Latest Episode
Play

Go Back   Keith and The Girl Forums Keith and The Girl Forums Show Talk

Show Talk Talk about the show

View Poll Results: Whose side were you on during the discussion of the Family Ties impersonator?
Chemda 25 64.10%
Yamaneika 14 35.90%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Like Tree141Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2017, 09:40 AM   #91 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer38-hour Marathon 2014 Kickstarter Backer
 
Enunciated Piffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbliss View Post
I don't have any magic solutions to this problem.
MITIGATE RISK BRO !!!

Duh.
memecherry likes this.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 09:41 AM   #92 (permalink)
Senior Member
2023 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2022 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2020 Marathon Kickstarter Backer24-hour Marathon 2018 Fundraiser Backer24-hour Marathon 2017 Fundraiser Backer47-hour Marathon 2016 Kickstarter Backer
 
memecherry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by memecherry View Post
You GUUUYSSSS I need this thread to go back to the ONE missed opportunity on this show given the title:

"I Got Beans Greens Potatoes Tomatoes
Lamb Rams Pork Maw
Beans Greens Potatoes Tomatoes
Chicken Turkeys Rabbit"

Now back to THE most important topic in this thread! Who else had this song stuck in their head all day? Nobody? Just me?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 09:41 AM   #93 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Eating a moonpie
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbliss View Post
2-ish?
Really, depends on the maturity of the kid. Kids start dressing themselves at two so that seems about right and a perfect opportunity for it.
jbliss likes this.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 02:29 PM   #94 (permalink)
Senior Member
2023 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2022 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2020 Marathon Kickstarter Backer24-hour Marathon 2018 Fundraiser Backer24-hour Marathon 2017 Fundraiser Backer57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer38-hour Marathon 2014 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
shoebootie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: new jersey
Posts: 750
Yamaneika, who was a virgin until 27 and belonged to some kind of chastity club as an adult, with other grown women who would pat themselves on the back for fending off men and their offensive shoulder-touches as predatory... I'm not surprised she would take the stance that she did, quite honestly. Her hangups about sex and how she was brought up in that "protect your virginity" mindset clearly impact her views on how women should be composing themselves.
memecherry and Lanfear like this.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 08:33 PM   #95 (permalink)
Member
 
BadAsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 50
TLDR: If there were 0 guns on Earth, could we agree 0 people would die via guns?

Chemda's view is really interesting and extremely well articulated, but I think it is a bit too black and white and not sure it's the best ethos to live by. To me it seems like that could be illustrated by just pondering the argument/examples slightly farther.

Like what if a person painted the words "Please Rape Me" around her private parts and walked naked through a campfire party in the woods, after she and everyone else at the party had been drinking a lot for a few hours. Are you arguing that that this hypothetical person is not 1% more likely to be targeted by a rapist (a guy who happens to be at that party who is a rapist, just any random guy, could be literally anybody, her best friend, anybody, because I agree completely with Chemda that you never know who they will be) than a girl who sat in her bedroom doing nothing but watching Netflix that same night? Or maybe the idea is that the Netflix watching girl might be 1% safer, but certainly not 100% safe, of course. And so there is no meaningful difference between her situation and the the girl at the party's, so is it worth taking deliberate actions to prevent - just accept that it's in the hands of fate. Now I don't know that this is what Chemda is truly saying, but it comes off that way.

Another example would be, imagine a woman lives on an island on which there are NO men, or women, or anyone, around, and she lives her whole life there, living and dying without ever encountering anyone. I think we could agree that she has 0% chance of being raped. Would anyone live like that? Of course not, but the fact that it is POSibble for such a situation to exist, suggests that there is a possibility in our reality to change the probability of something happening, based on an action or a situation.

It also reminds me of arguments I've had about gun control. To me it's trying to get someone to admit "So let's say there were no guns on Earth, could we agree that there would therefore be 0 deaths by guns?" So since obviously we'll never have 0 guns, what if we had 50% less guns? Might that lead towards the direction of 50% less gun deaths? (only 15k dying in America yearly by guns, versus 30k the way it is now) What if it resulted in only 10% less deaths by gun. Would that still maybe be worth looking into?

Another example of course, is the idea that "you could get hit by a bus tomorrow", so the idea seeming to be, what's the point of trying to do ANYthing to reduce risk? Why do doors exist? Somebody is going to get into your house if they really really want to, what the fuck's the point? Even if guns were outlawed, if a murderer really really wants a gun hard enough, they will somehow get it. So if a law making it illegal for him to do so made it slightly more difficult, changed his probability of actually acquiring that gun and killing someone with it from 100% to 95%, well who cares? What's the difference

To me the whole idea ignores the fact that we live in a world of gradations and that there are differences between probabilities, and that less probability of something bad, even though not solved, is Progress. It's like making an argument that there is no difference between say, 60% and 30%, of ANYthing.

Maybe a seatbelt makes you, let's say, 50% less likely to die in a car crash where the person would be ejected from the windshield (don't know the actual statistic), let's say. But it doesn't make you 100% safe. So since it doesn't, this type of thinking suggests that taking 0 precaution is just as good/no different than taking a precaution that gives 50% protection.

I guess it is a free-ing way of living, in that you would never have to worry about literally anything, since you believe anything can happen at any time. But I think it would be reckless.

So if this applies to any other situation where there is a probability, why would it not apply to the probability of any person, man or woman, being raped? If you took your percentage of being raped down from 100% to 80% by doing I don't know, something, it would probably take a lot of research, wouldn't that be worth trying? Or perhaps Chemda is arguing that living that sort of world, where you are constantly fretting over making yourself safer when all your efforts might only amount to a few % points of less chance of something bad happening, then it just isn't worth it - better to just free your mind and rest easy, maybe something like that. Not sure that she is actually saying this of course.

But I suppose I would argue, what if we can find ways of decreasing risks in an automatic, not-having to think about it way? Where you are simultaneously not stressed but also safer because you live within that safer structure. Maybe through laws, or ways of raising or teaching people, shared responsibility of some type, I'm not really sure. But to me it's just a problem to be solved by extreme effort of thinking it through and finding an effective solution, NOT an unsolvable problem that we ought to just say fuck it to. Isn't that why like Social Security exists? It was a formulated national arrangement by which the extreme risk to all those old people or unemployed people during the great depression, of dying destitute, was reduced, and everyone participated through their taxes, yet it's not like they have to think or worry about it daily; that structure just exists so that at the worst case scenario, they don't starve to death. Like we found a way to do that, somehow.

Is preventing rape anything like that? Anywhere near as accomplishable? Fuck no, I'm sure it's really hard/basically impossible. Maybe Chemda is just talking about this one single thing, rape, not all risks in general. I'm sure that's the case. But it seems like surely there is some possibility that exists of reducing it's chances from 100% down a few points.

And further than that, that seems like kindof our duty as humans to try to figure that out, and implement it. Otherwise we are effectively saying fuck it, it's too hard to figure out or isn't worth the effort of implementing once we have figured it out, to save so few; yet if just a handful of women who would otherwise have been raped by pure probability, follow some advice or be born into some future better structure where we have found a way to address the prevalence of rape somehow, wouldn't that be worth it? My little sister was raped, should I not hope or strive for a world where we have somehow as a society figured out a way to prevent, let's say, 1% of other people's little sisters from being raped? In my opinion that would be very worth trying to do despite how futile it appears and extremely hard it would be to crack.

Now where I fully agree with Chemda is that nobody needs to hear advice such as this, directly from their friends or loved ones, AFTER a horrible calamity like rape has happened to them. Because at that point, it already happened, they already feel like shit, they will be resistant to any information that might have slightly reduced the risk, and it IS blaming them because of questioning them/insinuating to them that they could have done more/could have had that information to have prevented it, but they didn't, and so they in at least some small amount are, or their ignorance was, resonspible for what happened. But I'd argue that we SHOULD figure out a way where people get general advice like this, somehow at some point in their life, or should benefit from some law or structure/arrangement we figure out, to try to reduce that probability. They just don't need to hear it, from their loved ones, DIRECTLY after it happened.
It's kind of like when my fiance was a new driver and almost drove into oncoming traffic and got in an accident with me in the passenger seat, but it was clearly NOt a time to try to tell her a lesson on her mistake directly after it happened, like hoping that the advice would save her life in the future; it's pointless, that's not the time. Do it earlier, or way way later. Not right at the moment where it's most painful/wouldn't be absorbed as advice anyway.

(TLDR would be, probability differences aren't meaningless, they do actually matter)

Last edited by BadAsh; 02-23-2017 at 08:36 PM. Reason: jacked up grammar
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 11:19 PM   #96 (permalink)
Member
 
labelmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inwood, NY
Posts: 73
After reading through the entire thread, I actually didn't read two opposing viewpoints, just two viewpoints.

The first point is: in the paradigm of the way we have traditionally talked about rape in this society, we should advocate for women by teaching them how to avoid this horror any way they can. Even with the knowledge that rape is out of their control, there are still things women can do to make it "less" out of their control. (I hope you hear how the logic of this paradigm is breaking down.)

The second point is: the actual paradigm of the way we talk about rape is flawed, so anything that comes out of that paradigm - regardless of how well-meaning - is flawed. We need to fundamentally change the way we talk about rape and its prevention so that the onus is on what men should do to mitigate the risk, not women. Making statements to that effect after the fact is no longer good enough.

So I read this debate happening on two different levels, which is why people seem defensive and/or obtuse...people are talking about what's held within the structure of one's meaning making about this topic (point one) vs. the structure itself (point two).
jcro21 and jbliss like this.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 11:43 PM   #97 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer38-hour Marathon 2014 Kickstarter Backer
 
Enunciated Piffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,080
The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state.

So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here? Poke the bushes with a rapist check stick? Tell female students Their personal safety percentage goes up dramatically if they wear certain clothes and only register for Classes at noon with armed body guard escort?

The forum responses on here are great but I don't think everyone is clear on what a rape is. It's not something that's invited. It's an assault. You can't compare it to other crime.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2017, 08:39 AM   #98 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle View Post
The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state.

So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here? Poke the bushes with a rapist check stick? Tell female students Their personal safety percentage goes up dramatically if they wear certain clothes and only register for Classes at noon with armed body guard escort?

The forum responses on here are great but I don't think everyone is clear on what a rape is. It's not something that's invited. It's an assault. You can't compare it to other crime.
Just because you have an anecdote where, terribly, there is no obvious risk-mitigation that could have / can happen, does not mean that no risk-mitigation strategies should ever be taught anywhere in the world. That is a clear logical fallacy and I hope you can see it.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2017, 11:07 AM   #99 (permalink)
Senior Member
2023 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2022 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2020 Marathon Kickstarter Backer24-hour Marathon 2018 Fundraiser Backer24-hour Marathon 2017 Fundraiser Backer47-hour Marathon 2016 Kickstarter Backer
 
memecherry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,026
all this risk mitigation talk got me curious, especially since this thread is related to what women can do...

Was curious what two google searches would pop up.

Same language except for one word:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg women.JPG (118.6 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg men.JPG (122.5 KB, 4 views)
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2017, 11:30 AM   #100 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by memecherry View Post
all this risk mitigation talk got me curious, especially since this thread is related to what women can do...

Was curious what two google searches would pop up.

Same language except for one word:
:-(
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger