Almost a quarter of men 'admit to rape in parts of Asia'

[kgambit]

 

Yep. I presume the US version had an equivalent to Maddy Storin- intrepid girl reporter, well known gerontophile, mortal enemy gravity- as well as Francis U/ Frank U but the series has not arrived here yet and netflix has geoIP locking.

 

 

Yes, Zoe Barnes who exhibits Maddy same preference for older men.   Although as of the end of season 1 in the US version,  there's been no indication that the spunky US female reporter will ultimately have a "falling out" with gravity.  

 

lol

 

PS:  Zoe Barnes is played by Kate Mara, who fans of American Horror Story will recognize as Hayden Maclaine - the emotionally unstable lover and student of Ben Harmon. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Off-topic, is House of Cards worth watching?

[BruceVC]

Off-topic, is House of Cards worth watching?

 

Very much so, the series  never ceases to amaze with all the Machiavellian political intrigue and strategies you will witness

[Nonek]

The sequel "To Play the King" is also of the highest quality, and features an interesting power dynamic. The concluding part of the trilogy "The Final Cut" was I thought a little too blatant and obvious, but still worth watching for the sake of rounding out Francis Urquharts saga.

[TrashMan]

 

I don't need a lesson. You can keep your opinion, TrashMan, I'm not interested.

 

Arguing against people who show complete contempt of what you're saying and refuse to even *consider* your point of view seems like a total waste of time on everyone's end to me, but maybe that's just me. What kind of crappy discussion/argument involves people just ignoring the opposition's supporting details/arguments? What's the point of even saying your piece when they could retort with the same exact cop out thing you just said?

 

Hurray for insulated thinking. 

 

 

Good for you.

 

Contempt? Insulated thinking?

So because I'm not strolling across the flower fields happily embracing anyone who talks to me from above like I'm some uneducated child, I'm "insulated"? Because I don't immediately agree with someones theories, I'm "refusing to even cosider it"?

 

Must be nice in strawman land.

Heveans forbid anyone even dares to contemplate different possibilities.

 

[kgambit]

Off-topic, is House of Cards worth watching?

 

Season 1 of the US remake was really good.  Kevin Spacey as US Senator from S.Carolina Frank Underwood is fantastic. 

 

Haven't watched the full BBC series, yet..

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

I don't need a lesson. You can keep your opinion, TrashMan, I'm not interested.

 

Arguing against people who show complete contempt of what you're saying and refuse to even *consider* your point of view seems like a total waste of time on everyone's end to me, but maybe that's just me. What kind of crappy discussion/argument involves people just ignoring the opposition's supporting details/arguments? What's the point of even saying your piece when they could retort with the same exact cop out thing you just said?

 

Hurray for insulated thinking. 

 

 

Good for you.

 

Contempt? Insulated thinking?

So because I'm not strolling across the flower fields happily embracing anyone who talks to me from above like I'm some uneducated child, I'm "insulated"? Because I don't immediately agree with someones theories, I'm "refusing to even cosider it"?

 

Must be nice in strawman land.

Heveans forbid anyone even dares to contemplate different possibilities.

 

You don't have to agree - I don't necessarily agree with either of you or anyone else in this topic, as I don't really have an opinion on the actual topic at hand either way, but merely find it interesting to read the opposing arguments. However, if I were going to attempt to take a stance here and state an opinion in direct contradiction to someone else's position - and you were the one that initially picked out Bruce's post and stated it to be wrong, without backing it up at all besides *opinion* - you can sure as heck bet I wouldn't be "refuting" their forthcoming arguments by replying with them not being worth reading because I already "know" I'm right...because I'm pretty sure that's a stance anyone can take regarding virtually anything at all.

 

Should he have actually made some points himself instead of attempting to make you do (most of) his work for him? Absolutely - unless you're super interested in trying to make him see your point of view and perhaps agree with you, I don't think you had an obligation to respond to him at all, as he didn't actually do anything himself for his argument, and I think it's pretty poor etiquette to just post links and make the opponent construct their position for them. But maybe it's just me, but saying something along the lines of "neener neener, I don't need to read what you're posting, and I feel obligated to tell you not just that that, but also the fact you're still wrong *and* now additionally deluded, based on *opinion*!" seems a bit worse in comparison.

 

But hey, the good news is that my posts are based mostly on opinion and/or a disturbing amount of subjective ethics, too, so I guess I'm hardly one to talk, eh?

Edited September 14, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

 

I don't need a lesson. You can keep your opinion, TrashMan, I'm not interested.

 

Arguing against people who show complete contempt of what you're saying and refuse to even *consider* your point of view seems like a total waste of time on everyone's end to me, but maybe that's just me. What kind of crappy discussion/argument involves people just ignoring the opposition's supporting details/arguments? What's the point of even saying your piece when they could retort with the same exact cop out thing you just said?

 

Hurray for insulated thinking. 

 

 

Good for you.

 

Contempt? Insulated thinking?

So because I'm not strolling across the flower fields happily embracing anyone who talks to me from above like I'm some uneducated child, I'm "insulated"? Because I don't immediately agree with someones theories, I'm "refusing to even cosider it"?

 

Must be nice in strawman land.

Heveans forbid anyone even dares to contemplate different possibilities.

 

 

 

The issue I have with debating you Trashman is that you are lazy and obdurate.

 

I stated "rape is about power and not sex". You said " its about sex". I disputed that and posted 3 links that explained why rape is more about the psychological control and domination of women. Its not about the physical power of actually being able to rape a women. So you misunderstood the definition of the word power in the context in this discussion

 

If you had just spent 10 minutes reading these links you would have understood that, but you are lazy and refused to do that. I can't have a debate with someone who is not  prepared to at least understand the opposing argument when he is presented with credible links. Its a waste of my time

Edited September 16, 2013 by BruceVC

[TrashMan]

 

 

You don't have to agree - I don't necessarily agree with either of you or anyone else in this topic, as I don't really have an opinion on the actual topic at hand either way, but merely find it interesting to read the opposing arguments. However, if I were going to attempt to take a stance here and state an opinion in direct contradiction to someone else's position - and you were the one that initially picked out Bruce's post and stated it to be wrong, without backing it up at all besides *opinion* - you can sure as heck bet I wouldn't be "refuting" their forthcoming arguments by replying with them not being worth reading because I already "know" I'm right...because I'm pretty sure that's a stance anyone can take regarding virtually anything at all.

 

 

 

Have I said that? Because I'm damn sure I didn't.

I said that I'm not interested because I already read dozens of articles like that before. It's no new information.

 

The interent is full of articels stating X and articels stating counter-X.

I am long past the phase of accepting a linked article or study as proof by default, since I can easily dig up articles and studies sayign the opposite - and this is especially true in mathers of psychology and statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should he have actually made some points himself instead of attempting to make you do (most of) his work for him? Absolutely - unless you're super interested in trying to make him see your point of view and perhaps agree with you, I don't think you had an obligation to respond to him at all, as he didn't actually do anything himself for his argument, and I think it's pretty poor etiquette to just post links and make the opponent construct their position for them.

 

Make me do his work?

What work?

Claiming victory in a discussion by fiat is the lowest and worst possible form of debating ever.

Not that even wish to go into a long debate on tis subject, but I seriosuly hope that is not what you are implying.

 

Becase last time I checked, I don't have any obligation towards anyone to meet their expectations in my posts.

[Walsingham]

Becase last time I checked, I don't have any obligation towards anyone to meet their expectations in my posts.

 

All the forum actually obliges you to do is expend time and effort. How you utilise it is entirely up to you. So to take one example at random, you are at complete liberty to expend time and effort making everyone feel substantially better informed and more intelligent. Does that help clarify things?

Edited September 16, 2013 by Walsingham

[TrashMan]

 

The issue I have with debating you Trashman is that you are lazy and obdurate.

 

I stated "rape is about power and not sex". You said " its about sex". I disputed that and posted 3 links that explained why rape is more about the psychological control and domination of women. Its not about the physical power of actually being able to rape a women. So you misunderstood the definition of the word power in the context in this discussion

 

If you had just spent 10 minutes reading these links you would have understood that, but you are lazy and refused to do that. I can't have a debate with someone who is not  prepared to at least understand the opposing argument when he is presented with credible links. Its a waste of my time

 

 

 

I'm not lazy.

You're just not saying anything new to me.

I know very well what you meant. I just don't agree ( or to be more correct, I'm very skeptical of it).

 

Or do you think you are so fascinating that I'm going to devote all my time and attention to absorbring every kernel of your wisdom?

That anything you said and read is completely and utterly fresh and interesting to me?

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you think I'm obtuse or boring.

Depending on my mood, I often am. I freely admit that.

 

If you think replying to me is a waste of time...well, no one is forcing you to reply.

I for one know this is waste of time. Why do you think I post in general discussion anyway?

To kill time during a slow work day (and if there's nothing interesting going on the Eternity forums).

Maybe you have some higher stakes in this discussion?

 

Meh. I need my coffe.

[BruceVC]

 

 

The issue I have with debating you Trashman is that you are lazy and obdurate.

 

I stated "rape is about power and not sex". You said " its about sex". I disputed that and posted 3 links that explained why rape is more about the psychological control and domination of women. Its not about the physical power of actually being able to rape a women. So you misunderstood the definition of the word power in the context in this discussion

 

If you had just spent 10 minutes reading these links you would have understood that, but you are lazy and refused to do that. I can't have a debate with someone who is not  prepared to at least understand the opposing argument when he is presented with credible links. Its a waste of my time

 

 

 

I'm not lazy.

You're just not saying anything new to me.

I know very well what you meant. I just don't agree ( or to be more correct, I'm very skeptical of it).

 

Or do you think you are so fascinating that I'm going to devote all my time and attention to absorbring every kernel of your wisdom?

That anything you said and read is completely and utterly fresh and interesting to me?

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you think I'm obtuse or boring.

Depending on my mood, I often am. I freely admit that.

 

If you think replying to me is a waste of time...well, no one is forcing you to reply.

I for one know this is waste of time. Why do you think I post in general discussion anyway?

To kill time during a slow work day (and if there's nothing interesting going on the Eternity forums).

Maybe you have some higher stakes in this discussion?

 

Meh. I need my coffe.

 

 

I enjoy debates and I mean what I post but my opinion can be changed if someone can convince me. Normally this has to happen through credible links or some indisputable fact that I wasn't aware of. I will continue to debate with you if I feel the topic is interesting but on this particular discussion I have said all I can say.

 

I don't consider any of the debates I have on these forums as a waste of time, if I did I would say so and move on or not have the debate in the first place.

 

Finally don't be embarrassed to admit you learnt something new on a forum. Most of the time I learn new things from these forums on a weekly basis and its great

[TrashMan]

 

Becase last time I checked, I don't have any obligation towards anyone to meet their expectations in my posts.

 

All the forum actually obliges you to do is expend time and effort. How you utilise it is entirely up to you. So to take one example at random, you are at complete liberty to expend time and effort making everyone feel substantially better informed and more intelligent. Does that help clarify things?

 

 

 

True, true.

 

I COULD go hunting for various articles and surveys and go into longer and more detailed, better worded explanations. 

But that needs two requiremenets:

 

1) I need to be in the mood and feel properly motivated.. which I rarely am early in the morning.

 

2) I want to make others more intelligent and better informed, and thus teaching is my primary motivator (and not just venting frustrations) Which is also not always the case.

 

In the time I typed all ofthis I COULD have hunted down one or two articles I mentioned. Or typed a more concise and better structured rebuttal. But I didn't.

At the moment I find the direction of this thread more amusing.

 

 

WHEEE! TOP OF THE WORLD MOM!

[Walsingham]

Then perhaps a better line to take would be

 

"I don't have the energy to respond right now. So temporarily concede the point. I may come back to you, though."

[TrashMan]

Ah...but that would only apply if I did conceed the point.

 

But what if you are convinced you're right, but aren't bothered with proving it?

Why would anyone have to do anything more than say "I don't belive in X", or "I'm skeptical about x/your soruces/whatever"

If stating your oppinion is all you care to do, then why should you be dragged into an endless debate about defending your oppinion?

What if you don't care if your oppinion is under attack? What if you don't even consider the opposition as an attacker to begin with?

What if you think your position doesn't even need any defense?

 

...

 

I should have majored philosophy, since I so love to nitpick and go on pointless tangents.

 

 

Gaze upon me and despiar!

Edited September 16, 2013 by TrashMan

[Walsingham]

If you think you're right but can't be bothered to prove it then how is that different but being wrong, and dodging it?

 

So as a gentleman one concedes the point until such time as you CAN be bothered.

 

And before you ask, if you can't be bothered to be a gentleman when you merely have to type to that standard then I suggest that you will never be a gentleman.

[BruceVC]

If you think you're right but can't be bothered to prove it then how is that different but being wrong, and dodging it?

 

So as a gentleman one concedes the point until such time as you CAN be bothered.

 

And before you ask, if you can't be bothered to be a gentleman when you merely have to type to that standard then I suggest that you will never be a gentleman.

 

I will place a small wager on Trashmans next comment being " but who says I want to be a gentleman"

[Walsingham]

 

If you think you're right but can't be bothered to prove it then how is that different but being wrong, and dodging it?

 

So as a gentleman one concedes the point until such time as you CAN be bothered.

 

And before you ask, if you can't be bothered to be a gentleman when you merely have to type to that standard then I suggest that you will never be a gentleman.

 

I will place a small wager on Trashmans next comment being " but who says I want to be a gentleman"

 

 

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. For my part I'd like to be a gentleman because I have had the privilege of knowing some real gentlemen. Gentlemen who are gentlemen all day, not just for the half hour after they arrive and before the first ***ktail kicks in.

[Bartimaeus]

 

Have I said that? Because I'm damn sure I didn't.

I said that I'm not interested because I already read dozens of articles like that before. It's no new information.

 

The interent is full of articels stating X and articels stating counter-X.

I am long past the phase of accepting a linked article or study as proof by default, since I can easily dig up articles and studies sayign the opposite - and this is especially true in mathers of psychology and statistics.

 

 

Make me do his work?

What work?

Claiming victory in a discussion by fiat is the lowest and worst possible form of debating ever.

Not that even wish to go into a long debate on tis subject, but I seriosuly hope that is not what you are implying.

 

Becase last time I checked, I don't have any obligation towards anyone to meet their expectations in my posts.

 

 

Excuse me, but it seemed to me that you were implying that you weren't even going to look at them because they might contradict your stance. That's not exactly what you stated, but then again, it's not exactly clear what you were stating and I thought it was what it was, . But know now that what you really meant was that you weren't going to read or properly argue against them because you already magically knew what was contained within them, which, for some reason, makes it so you don't actually have to address what they say...  And I agree with you on not accepting articles as proof - I was just rather perturbed by the previously mentioned implication combined with both you being the one to initially pick out and contradict his post as well as forthcoming "rebuttal" of what seemed to me to consist of "I'm right, you're wrong, here's no counterargument, logical proof, or even anecdotal evidence", 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just saying that it's not really your responsibility to have to read and go through articles BruceVC is sourcing, and roughly construct his position for him that you can you can *then* argue. I feel like it should be Bruce's responsibility to make his own, clearly stated argument for you to reply to, and *then* perhaps use those articles as backup. But he just posted articles in of themselves, which I thought was pretty lame if he was actually interested in trying to...erm..."educate" (ew) you, or even properly refute what you were saying. Which is why I thought you would've been better off just ignoring him, unless you were very interested in making him see things your way. But instead, you implied that the articles weren't worth reading, said he was wrong and now additionally deluded, and then only offered the same thing you said to begin with - after which, all in all, I was a bit intellectually insulted, which is why I commented to begin with. 

 

But maybe, like I said before, this is all just on my side. There's reasons why I normally don't get into arguments.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[alanschu]

I am long past the phase of accepting a linked article or study as proof by default, since I can easily dig up articles and studies sayign the opposite - and this is especially true in mathers of psychology and statistics.

 

It might do you some good to return to this stage rather than remaining in your current state of regression....

 

If contrary articles exist, then those can be debated and so forth as well.  On the plus side, if they are very common, it should be trivial to find them!

 

 

 

 

But what if you are convinced you're right, but aren't bothered with proving it?

 

The question then becomes "why are you convinced you are right?

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone have to do anything more than say "I don't belive in X", or "I'm skeptical about x/your soruces/whatever"

If stating your oppinion is all you care to do, then why should you be dragged into an endless debate about defending your oppinion?

What if you don't care if your oppinion is under attack? What if you don't even consider the opposition as an attacker to begin with?

What if you think your position doesn't even need any defense?

 

- Stating that you're skeptical is fine.  Though most people fail to realize that skeptic is open to the idea that he or she may be wrong, and hence misuse the word.

- If stating your opinion is all you care to do, then that's fine.  But it goes back to "why do you have that opinion?"  If you can't be bothered to defend it, then rebuttals and refutations of your opinion wouldn't bother you, and you wouldn't feel compelled to speak up in the light of said challenges

- If you don't care that your opinion is under attack, then see previous point

- If you don't think that your position needs any defense, then you're certainly not a skeptic, you're possibly arrogant, and you're certainly misguided with an unwavering confidence that is proportional to the level of dispute that the topic has.  It's one thing to decide that you don't need to substantiate Newton's Laws, but it's another if you simply conclude that, for example, capital punishment is the only acceptable response to capital crimes.

Edited September 17, 2013 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

 

I am long past the phase of accepting a linked article or study as proof by default, since I can easily dig up articles and studies sayign the opposite - and this is especially true in mathers of psychology and statistics.

 

It might do you some good to return to this stage rather than remaining in your current state of regression....

 

If contrary articles exist, then those can be debated and so forth as well.  On the plus side, if they are very common, it should be trivial to find them!

 

 

 

 

But what if you are convinced you're right, but aren't bothered with proving it?

 

The question then becomes "why are you convinced you are right?

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone have to do anything more than say "I don't belive in X", or "I'm skeptical about x/your soruces/whatever"

If stating your oppinion is all you care to do, then why should you be dragged into an endless debate about defending your oppinion?

What if you don't care if your oppinion is under attack? What if you don't even consider the opposition as an attacker to begin with?

What if you think your position doesn't even need any defense?

 

- Stating that you're skeptical is fine.  Though most people fail to realize that skeptic is open to the idea that he or she may be wrong, and hence misuse the word.

- If stating your opinion is all you care to do, then that's fine.  But it goes back to "why do you have that opinion?"  If you can't be bothered to defend it, then rebuttals and refutations of your opinion wouldn't bother you, and you wouldn't feel compelled to speak up in the light of said challenges

- If you don't care that your opinion is under attack, then see previous point

- If you don't think that your position needs any defense, then you're certainly not a skeptic, you're possibly arrogant, and you're certainly misguided with an unwavering confidence that is proportional to the level of dispute that the topic has.  It's one thing to decide that you don't need to substantiate Newton's Laws, but it's another if you simply conclude that, for example, capital punishment is the only acceptable response to capital crimes.

 

 

@ Trashman

 

Alan is his usual articulate manner has made some excellent points. I hope you take the time to read and understand them.

 

[TrashMan]

If you think you're right but can't be bothered to prove it then how is that different but being wrong, and dodging it?

 

So as a gentleman one concedes the point until such time as you CAN be bothered.

 

And before you ask, if you can't be bothered to be a gentleman when you merely have to type to that standard then I suggest that you will never be a gentleman.

 

1) To the opposing party there is no difference. To one stating it there is a big difference. It's like saying that there is no difference between giving a beggar money because you feel compassion and giving him money because you feel that it's expected from you. In both cases the outside observer sees the exact same thing. Is it the same?

 

2) What I will concede is that I haven't brought up any conclusive evidence to support my oppinion (but then again I don't consider the linked articles conclusive either, nor any articles I could link as conclusive either, so either way no conclusive evidence could be presented)

I also admit that I'm pretty much replying here "just because I can"

 

3) Your definition of a gentelmans behavior is not my concern. The specific action you mentioned is not in my definition.

 

...

 

So to make this as clear as possible:

 

- I'm not convinced with the "rape is about power" theory. It's too simplistic and goes down the route of putting things into neat little boxes to make things ordely and simple. The world is too complex - as well is human psyche -  for that.

 

- I'm not going to say "you are right" just because I can't or won't produce evidence of contrary that would satisfy you. Wether or not I have or will produce evidence does not change my oppinion, and thus does not necessitate my acceptance of opposing oppinion as true. It *might* be, but It might not.

 

 

 

 

The question then becomes "why are you convinced you are right?

 

Why are you? Why is anyone convinced of anything?

 

 

 

It's one thing to decide that you don't need to substantiate Newton's Laws, but it's another if you simply conclude that, for example, capital punishment is the only acceptable response to capital crimes.

 

For some, capital punishment might be a universal law as strong a Newtons - wether or not other poeple accept it or see it is not relevant. To put it in simpler terms, truth is truth, regardless if you can show it to other poeple or not, or if they accept it. It exists regardless of our acceptance or knowledge or ability.

Being able to prove it trough "science" is a nice bonus tough.

 

*Not saying that is my stance on capital punishment or anything else. Don't read too much into it*

 

 

 

- If stating your opinion is all you care to do, then that's fine.  But it goes back to "why do you have that opinion?"  If you can't be bothered to defend it, then rebuttals and refutations of your opinion wouldn't bother you, and you wouldn't feel compelled to speak up in the light of said challenges

 

Maybe it's not the refutations that bother me, bur rather the insistance that I *MUST* defend it to the last breath or that I * MUST* concede? Ever tough of that possibility?

Edited September 18, 2013 by TrashMan

[Walsingham]

Your definition, as expressed above, seems to indicate that you don't really think any of the people on the forum are real, or have any significance at all.

 

It seems to me you could have an equally effective, and substantially more efficient, exchange of views with your left foot.

[BruceVC]

Your definition, as expressed above, seems to indicate that you don't really think any of the people on the forum are real, or have any significance at all.

 

It seems to me you could have an equally effective, and substantially more efficient, exchange of views with your left foot.

 

 

You  make me laugh

[TrashMan]

Your definition, as expressed above, seems to indicate that you don't really think any of the people on the forum are real, or have any significance at all.

 

It seems to me you could have an equally effective, and substantially more efficient, exchange of views with your left foot.

 

No, it does not.

While it is not unexpected that one might resort to making it sound like I'm dismissing/insulting other people (and thus making it about them and personal), I find such tactics deplorable.

And unexpected from you, given your past record.

 

Because not wanting to do X, means I think less of you.

CLEARLY.

 

Met two people on the street. Greet one first. I CLEARLY hate the other one.

Don't want to talk with you? I CLEARLY hate you. There can be no other reason. NONE WHATSOEVER.

 

Do not assume my feelings or oppinions on other poeple.

 

Dear Lord..

Sometime I do feel like I might have a better discussion with my left foot. At least it is not judgmental and doesn't jump to conclusion (altough it could use some nail trimmin').

Edited September 18, 2013 by TrashMan