RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?'

RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 3:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrongSpirit quote: Assuming the most strict and narrow use of the biological term to be as you claim, why is that one particular definition to be held as ruling over any and all other considerations of the term 'success'? Allow me to grant, for sake of argument, that one specific meaning; given that, the total of survival of a species involves all aspects of the environment and of the actions of the animals within a species, within that environment. If survival occurs after some particular action, this may count as success in your very limited definition, but does not imply much less necessarily translate to survival, or success, of that species. You are incorrect. The entire definition of species is at heart a genetic definition. If you pass on your genes or those related to you (i.e. an ant ensuring that his queen's genes survive) you are a success by the definition of genetic success, which is how the term was being used. <p> Rape, by the biological definition of genetic success, works. Or at least it does unless abortion is reasonably easily available and culturally encouraged as a response to rape. Biological success means the offspring can reproduce... the achievement is counted among the grandchildren.

PeonForHer -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 3:59:43 PM)
FR Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here?

mnottertail -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:00:28 PM)
Size of the herd, exactly.......nobody wants to be all hat and no cattle after plowing all their life and every day.........

tweakabelle -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:01:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds I think xssve is more interested in being right than noticing that he is hurting the women on the thread who are being reminded of sexual abuse trauma. I think those women, and their defenders, are too upset to realize that further discussion only draws more responses from xssve. In any case, I don't think this discussion will change any minds or lead to any new understandings. Perhaps it is time to stop pummeling the reddened hamburger that was once a dead horse? Good advice. Thank you. There's a certain level or moron that begs for the ignore button. And hamburger meat is one of the lowest classes of red meat .........

mnottertail -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:02:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here? Why, yes I can!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0&feature=fvst:

SoftBonds -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Trotta doubles down...... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape-military_n_1288769.html "Fox News pundit Liz Trotta responded to the barrage of criticism that was unleashed after she made a series incendiary statements regarding rape in the military. Trotta appeared on Fox News on Sunday. Fox News host Eric Shawn said Trotta "indicated that women who put their lives on the line for their country in close proximity to men are courting sexual assault.Some people understood [Trotta] to be saying that because of this, they are less deserving of protection from violent crime from their male counterparts, particularly because [she] criticize the Pentagon's sex abuse programs that are put in place to protect them." Trotta referred to prepared remarks and said she felt very misunderstood. She responded, "This is a subject that has never gotten a fair and open hearing either in the national media or in Congress." Trotta alleged that "the main objective" of "hardline feminists" is to "force the Pentagon to lift the ban on women in combat. Accordingly, the political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairytales about female heroism." Trotta recalled the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, and said there were "countless other stories of fake heroism or exaggerated prowess in which women are the stars, many of them tailored for the New York Times and its agenda to promote militant feminism, no matter what the truth." donno where the strikethrough came from, but it made it hard to read... Anyway, what is wrong with women in combat? We are no longer fighting with swords here people, and I don't care what gonads someone has, if they shoot me in the arse with an AK47 it'll hurt! More importantly, we have a technological military now. We need the smartest, fastest, most dedicated people we can get, and cutting half of the available resources out over gonads is just hurting the military for no reason. Now I do dislike having women nukes, but that is because the idea of a woman smart enough to handle nuclear physics risking her genes is a crime against nature...especially the really hot ones. Maybe I'm wrong in that, I mean, I think a man's gonads replenish, so damage is temporary, while a woman's eggs are at risk, but maybe the danger of mutation is still there? In any case, I dislike, but don't try to prevent.

tweakabelle -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here? Because some of the less informed here still apparently believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that rape is primarily a sexual act. And one or two are clinging to their ignorant superstitions with such tenacity that it causes me to wonder whether their experience of the subject is far more immediate than intellectual ......

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:16:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: StrongSpirit quote: Assuming the most strict and narrow use of the biological term to be as you claim, why is that one particular definition to be held as ruling over any and all other considerations of the term 'success'? Allow me to grant, for sake of argument, that one specific meaning; given that, the total of survival of a species involves all aspects of the environment and of the actions of the animals within a species, within that environment. If survival occurs after some particular action, this may count as success in your very limited definition, but does not imply much less necessarily translate to survival, or success, of that species. You are incorrect. The entire definition of species is at heart a genetic definition. If you pass on your genes or those related to you (i.e. an ant ensuring that his queen's genes survive) you are a success by the definition of genetic success, which is how the term was being used. <p> Rape, by the biological definition of genetic success, works. Or at least it does unless abortion is reasonably easily available and culturally encouraged as a response to rape.. Except no one has demonstrated a causal link between biology and rape. And there are compelling reasons, many of them listed above, why rape is not considered primarily a sexual act any more. To insist on a causal connection between rape and biology therefore, demonstrates only the abysmal ignorance of the asserter of the person asserting the connection. Rape is no more a biologically-driven behaviour than going to the cinema is. If you insist on advancing this cretinous claim, demonstrate precisely the connection between biology and rape. Tell us the precise biological origin of this behaviour, and how this origin specifically causes a person to rape. Then please advice us of the specific biological mechanism whereby child-rape advances reproductive success. If you can't then STFU, because the assertion is not only utterly unproven, and therefore a wild guess at best, but grossly deeply offensive. You already claim that gender is not biological, now you are saying there is no biological causation for sex? And it's still sex, whether you "consider" it sex or not, the egg and the sperm cannot distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sex, neither, I'm pretty sure, can any resulting offspring. Biologically, it's all sex, the only question is whether an egg is fertilized or not, how is irrelevant, it requires no further demonstration. I don't think anybody can tell you the precise origin of any biological behavior other than it works - even reproduction itself has no precise explanation - why is it necessary at all? Organisms can live long lives without ever reproducing, it is not necessary to the survival of the individual, why did the first reproducing organism reproduce? If it hadn't we wouldn't be here, that's all. Although my particular hypothesis is that it had to happen due to atmospheric pressure, i.e., life is orderly chains of complex amino acids that convert energy, it has a metabolism, it is metabolism contained in a structure: metabolic organisms grow, and a given organism can only grow to the point that it's physical structure can no longer resist atmospheric pressure. Insects can only grow to about a Kilo or so, Vertebrates to the size of a Whale or a Brontosaurus, and a very small invertabrate can only reach a certain size before it is either crushed by it's own weight or it sheds mass - perhaps by splitting in Two. Nuttin' "just happens".

PeonForHer -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here? Why, yes I can!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0&feature=fvst: You know, there's this very, very peculiar thing about North American thinking, that I've noticed. Most Europeans find it really weird, actually. This is that there's a clear hierarchy of expertise, your side of the pond. Mathematicians, physicists and biologists are the Gods. Next below are the Business Studies experts. Then, various levels . . . but right at the bottom are the social scientists. Why? So many times, I see some cretinous Yank quoting Darwin when he's talking about a social-scientific matter. Darwin wasn't an expert on human society, he was a biologist. Or, I'll some quack business expert, quoted as a sage on human psychology. Why this hierarchy? Could I gently remind all participants of this thread that we humans aren't amoebas, nor even chipmunks, or even orang utans. We humans don't do things the same way as those other species. This is because we are different species _ and the most complex, by far, on this planet. Jesus Christ, could we now stop talking about X-mytochondria, or whatever the fuck it is? And start talking about moral philosophy, for instance? That is, human thinking, designed and focused on the way humans live and act? I mean, it's all very interesting, the way baboons hump each other, and all that, but we're not baboons, are we? I don't expect women to go around with bare arses that go all red and livid when they want to be humped. I don't expect this on account of I'm a human who wants to hump women, not female baboons. Can we move on from Biology, in short? It really does have only a thimble-full of knowledge worth anything in this debate.

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Rape is a survival strategy of genes, then. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn There is nothing in any study of survival of species that points to rape being a successful strategy of long term survival of any species. Quite the opposite is in evidence, actually. There is a lot of competition from more successful strategies, absolutely, which is possibly shy it occurs infrequently in nature, the point is that it occurs in humans with much greater frequency than any other species known to us. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Again, there is distinction and difference between immediate survival and long term success. Humans have survived brief and limited episodes of incest, and we therefore can call it a success in the -short term- genetic sense. But even if remaining in the genetic realm, we have much evidence that prolongation of this particular short term genetic success will result in these same genes eventually being wiped out, after enough anomalous mutations occur to the point where ability to successfully reproduce ceases. Psychopathy is generally not a good long term strategy for success, and we tend to discourage it, but it often gets spectacular results in the short term, under specific conditions. Again, I'm not promoting or recommending rape as a strategy here, if I'm not mistaken, the whole idea here is to get rid of it, and if you are trying to eliminate the root causes it might help to know what those are.

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here? Why, yes I can!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0&feature=fvst: You know, there's this very, very peculiar thing about North American thinking, that I've noticed. Most Europeans find it really weird, actually. This is that there's a clear hierarchy of expertise, your side of the pond. Mathematicians, physicists and biologists are the Gods. Next below are the Business Studies experts. Then, various levels . . . but right at the bottom are the social scientists. Why? So many times, I see some cretinous Yank quoting Darwin when he's talking about a social-scientific matter. Darwin wasn't an expert on human society, he was a biologist. Or, I'll some quack business expert, quoted as a sage on human psychology. Why this hierarchy? Could I gently remind all participants of this thread that we humans aren't amoebas, nor even chipmunks, or even orang utans. We humans don't do things the same way as those other species. This is because we are different species _ and the most complex, by far, on this planet. Jesus Christ, could we now stop talking about X-mytochondria, or whatever the fuck it is? And start talking about moral philosophy, for instance? That is, human thinking, designed and focused on the way humans live and act? I mean, it's all very interesting, the way baboons hump each other, and all that, but we're not baboons, are we? I don't expect women to go around with bare arses that go all red and livid when they want to be humped. I don't expect this on account of I'm a human who wants to hump women, not female baboons. Can we move on from Biology, in short? It really does have only a thimble-full of knowledge worth anything in this debate. Clearly, you've never seen Jersey Shore.

Edwynn -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:32:48 PM)
What was pointed out in the post was that genetic success in the short term or in the immediate sense is not one and the same as long term genetic success, much less long term species success. In any other study of an ongoing or repeating process, long term success is what is being referred to when the single unqualified term 'success' is used, and in any event is the much more appropriate and germane use of the term in this discussion.

SoftBonds -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Trotta doubles down...... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape-military_n_1288769.html "Fox News pundit Liz Trotta responded to the barrage of criticism that was unleashed after she made a series incendiary statements regarding rape in the military. Trotta appeared on Fox News on Sunday. Fox News host Eric Shawn said Trotta "indicated that women who put their lives on the line for their country in close proximity to men are courting sexual assault.Some people understood [Trotta] to be saying that because of this, they are less deserving of protection from violent crime from their male counterparts, particularly because [she] criticize the Pentagon's sex abuse programs that are put in place to protect them." Trotta referred to prepared remarks and said she felt very misunderstood. She responded, "This is a subject that has never gotten a fair and open hearing either in the national media or in Congress." Trotta alleged that "the main objective" of "hardline feminists" is to "force the Pentagon to lift the ban on women in combat. Accordingly, the political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairytales about female heroism." Trotta recalled the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, and said there were "countless other stories of fake heroism or exaggerated prowess in which women are the stars, many of them tailored for the New York Times and its agenda to promote militant feminism, no matter what the truth." What really gets my goat about this Trotta woman (refuse to call her a lady) is that while Jessica Lynch may or may not have been a hero, she did go into a combat zone and willingly risked her life to defend her nation and way of life. Liz Trotta did not. So for Liz Trotta to whine about "fake heroism or exaggerated prowess," sounds more like jealousy than anything. Jealousy that real Women are brave and strong enough to fight for our nation, while she is too weak to do so. Maybe the bravery thing is in the mind, not the gonads?

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:41:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: StrongSpirit quote: Assuming the most strict and narrow use of the biological term to be as you claim, why is that one particular definition to be held as ruling over any and all other considerations of the term 'success'? Allow me to grant, for sake of argument, that one specific meaning; given that, the total of survival of a species involves all aspects of the environment and of the actions of the animals within a species, within that environment. If survival occurs after some particular action, this may count as success in your very limited definition, but does not imply much less necessarily translate to survival, or success, of that species. You are incorrect. The entire definition of species is at heart a genetic definition. If you pass on your genes or those related to you (i.e. an ant ensuring that his queen's genes survive) you are a success by the definition of genetic success, which is how the term was being used. <p> Rape, by the biological definition of genetic success, works. Or at least it does unless abortion is reasonably easily available and culturally encouraged as a response to rape. Biological success means the offspring can reproduce... the achievement is counted among the grandchildren. What Tazzy said, again, the children themselves are just children, and the mileage may vary depending on the environment - in the case of Genghis Khan, pretty well apparently, in the case of Japanese children fathered by American soldiers, maybe not so much - although I'm fairly certain there is a second generation of Eurasian children running around somewhere.

SoftBonds -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:45:40 PM)
Trotta alleged that "the main objective" of "hardline feminists" is to "force the Pentagon to lift the ban on women in combat. Accordingly, the political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairytales about female heroism." Does this woman think women can't be heroes? I mean, there are thousands of women in the military, and despite the rule, some get into combat situations, so I'd expect some of the women who find themselves in combat to show their mettle. Why can't a woman be a hero???

PeonForHer -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:47:06 PM)
quote: Rape is a survival strategy of genes, then. quote: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. No, rape isn't a 'survival strategy of genes'. What rape is, is an evil crime. What you're saying makes about as much sense as my calling a tiger a fascist because it chases and eats gibbons. It doesn't make sense to talk of rape as a 'survival strategy of genes' because that is to apply unbelievably weak and useless terms, drawn from the inappropriate study of biology, onto human life. Rape is a department of morals and ethics, and of the way society works, the study of which is called 'sociology'. The ethical debates surrounding the matter of rape are a department of philosophy. Biology has fuck all that's useful to say about the matter. Sorry, but there it is. You have researched into the wrong subject.

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:51:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn What was pointed out in the post was that genetic success in the short term or in the immediate sense is not one and the same as long term genetic success, much less long term species success. In any other study, long term success is what is being referred to when the single unqualified term 'success' is used, and in any event is the much more appropriate and germane use of the term in this discussion. Why is that more germane, I'm talking about the topic here, rape in general, rape of US military personnel specifically, I'm looking at motive, the long term success of the species is expanding the scope of the discussion considerably. Motive. That's the argument w/respect to the topic as it stands - Tweak says it's all social pressure and misogyny, I say it's a combination of that and biology, even if it only amounts to trying to kill Two birds with one stone. But I'm long past the point where I'm willing to concede that we might make more progress as things stand now by putting biology on the backburner, and discussing the social stressors. Albeit, the social stressors here are themselves largely related to reproduction, if only philosophically i.e., women shouldn't be in combat, they should be making dinner for our brave boys, and popping out the next generation of cannon fodder, etc., serves 'em right. Not my words or feelings, paraphrasing Trotta, voicing the opinion of the right presumably.

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:54:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Rape is a survival strategy of genes, then. quote: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. No, rape isn't a 'survival strategy of genes'. What rape is, is an evil crime. What you're saying makes about as much sense as my calling a tiger a fascist because it chases and eats gibbons. It doesn't make sense to talk of rape as a 'survival strategy of genes' because that is to apply unbelievably weak and useless terms, drawn from the inappropriate study of biology, onto human life. Rape is a department of morals and ethics, and of the way society works, the study of which is called 'sociology'. The ethical debates surrounding the matter of rape are a department of philosophy. Biology has fuck all that's useful to say about the matter. Sorry, but there it is. You have researched into the wrong subject. Well I'm sure that you're vehement political correctness will earn you a nice reward, who knows, you might even knock your lady up as a result! Let me know how that strategy works out for you, myself, better to reign in hell, etc., I've done as much reproducing as I intend to.

tazzygirl -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 4:58:55 PM)
quote: What Tazzy said, again, the children themselves are just children, and the mileage may vary depending on the environment - in the case of Genghis Khan, pretty well apparently, in the case of Japanese children fathered by American soldiers, maybe not so much - although I'm fairly certain there is a second generation of Eurasian children running around somewhere. You do realize the holes in your theory in regards to Khan, yes?

xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 5:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Obviously, there is genetic success in the immediate term, which I referred to in the first part of the post. What I said after that is that genetic success and long term species success are not necessarily one and the same thing. No they are not, and I never claimed such a thing. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn What is implicated by that is that genetic success alone is a poor choice as point of primary consideration in the discussion of rape or any other social anomaly when considering success of a species. It isn't a consideration at all in my argument, as a matter of fact, the only consideration I've been trying to discuss is the rape of US service people, and how to put a stop to it. In any crime there is: Motive Method Opportunity We're stuck discussing the first one and going nowhere, and to which either way, social or biological, or both, there is no immediate solution - where I left off before Tweak decided to pursue her vendetta was examining the remaining things, method and opportunity, and I suggested the buddy system and some modifications thereof as a practical means of addressing those factors.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625