OK, SHE SAID IT! - Women Bring on Sexual Assault by Their Dress / Conduct...

[Sam]

And for the record, calling the argument names is NOT an ad hom...

It is when you fail to address the point offered.

[Cow Poke]

Since it's a pretty familiar trope, I assume JimL was speaking of Conservative's efforts to more strictly regulate abortion and to give employers greater freedom in denying women at least certain types of contraceptives.

Yeah, I don't think he's that sharp --- and aren't you the guy who gets so pedantic about dealing with the issue in the CURRENT thread?

He can certainly speak for himself

Then why did you butt in?

but you didn't actually address his point and veered off in a different direction.

So, you're a mind reader now - you know what direction JimL was going?

And me? You unquestionably and completely avoided taking up the substance of my post, settling into an ad hom. And my rebuttal still stands: such behavior doesn't suit you. Address the points, leave off on the characterizations and personal attacks. If you must be snarky, do it in the context of addressing the points.

Well, get off your high horse and actually make a point that's relative to this thread, Sam, and let JimL dig his own hole.

[Sam]

To be an ad hom you actually have to be arguing rather than just yelling insults at each other. The fallacy, as your graphic points out, is when you attack the opponent's character as an answer to the argument. CP didn't do that because he didn't address the argument at all. He didn't say it was wrong because Jim was whatever - he just called Jim names and you by association, both derived from the argument being wrong to begin with, not being wrong because of those allegations. That's name calling, all right, but not an ad hom. The argument has left the building.

Sadly, it was never IN the building. Virtually every poster has denied that the woman is at fault even when placing herself at risk and almost all stated that Hynde either over stated or chose her wording poorly. The very points you said you were arguing AREN'T AT ISSUE. CP has repeatedly stated his agreement with the main points you made - so what argument can there be minus any actual issue?

Because both JimL and I were making arguments and because CP "didn't address the argument at all," as you wrote, he engaged in an ad hominem fallacy. Pretty simple.

CP has pretty consistently implied, and other posters have explicitly said, that others -- be they participants or just 'liberals' -- have heavily criticized people for the "unpopular" effort to advise women to take precautions against assault. And that is false. So while CP is agreeing with the criticism of Ms. Hynde, he's making his criticism distinct from "the liberals", who are apparently the "PC Police" out to get her.

The issue, at the moment, is the false characterization of others' statements and motivations regarding this critique.

[Joel]

That wasn't how the "roofie polish" criticism played out and it doesn't even follow from your source articles:



Bolding added. Does that sound like someone who's arguing that "advising/empowering precautions is not permissible"? Not in the least. And I didn't see much at all, at the time, arguing that women shouldn't take precautions. The criticism was that such products can create situations where the victim is being blamed for not taking each and every precaution deemed by someone else to be necessary.

So you've created a caricature.

I didn't say everyone in the world opposed the invention, but that some people did. So your pointing to a person quoted in the article that didn't, doesn't contradict me.

You've here pulled two quotes from that article. The first by Nagle seems consistent with her opposing the invention and insisting on a 100% emphasis on the criminal (as inferred from her other quotes.).

Your other quote here is from Vitchers, who doesn't seem to be opposed to the invention, and is thus not one of the people I quoted or referred to. Vitchers seems much more reasonable. It seems Vitchers is just opposing the opposite extreme: a 100% focus on a woman taking precautions for herself. (Though I don't know if anyone actually holds to that opposite extreme.)

You can google around to find more examples. For example, a Huffington Post article, although it applauds the inventors for their good intentions, says the inventors have unintentially done wrong. "While well intentioned, products like "Undercover Colors" actually perpetuate rape culture by placing the burden of safety back onto women." Like other examples, the article takes a strong either/or stance, with such tools being only a distraction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia...b_5722724.html

Or this Salon article, which views the invention with (at best) cautious suspicion. And points out that similar products "have been criticized for continuing to place the onus of sexual assault prevention on potential victims, as opposed to calling out potential perpetrators." More of the false dichotomy.
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/25/nail...ent_date_rape/

[Sam]

Well, get off your high horse and actually make a point that's relative to this thread, Sam, and let JimL dig his own hole.

I did. That's when you responded without addressing my point and chose an ad hom instead. And that's how we got here.

[Sam]

I didn't say everyone in the world opposed the invention, but that some people did. So your pointing to a person quoted in the article that didn't, doesn't contradict me.

You've here pulled two quotes from that article. The first by Nagle seems consistent with her opposing the invention and insisting on a 100% emphasis on the criminal (as inferred from her other quotes.).

Your other quote here is from Vitchers, who doesn't seem to be opposed to the invention, and is thus not one of the people I quoted or referred to. Vitchers seems much more reasonable. It seems Vitchers is just opposing the opposite extreme: a 100% focus on a woman taking precautions for herself. (Though I don't know if anyone actually holds to that opposite extreme.)

You can google around to find more examples. For example, a Huffington Post article, although it applauds the inventors for their good intentions, says the inventors have unintentially done wrong. "While well intentioned, products like "Undercover Colors" actually perpetuate rape culture by placing the burden of safety back onto women." Like other examples, the article takes a strong either/or stance, with such tools being only a distraction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia...b_5722724.html

Or this Salon article, which views the invention with (at best) cautious suspicion. And points out that similar products "have been criticized for continuing to place the onus of sexual assault prevention on potential victims, as opposed to calling out potential perpetrators." More of the false dichotomy.
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/25/nail...ent_date_rape/

So the "PC Police" becomes a few people here and there? I'm not terribly impressed by that definition.

The Vitchers quote comes right after the Nagle quote in the article, with the word "added", implying that the two were speaking together. Nagle's other quote doesn't imply that she's opposed to technological precautions like this, only that she doesn't want to havehaving an opinion. As I said, that fails to impress.

[Cow Poke]

I did. That's when you responded without addressing my point and chose an ad hom instead. And that's how we got here.

OK, instead of crying over and over about being "ad hom'd", perhaps you can attempt to make whatever point it was that you thought got ignored. Was it your mind reading of JimL's intent? Or was it something else?

[Sam]

OK, instead of crying over and over about being "ad hom'd", perhaps you can attempt to make whatever point it was that you thought got ignored. Was it your mind reading of JimL's intent? Or was it something else?

Go back and check out my post. #134. If you want help narrowing it down, please explain how encouraging and advising women to take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks is at all unpopular among liberals, Democrats, or the populace at large.

[Cow Poke]

Go back and check out my post. #134. If you want help narrowing it down, please explain how encouraging and advising women to take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks is at all unpopular among liberals, Democrats, or the populace at large.

No, Sam -- just say what's on your mind. In order to properly address this, we'd need to know what JimL was actually intending. You kinda just assumed. If YOU have something you'd like me to address, fire away.

[Sam]

No, Sam -- just say what's on your mind. In order to properly address this, we'd need to know what JimL was actually intending. You kinda just assumed. If YOU have something you'd like me to address, fire away.

My post dealt solely with the comments that you made; nothing JimL wrote pertains. You can address my post without even knowing that his exists. I've linked back to the post and given you a specific topic that I'd like you to address. I've done my part.

[klaus54]

Make less ad hom's then

FEWER

ugh...

[Cow Poke]

My post dealt solely with the comments that you made; nothing JimL wrote pertains. You can address my post without even knowing that his exists. I've linked back to the post and given you a specific topic that I'd like you to address. I've done my part.

Congratulations.

[Jaecp]

FEWER

ugh...

It doesn't really matter

[Darth Executor]

which is the prevalence of "rape culture", especially in universities.

I'd rather she write articles about the mental rape culture among progressives who post on the Internet. At least that one's real.

[Darth Executor]

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176

The rate of rape and sexual assault was 1.2 times higher for nonstudents (7.6 per 1,000) than for students (6.1 per 1,000).

This statistic alone pretty much confirms the college rape myth pushed by progressives is a lie (of course, since the entire progressive worldview is based on one huge lie this should come as no surprise to anybody).