by having none of their delegates count towards the nomination. Since that occurred, Obama didn't even put his name on the ballot in Michigan, turnout in both states was quite a bit lower than usual, and it was mostly Clinton supporters who did turn out.

Now, fast forward to present day. Polling focuses on the groups that voted in 2008, who were mostly Clinton people as per the unique situation. This ended up skewing polling very much in her favor, leaving news outlets and pundits alike with the firm belief that Michigan was solidly in Clinton's camp. As it turns out, that wasn't the case. But if that sort of situation happened in Michigan, what's to prevent the same from having happened in Florida? I still suspect Clinton will win the state just due to the particular voting blocks, but it could be a much closer race than we think. Or I could just be talking out my hat and be entirely wrong concerning Florida but hey, I won't be wrong for long at least lol
__________________
Miror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 05:14 PM   #1110
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle
Politifact is sadly hilariously biased. It used to be way better but it favors Democrats (and Hillary in particular) to an enormous degree. It's nowhere near the resource it used to be.
As is Breitbart... also, politifact is fairly neutral. There is some left leaning bias but they pretty much just point out if something that was said is true or false, or total bullshit, or somewhere in between. When they do that it isn't really biased, they're just fact checking.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 07:42 PM   #1111
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Time to get dangerously drunk.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:14 PM   #1112
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Time to get dangerously drunk.
For those who aren't mind readers, Sanders is newly projected to have lost both Florida and Ohio. His victory in Michigan led many to anticipate an Ohio win, and he needed to win either Florida or Ohio to realistically still be in this race as both states award gobs of delegates. Clinton winning both states all but ends Sanders' campaign. Particularly since the loss in Ohio means we can no longer count on states culturally similar to Michigan to vote for Sanders.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:17 PM   #1113
Snorby
Snackin'
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Time to get dangerously drunk.
Do me a solid and buy me one.

Or twenty.

*shot*
__________________

Click on Fawful for my ASB squad summary. Other links coming soon.
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:34 PM   #1114
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
So this is it, huh...? America is gonna put two corrupt liars who will say anything to get elected... Both of who have no respect for Internet privacy or surveillance... Both who support fracking, one who wants to abolish the EPA and end environmental regulations... One is a briber and the other takes the bribes... One of who has no gauge and will spout hatred all day long... All because one looks "alpha" and tough and the other has "experience".

You tell the average American "gullible" is written on the ceiling, they'll look up.

Guess America gets what it deserves after all
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:39 PM   #1115
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
This is pretty clearly an attack on the military's lack of discipline and consequences for sexual assault, as well as the lack of protections for women in service among large groups of men. Why do you think he is saying the idea of the service is a problem? Do you think he added in the "only 238 convictions" part to be funny?

To paraphrase: "There are a ton of assaults, and only a few convictions. What did they think would happen when they put men and women together? That every man would immediately be respectful of women and never even think about having sex with her? The military is not protecting women in coed service, it's not disciplining people who perform sexual assaults, and it's actually trying to sweep the problem under the rug. That needs to change."
Okay wow no this is not an okay opinion to have I'm sorry.

Sensitive topic under the spoiler:
Spoiler: show
The military unequivocally has an insane problem with sexual assault to the point where women are more likely to be assaulted by their fellow soldiers than by an enemy combatant. And the military establishment does nearly nothing to stop it or to convict the people who perpetrated these horrible crimes. It is a huge issue that is being actively suppressed by the Pentagon and by the government at large.

But blaming it on co-ed service is absolute lunacy. This is buying pretty much 100% into the "boys will be boys" mentality, which is just about the most toxic attitude you can take when it comes to something like sexual assault. Not only does it basically apologize for sexual assault by painting men as uncontrollable sexual monsters (e.g. "no wonder it happens, men just can't control themselves around women!") but it also completely absolves men of all responsibility (e.g. "The problem isn't that they're criminals or psychopaths, they were just put in a situation that they can't be expected to handle properly!"). And not to mention that we can just as easily completely infantilize women in the same broad stroke by saying that they should stay away from the evil men and that it's their fault if they don't. It's a hop, skip and a jump away from victim blaming.

And how can we prove that keeping them apart will work? Will a rapist not rape because they don't have direct access to their victims? Of course not! They are violent criminals and they're not assaulting women because they want to get off - it's an act of control and dominance. They will find other victims and the abuse will not end; it will just be diverted to civilians, spouses or (shockhorror!) male soldiers. And by putting women in their own separate service, we don't guarantee them any greater safety - their higher ups are still going to be men and there's still windows for abuse there, too. We also run (the pretty likely risk) of distancing women from areas where they could be a huge asset in the military, since we would have to run more or less two separate operations if we're going to commit to this plan.

We shouldn't have to protect women from men in the military. The military should take measures to weed out and punish the kinds of people who direct their violent tendencies to harm their peers. And it should also use its resources to help its soldiers deal with the emotional stress of the job to keep them from turning to violence to keep in control. But keeping the men and women separate is just perpetuating an attitude that makes all men look like monsters and all women look helpless.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:43 PM   #1116
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Just don't take this disappointment too hard and go permanently disillusioned with the politics.

I've seen two generations of liberals - both of my Dad's (who were heartbroken after Robert Kennedy's murder) and my own (after 2004) lose faith in the system and go hardcore neocon. People give up when they think they can't change the system, and their mindset turns toward "milk without guilt". That's the worst.

Hence why I gave VGM that compliment earlier. He's still the same guy arguing about politics 10 years later. If people don't lose that enthusiasm, hope for change will never fade.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:48 PM   #1117
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Politics is a game and sadly Bernie was not playing it as well as Hillary has, or at the very least had a pretty big disadvantage going in and wasn't able to outplay Hillary enough to catch up.

I really think that once this election blows over that we'll all forget about the primaries and nothing will really change in American politics. Even if Bernie were to win the candidacy and the election, I don't think he would be substantially more effective than pretty much anyone else.

Presidential elections are given all this focus but when it comes down to it, nearly everyone comes to the middle or sits on the fringes and does nothing and if a president manages to stay in office long enough, they might be able to choke one substantial thing through Congress once it's been chopped up enough.

More people should talk about Congressional elections. They're what actually matter in US government.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:54 PM   #1118
Miror
Marsh Badge
 
Miror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,755
To be fair, this night was never really supposed to be an excellent night for Sanders, it's really the next month or two that really are favorable for him. Basically every state the rest of this month will be likely to go his way bar potentially Arizona, with the biggest catches being Washington and Wisconsin. With Wisconsin we get into April, which dramatically shifts to New England with basically every remaining state up there which are all basically toss ups, even potentially New York but I personally think it's a bit unlikely. And then we're into May and June, which split things pretty evenly. So hope isn't lost completely yet on that front, though it's looking less like Sanders will have a majority and more of he'll now have to go the route to try to end up with a brokered convention, though with super delegates in play that makes it especially difficult.

On the Republican side, Rubio is gone and I wouldn't doubt most of his support and donors end up with Cruz and Kasich as opposed to Trump, but I don't see much else coming out of things tonight outside of Kasich clinging to life and the not-Trumps continuing on the path to stop him at the convention. We'll see how things develop.

But yeah, the participation in offyear elections is so embarrassingly low as well as just anything relating to the legislative branch in general, and considering how Congress continues to have an approval rating in the teens and lower (and approval of their own congressional representatives continues to lower too so it's not like everyone loves their incumbents either), if voters were actually motivated, educated, and cared, we might see some actual changes. But, since they don't, we'll just be stuck in the same quagmire as usual.
__________________
Miror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:55 PM   #1119
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
I wonder if Kasich stands a chance at picking up any steam.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:56 PM   #1120
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Jeri, I think we need some more hard facts about rapes in the military before we can take action against it.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but I highly suspect that the rapes in the military are being caused by the same issues that lead to rape in civilization, but it's magnified due to the outrage factor of it happening in an organization already under scrutiny, and maybe the military has a selection bias that would select for people more likely to rape.

I've heard, for example, in the Marine Corps if there's a woman in a regiment, every male in the regiment will have proposed to her once during the length of their service time. It's really a proximity thing...and makes me want to start a debate about the nature of relationships.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 09:05 PM   #1121
Miror
Marsh Badge
 
Miror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
I wonder if Kasich stands a chance at picking up any steam.
Considering he basically represents the establishment in an election that is railing against it, I would suspect not, but hey, Clinton's doing well despite it. Kasich also has a broader appeal by being slightly less conservative than the rest of the lot (which is actually only Cruz and Trump now, yeesh), and being a far more positive candidate as of late than his competitors in addition to having governing experience. He'd be an excellent candidate in say, the prior two elections, but this one is so focused against the perceived establishment that unfortunately for him, he will likely be stuck where he's at. A good 2020 candidate if Republicans don't net the presidency this year I would think.
__________________
Miror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 09:06 PM   #1122
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
On the Republican side; looks like Kasich held Ohio and Trump took everything else. I hear Rubio is dropping out after losing Florida. Hope to hell he comes out in favour of Kasich in the coming days but suspect it more likely he'll back Cruz. In the category of "vague ray of hope" though, Trump still has fewer delegates than all the non-Trumps combined so... hope for a brokered convention?

EDIT the first: Late to the party! Had the thread open a while.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 03-15-2016 at 09:13 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 09:11 PM   #1123
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Jeri, I think we need some more hard facts about rapes in the military before we can take action against it.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but I highly suspect that the rapes in the military are being caused by the same issues that lead to rape in civilization, but it's magnified due to the outrage factor of it happening in an organization already under scrutiny, and maybe the military has a selection bias that would select for people more likely to rape.

I've heard, for example, in the Marine Corps if there's a woman in a regiment, every male in the regiment will have proposed to her once during the length of their service time. It's really a proximity thing...and makes me want to start a debate about the nature of relationships.
What do you mean by hard facts? Statistics? Survivor accounts? I don't think the military exactly keeps stellar records of the issue or profiles the perpetrators very thoroughly so I'm not sure that's exactly practical or possible.

Yeah, the military probably has selection bias towards the more violently or aggressively inclined people, but it's not really a good excuse. Even in spite of the sexual assault issue, they should be seeking to deal with and get rid of these kinds of people in the first place. I'm sure that a military leader would agree that a soldier that seeks to harm his fellow fighters is counterproductive to pretty much every goal the military could have.

And... what? Aside from the fact that that sounds like hearsay, that does not relate in the slightest. Rape is not sex, it's violence. Rapists aren't looking for love or intimacy, they're looking for control. I'm pretty sure that most people can agree with me that if a man develops legitimate feelings for a woman that he is not looking to rape her - probably quite the opposite.
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 09:41 PM   #1124
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
What do you mean by hard facts? Statistics? Survivor accounts? I don't think the military exactly keeps stellar records of the issue or profiles the perpetrators very thoroughly so I'm not sure that's exactly practical or possible.
Right. I was worried that how I said it might have come across as denial.

I'm interested in the demographic, division trends. The Air Force, for example, has the highest number of women enlisted. You would suspect, then, that the Air Force would have the highest number of rapes if the only independent variable on rape was "branch size".

Google tells me this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MilitaryTimes
According to the Rand survey, the Air Force and Coast Guard had the lowest percentages of reported sexual assaults in 2014 and the Navy and Marine Corps had the highest.
The Air Force tends toward the fewest combat-related careers and has the highest education requirements. So not only does it have the highest proportion of women, but it also has the lowest rape incidents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post

Yeah, the military probably has selection bias towards the more violently or aggressively inclined people, but it's not really a good excuse. Even in spite of the sexual assault issue, they should be seeking to deal with and get rid of these kinds of people in the first place. I'm sure that a military leader would agree that a soldier that seeks to harm his fellow fighters is counterproductive to pretty much every goal the military could have.
I know a bit more about the Marine Corps than the other branches - I can tell you the Marine Corps definitely tries to get rid of such people. There is extensive screening to make sure the men don't have any criminal history or behaviours that would lend toward rebellious behaviour, such as tattoos (which are strongly correlated with such).

The problem is, if the very first crime someone ever commits is a rape, can you really say the women were adequately protected? What about women in society at larger? Hence why I say this is more a function of society than anything else...rapes are more likely to happen in rural towns where there is a high male/female ratio.

This is why the "co-ed is to blame" argument has some teeth. I think you're giving too much credit to men, especially the kind of men who want to be enlisted Marines. These are men who, without the control of officers or fear of punishment, will fall back on their most aggressive instincts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post

Rapists aren't looking for love or intimacy, they're looking for control.
This is correct, but I feel like a good chunk of rapes in the military toward servicewomen happen because the offender craves intercourse, isn't desperate enough (or is too homophobic) to engage in homosexuality, and feels that servicewomen are an open opportunity for them.

If you've ever seen Journey to the Centre of the Earth, the murder of Gertrud struck me as something similar. There was little respect for life or the relationship of Gertrud to Hans, Saknussemm saw Gertrud as a resource he had the power to take.

I don't think it's strictly about control as how rapes are typically characterized. I know many rumours that even in modern times men enlist in the military in the hope of being able to go on foreign campaigns and pillage villages, i.e. rape foreign women and sow their seeds abroad.

You generally don't get this with officers. Education tends to naturally weed out such intentions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
I'm pretty sure that most people can agree with me that if a man develops legitimate feelings for a woman that he is not looking to rape her - probably quite the opposite.
I disagree with this, but only because I see rape as a kind of infantile, perhaps childish expression of violence. Or rather, I see violence as childish/immature by nature. Men who love a woman but for whatever reason cannot progress in the relationship, or are rejected and can't handle it emotionally, so resort to rape - I don't think the man has really reflected on what love truly is.

That kind of self-reflection is common in the educated and world-weary. Not to someone who is only a few years removed from shallow high school romances.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 09:59 PM   #1125
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Stuff like this gives me some sense of vindication:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveThirtyEight
In stark contrast to last week’s steak salesmanship, Trump’s speech tonight sounded like the Trump version of a mainstream political speech. He mentioned deals but contrasted them with “the politicians can’t make an agreement” — a Trumpish riff on Obama’s “changing the tone in Washington” argument. He stayed focused on trade in the beginning of the remarks, and then endorsements, plus turnout and enthusiasm, and he mentioned bipartisanship at least twice. His praise for campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was brief and pointed. Basically, I’ve concluded that Trump stays in the news cycle by vacillating between doing something really outlandish, like advertising steaks or talking about his anatomy, and then has a subdued debate and gives a rambly but fairly mainstream speech.

Trump also fits pretty well into another political science theory, political time. Put simply, political cycles go on for about 40 years. They tend to end with unsuccessful presidencies — think James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter. One hallmark of these presidencies, especially in the 20th century, is that they tend to emphasize tinkering and getting things done rather than new big ideas (in contrast with those who start new cycles such as Lincoln, FDR, and most recently Reagan). Trump’s speech stressed his plans to make things work — health care, borders and, naturally, deals.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.