jakee 1,611
Recommended Posts
kbordson 8
QuoteQuoteNo. She might inspire emotions. But she did not CAUSE actions. That connection was within him. And that was NOT what I was inferring.
OK. And given that statement, it would be somewhat ridiculous to make the proviso "If you can ensure that no-one in your short-skirt wearing society gets hurt, then go for it", wouldn't it?
What exactly are you trying to rationalize? Are you looking for a "reason" that it's ok to be promiscious for some personal level? I don't understand your analogies that "if it's not ok to be promiscious, then it's the fault of the rape victim."
I initially pointed out the reasons why it would be better for society not to have a highly promiscious population. Not making judgemental statements about whether it was moral or not. You seem to be the one trying to justify.
jakee 1,611
QuoteWhat exactly are you trying to rationalize?
I'm not trying to rationalise anything, I'm pointing out why I feel that linking promiscuity and domestic violence is as odious as other people's linking of provocative dress and rape. It doesn't fly.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteI think it boils down to to a few things.
1) Rampant materialism reinforced by a media that now is inside your home in the form of TV, Radio, Magazines, Newspapers and of course the internet. Never before have people been faced with such a total bombardment of advertsment and selling of unrealistic dreams that raise the individuals expectations beyond what they are able to achive thus leadng to frustration which in turn turns to anger.
2) A lack of discipline in modern day society means that they are less able to control their anger.
3) By having unrealistic expectations of life and a focus on materialism rather than society, human life devalues and along with the lack of discipline and increaed anger and frustration violence against the person is likely to rise, especially when linked to the next point...
4) A lack of answerability. In the past communities were smaller and families lived closer together with cousins and Aunts and Uncles being a short walk away living in the same neighbourhood. Ths meant that there was a greater likelihood of someone recognising you if you infringed the social norms, in turn you were less likely to get away with things. You'd bring shame on your family and they would all suffer from your actions. When people were religious they felt they were answerable to a all knowing God who would punish them, with a decline in religious belife there is a decline in that answerbility.
In todays western societies people live miles from their families even in different continents and live in cities and towns of millions or hundereds of thousands where they are annoymous.
5) Mobility, linked to the last point on answerability and annonimity. Where as in the past individuals were limited to the distance the could walk they now have great mobility which is easily affordable by public transport, personal transport and affordable air travel. People on holiday often act in ways they wouldn't if they were at home, why? Answerability, no body knows them when they are on holiday.
6) There is no shame in society anymore. Only for certain crimes, incest, peodophilia, maybe rape. Murder is a badge of honour amoungst those without any. ASBO's are worn like medals.
7) Women mistook equality with a licence to emulate the very worst loutish behaviour of men without the checks. If a man wants to get laid the check is the woman, if a woman wants to get laid its a forgone conclusion. Hence a rise in promiscuity.
8) A wider lack of personal responsibility, in society today people have a great spectrum of excuses to choose from than they ever had in the past. They were abused as a child, they grew up without a Nintendo, They're misunderstood, They have an addiction, (addicted to sex, gambling, tobacco, etc..) it was societies fault that they stole or assulted someone They wern't responsible becasue they were suffering from (add a scenario) rage, or a behavioural syndrome. In the past they would have just been guilty of being a Nonce a theif or thug.
9) Because of pathetic individuals who perpetuate a PC climate by taking offence where none existed on behalf of people who wish they'd piss off and a over streched legal system which is in effect a toothless tiger and because of the previous points we get a vicous circle which is on a downwards spiral to social depravity.
Jamile! Thanks for making the effort to provide such an in-depth reply to my question. I've sincerely enjoyed reading all that, as with your further post to possible solutions. Thanks!
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe other effect of promiscuity is jealousy. Right or wrong, people get possessive of his/her significant other.
So you equate promiscuity with cheating?
Not saying that at all. Even if it's not a committed relationship, people get possessive. People feel hurt. Hurt feelings can lead to inappropriate actions.QuoteWhen it is learned that one has been betrayed, the other can become violent. Is that rage the fault of the one being promiscious or the one being violent?
Is rape the fault of the chick in the short skirt?
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying that. DO NOT PUT THOSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
He often employs such tactics - I suspect he gets a thrill of some form from winding people up in such a manner. Which speaks volumes.....
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,611
QuoteHe often employs such tactics
If you want to talk about tactics, here's your favourite...
QuoteBefore I address your points, answer me this:
I've answered, but you still haven't addressed. Yet again.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Why should I bother? You'll only deliberately miss the pertinent point, and more than likely change the wording of a particular phrase to then raise and highlight an issue which didn't particularly exist in the context you chose.
I suspect you're motivated to cause annoyance more than anything else.
All your last answer required was a yes or no, which you then weaselled away from.
So why should I bother with you?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
I suspect you're motivated to cause annoyance more than anything else.
All your last answer required was a yes or no, which you then weaselled away from.
So why should I bother with you?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,611
QuoteWhy should I bother?
Well, if you want to discuss things, it generally reflects badly on you if you consistently say you will answer questions when you have no intention of doing so. It's a pretty transparent dodge. If you really can't be bothered with answering questions or discussing things I'm not sure why you're posting here.
QuoteAll your last answer required was a yes or no, which you then weaselled away from.
Really? Answer me this then, where is the exact demarcation line that splits the honest section of the population from the dishonest? What particular ratio of lies to truthful statements in his public statements would make Tony Blair dishonest?
I'm glad that you're insightful enough to be able to make such black and white statements as 'honest' or 'dishonest' about people you don't even know, but I'm not. I gave you the most accurate answer I felt I could, which is to say that I think he's on a par with most other politicians. He's certainly been more scrutinised than many others, with more effort gone into uncovering his spin, halftruths and flat out lies but that doesn't neccesarily mean he's produced proportionally more than anyone else in the Commons.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
OK. And given that statement, it would be somewhat ridiculous to make the proviso "If you can ensure that no-one in your short-skirt wearing society gets hurt, then go for it", wouldn't it?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites