You are here

too mean to do to an ex?

the site was a set of pictures of someones ex.
Is that too mean? too horrible, to put up?

for the sake of a reader I've summarised my current line of thinking here:

http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=30890.msg366062#msg366062

you just want to argue, and everything has already been said.

0 likes

Here's my assessment and why I haven't done much to contribute to this thread.  Asleep's viewpoints come across as insulated from life, which makes sense since he's a teenager who likely lives with his parents in a middle class home.  In some ways, he's a typical angsty teen with a quick temper.  A lot of us went through that stage in life.  It is what it is, but frustrating to debate with. 

0 likes

Maybe you should put up an actual criticism of what I've said instead of hinting at me to shut up 8-)

Did you blink and miss the last three pages?

0 likes

Maybe you should put up an actual criticism of what I've said instead of hinting at me to shut up 8-)

Did you blink and miss the last three pages?

;D

Yes, insulated and purely academic.

0 likes

Maybe you should put up an actual criticism of what I've said instead of hinting at me to shut up 8-)

Did you blink and miss the last three pages?

where did lubimiller post in the last 3 pages?

0 likes

you just want to argue, and everything has already been said.

A pretty large claim considering that this goes into moral philosophy, which is a fairly hefty topic.

But thanks for a nice bit of ad hom.

0 likes

Here's my assessment and why I haven't done much to contribute to this thread.  Asleep's viewpoints come across as insulated from life, which makes sense since he's a teenager who likely lives with his parents in a middle class home.  In some ways, he's a typical angsty teen with a quick temper.  A lot of us went through that stage in life.  It is what it is, but frustrating to debate with. 

wow, pretty detailed considering you've never met me.

Quick temper, nice to know you have direct experience of my thoughts, if you fancy telling me how that happened that'd be great, it might help us sort out the whole mess of the problem of other minds.

my assessment is that most of you don't really seem to get what I'm saying properly. As a result some people have attacked my character as opposed to the arguments I've put up.
Others have mistaken what my arguments are (which in places has been due to my inability to clearly articulate what I meant, although I feel I've corrected most of that in the last few pages). And as a result some strawmans have appeared.

strictly speaking one of the main things I've based the posts on (in a most basic form) is that humans aren't perfect. I don't mean that we do bad things in that (although we do) but that we don't always have all the information and ability to clearly assess that information leading us to be in compromised positions.

My background has no baring on how valid or invalid, correct or incorrect, the arguments I put up are.

0 likes

For the sake of any new readers I'll sum up my arguments:

Humans make errors.
We are not omnipotent.
The only way to not make errors would be to be omnipotent.

As a result if something bad happens to us that is avoidable, such as walking outside and having your wallet stolen, you have made an error, by either not having the information necessary, or the capabilities to assess the information properly.

This does not excuse someone exploiting the situation for their personal gain in a way that causes us to suffer.

If I walk to someone who can steal my wallet without the proper information and they choose to steal it, whilst I've made an error somewhere, this does not mean that they should have stolen my wallet.
I believe that liberty is a good thing (in the sense of the ideals that our countries allegedly follow, some interesting reading may be mill's on liberty, or for a contrast, and not something I agree with as much, Hobbes on social contract theory).

Thus in the rape scenario someone brought up, if you feel you're safe with your partner and they rape you, there has been in comparison to omnipotence, a problem with you.
However this does not justify your partner taking advantage of this, and they should be held accountable for their actions (at least if you follow liberal thinking).

0 likes

I am all for personal responsibility.  If you go to a bar with friends and put your wallet / purse on a table and go off to dance / use the restroom / get a drink and come back to find it missing and all your friends off doing their own thing it was your responsibility to keep it safe and you fumbled that. 

But that is wholly different from trusting someone who has put out an image of trustworthy, loving and protective but who for whatever reason breaks that trust.  They are two totally different levels of personal responsibility or in this conversation "fault".

But based on the original post.... If you are in a loving, trusting relationship with someone and you give up pieces of yourself to them, be they emotional or tangible, then you are trusting them with something.  If a messy breakup happens then you should be responsible for taking back said pieces be they photos or your own ability to trust and love someone. 

The "right" thing to do, in my mind, is to not try to hurt someone with them, but then again, not everyone thinks the same way I do.

0 likes

Sunbeam, here is the issue with your argument as I see it - you are arguing that because people make mistakes, that blame should then be assigned to them for actions which are entirely out of their control. It is simply not a reasonable expectation of anyone to believe that they can see through anyone who is putting up a false act to persuade them to enter a dangerous situation. This is the omnipotence you have mentioned time and again that we are not. So, there is a serious disconnect in your statements that people should be taking responsibility (via being assigned fault) for the actions of others over which they have no insight or control.

Saying that fault, an error in judgement, a mistake, 'a problem with you,' or anything along these lines (you're a stones throw from calling someone stupid) is the reason that someone was the subject of sexual abuse, violence, or rape is incredibly callous and close minded. Hiding behind a desire to investigate and debate philosophy does not excuse this. As KMK pointed out, your exploration is ignoring the realities of rape.

Lastly, while your upbringing may not have an impact on how correct or incorrect your arguments are, it does have an impact on you choosing to make those arguments. As you continue to be the sole proponent of your ideals in this thread, it is also quite apparently having an impact on your choice to be stubborn and ignore the fact that while you have some very superficial views into the scenarios put forth here, there are those about who disagree with you and have had real life experience dealing with the trauma of these situations. They have a much deeper and realistic view into the human psyche when it comes to these events which you brush off because it does not align with your viewpoint.

This is not an exploration, you are tooting your own horn and closing your mind to the majority here who are telling you that you are wrong.

0 likes

Sunbeam, here is the issue with your argument as I see it - you are arguing that because people make mistakes, that blame should then be assigned to them for actions which are entirely out of their control. It is simply not a reasonable expectation of anyone to believe that they can see through anyone who is putting up a false act to persuade them to enter a dangerous situation. This is the omnipotence you have mentioned time and again that we are not. So, there is a serious disconnect in your statements that people should be taking responsibility (via being assigned fault) for the actions of others over which they have no insight or control.

Saying that fault, an error in judgement, a mistake, 'a problem with you,' or anything along these lines (you're a stones throw from calling someone stupid) is the reason that someone was the subject of sexual abuse, violence, or rape is incredibly callous and close minded. Hiding behind a desire to investigate and debate philosophy does not excuse this. As KMK pointed out, your exploration is ignoring the realities of rape.

Lastly, while your upbringing may not have an impact on how correct or incorrect your arguments are, it does have an impact on you choosing to make those arguments. As you continue to be the sole proponent of your ideals in this thread, it is also quite apparently having an impact on your choice to be stubborn and ignore the fact that while you have some very superficial views into the scenarios put forth here, there are those about who disagree with you and have had real life experience dealing with the trauma of these situations. They have a much deeper and realistic view into the human psyche when it comes to these events which you brush off because it does not align with your viewpoint.

This is not an exploration, you are tooting your own horn and closing your mind to the majority here who are telling you that you are wrong.

I'm not saying it's peoples fault that they are taken advantage of in those situations.
I'm also not labelling people as stupid, you're assigning the slippery slope fallacy to me there.
Furthermore I'm not being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn, nor am I trying to hide behind philosophy. It is a subject that fascinates me, and this particular topic (responsibility, blame, liberalism) is of interest.

I'm not brushing of those views of people with first hand experience aside, I think they can even go hand in hand with what I've said.
I've not gone into detail about the psychological side of it (and with some of the persecution against my character in this thread, nor do I want to, of course I'm no expert, but how people feel about what I say isn't what this has been about).

You can perceive it how you want, I'm trying to put faults people find with what I've said up against it, but many don't seem to fit.
I'm not trying to "toot my own horn", I'm trying to defend a view I've put up that I (at the moment) agree with.
I'm also trying to keep as open minded as possible.

And what does 'the majority' have to do with anything.
Just because someone tells me I'm wrong doesn't mean I am wrong.

Moving on...

What I put in bold:
Now on the point of out of their control, is the situation out of their control due to them having acted or not acted in a way that lead to it being out of control, or was there no way of getting out of the out of control situation.
Note: "but I wasn't to know" doesn't work in this, however making a mistake will not lead to that person receiving blame.
If however a situation was unavoidable from birth then there would be more of an argument against it on those grounds.

what I underlined
:
I'm not saying it's reasonable or an expectation, but a way to take errors and faults into account without shifting responsibility (as far as I can tell).

What I put in italics:
I'm not saying they should take responsibility for the actions of others, but for being in a situation where others could take advantage of them. If such an action does occur against them the responsibility of the actions falls with the act-er.

Put in bold and underlined:
I'm not saying they were raped because they were in a position to be raped.
I'm saying they're responsible for the position their in, but that can't be reduced to the act of rape.
The reason would be because someone would do that act to them
Would the rape have happened if the person hadn't been in that position, obviously not (perhaps in another position of course another one may have happened).

I've not tried to attack anyone but the perpetrators of the illiberal actions so far mentioned, and others for sexist remarks as well as attacks on my character in this thread. However again personal insults seem to be thrown around very easily at me. Whilst I don't strictly speaking have much of a problem with this, please do try to keep the personal insults separate from counter arguments.

0 likes

I'm not saying it's reasonable or an expectation, but a way to take errors and faults into account without shifting responsibility (as far as I can tell).

This is where you go wrong, and why people are so incensed by what you're posting.

In cases of exploitation, rape and abuse it is unforgivable to turn an eye on the victim and start using the words "error" and "fault". It's equally disturbing to assert that a victim is responsible for putting themselves in a certain situation. One cannot make decisions based on unavailable information.

You say that you're not implying that being taken advantage of is anyone's "fault" - except that's exactly what you were arguing for several posts, and you're still arguing that by assigning this kind of agency to a victim.

0 likes

I'm not saying it's reasonable or an expectation, but a way to take errors and faults into account without shifting responsibility (as far as I can tell).

This is where you go wrong, and why people are so incensed by what you're posting.

In cases of exploitation, rape and abuse it is unforgivable to turn an eye on the victim and start using the words "error" and "fault". It's equally disturbing to assert that a victim is responsible for putting themselves in a certain situation. One cannot make decisions based on unavailable information.

You say that you're not implying that being taken advantage of is anyone's "fault" - except that's exactly what you were arguing for several posts, and you're still arguing that by assigning this kind of agency to a victim.

Perhaps it'd be better then to say that there is a fault, as opposed to it's their fault? do you think that would work better?

I think what I've said as in places changed during the course of the thread.

I don't think it's unforgivable, I think in a social setting having unavailable information should be taken into account. Obviously with the way our world works some pieces of information are easier to obtain than other pieces of information. But then the fact that we're not omnipotent is part of what makes us human, and knowledge wise omnipotence is the perfection as such, to know all. It is as such off the scale in human terms (leading us around full circle to me saying we're not perfect, that's part of being human).

However it remains the responsibility of an individual to chose which situations the go into. That as such seems to go into probability, how probably we feel x or y is.

0 likes

And what does 'the majority' have to do with anything.
Just because someone tells me I'm wrong doesn't mean I am wrong.

When one person says you're wrong, it doesn't mean you're wrong. When everyone in a conversation takes an opposing viewpoint to yours, you still may not be 'wrong' but at the very least you need to consider the venue and company in which you are speaking. None of this precludes the possibility that you may in fact be wrong, right, or Charlie the Unicorn. Basically, be cognizant of your audience and what they have to offer you and what you are offering them.

Now on the point of out of their control, is the situation out of their control due to them having acted or not acted in a way that lead to it being out of control, or was there no way of getting out of the out of control situation.
Note: "but I wasn't to know" doesn't work in this, however making a mistake will not lead to that person receiving blame.
If however a situation was unavoidable from birth then there would be more of an argument against it on those grounds.

I think you are trying far too hard to save your argument here, and yet you are still missing the point. In a relationship where a man has been manipulative such that he projects honesty and seems trustworthy, it is probable that he is quite accomplished in hiding his character flaws and true intentions. Now, this generally leads to the situation where he ends up with control over someone because of the relationship he has built with them, at which point he will begin exhibiting the negative traits that he formerly hid. At this point you would say 'Ah HAH! It is now the woman's fault because the signs are there and she should be getting out of the relationship.' Unfortunately this ignores the power that he has worked so hard to build over her, and once again is the flaw in your argument. You appear to be equating fault to a single event. IE: if there ever was a case where she could have possibly seen that bad things were going to happen, then she should have done something about it - because she didn't, it is her fault. Certainly I can see where you're coming from, however when you ignore the power dynamic and other factors at work to make this point, you end up trivializing what is a very serious and heinous abuse.

I've not tried to attack anyone but the perpetrators of the illiberal actions so far mentioned, and others for sexist remarks as well as attacks on my character in this thread. However again personal insults seem to be thrown around very easily at me. Whilst I don't strictly speaking have much of a problem with this, please do try to keep the personal insults separate from counter arguments.

I am not insulting you, merely stating what I perceive to be the truth behind your arguments here. Here are three articles which I feel pertain to this discussion which might open your viewpoint a little bit.

Sexism - http://theangryblackwoman.com/2006/05/08/some-things-you-need-to-understand-1a/

Rape - http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/a-woman-walks-into-a-rape-uh-bar/

Privilege - http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html

0 likes

I'm so boggled by this.  Sunbeam, do you not realize that rape isn't " a situation you go into"?  It is something forced.  Like dmarkd said manipulation and deception are the tools used to enact that force.  

I think the problem here is that your argument is so incredibly lacking in profundity.  You boiled it down to, "a fault exists in a rape scenario."  Fault, as in, a determining factor or a pre-requisite condition that someone creates.  And you are saying, if the victim hadn't known and sustained a relationship with the perpetrator, there is no way she could have been raped.  Well, duh!  Lord have mercy, that's nothing if not imbecilic.  Of course a rapist cannot victimize someone he doesn't know.  Say something worth saying!  And even that is not accurate, because it is equally the "fault" of both people for sustaining a personal relationship.  It takes two people, necessarily, to know one another.  

Your central idea seems to be, "Well, if you had never met that person, rape would never have happened!"  Duh.  Self-evident and moronic at best.  Why even bother speaking.

The most frustrating thing about your posts is that you appear to have no objective or unifying idea.  No practical, take-home message.  Then people extract one themselves, and you object.  Also keep in mind that, if the majority of people are misreading your writing, that's a sign that you aren't communicating effectively.

I think dmarkd and cat are spot-on, and I would definitely read dmarkd's links.

0 likes

I've not tried to attack anyone but the perpetrators of the illiberal actions so far mentioned, and others for sexist remarks as well as attacks on my character in this thread. However again personal insults seem to be thrown around very easily at me. Whilst I don't strictly speaking have much of a problem with this, please do try to keep the personal insults separate from counter arguments.

Please see your comment below

i really never liked this guy anyway! seriously psycho... and btw i don't think he ever makes sense... get off vegweb seriously

kmk is clicking on this topic really contributing to his disgusting-ness? if so we need to get it off vegweb! i would never show explicit pictures i had/ have of anyone... i always delete them if the relationship is done with... why would you keep them AND share them with friends? so disturbing and disgusting... maybe it is a boy thing? i know i would never do that!

Furthermore "maybe it is a boy thing".
To put it bluntly you can fuck right off and take your generalising sexist remarks and shove them up your arse.
Have a nice day.

[

0 likes

I haven't seen a god rebuttal of any of my pervious arguments in this thread anywhere, I think most of you don't see how it's based in meta ethics. At many points it's just been different language games being played (see Wittgenstein).

With the last post on this thread you seem to have not realised what was going on. I was essentially being told to get off the whole forum. I then told someone off for being sexist. Interestingly that didn't contain much in the way of personal insults but instead exclamations. I really hope you don't agree with the bigoted comments in the quote from  amymylove in that post (which I don't believe she truely holds).

Essentially I was being ordered off the whole forum (fortunately by no-one in a position of authority) by someone based on if they liked me or not. And that comes off as very illiberal from what I can tell. Maybe you disagree?

0 likes

I haven't seen a god rebuttal of any of my pervious arguments in this thread anywhere, I think most of you don't see how it's based in meta ethics. At many points it's just been different language games being played (see Wittgenstein).

With the last post on this thread you seem to have not realised what was going on. I was essentially being told to get off the whole forum. I then told someone off for being sexist. Interestingly that didn't contain much in the way of personal insults but instead exclamations. I really hope you don't agree with the bigoted comments in the quote from  amymylove in that post (which I don't believe she truely holds).

Essentially I was being ordered off the whole forum (fortunately by no-one in a position of authority) by someone based on if they liked me or not. And that comes off as very illiberal from what I can tell. Maybe you disagree?

I think you and Alex Libman should be locked in a room to be condescending to one other.

0 likes

I haven't seen a god rebuttal of any of my pervious arguments in this thread anywhere, I think most of you don't see how it's based in meta ethics. At many points it's just been different language games being played (see Wittgenstein).

With the last post on this thread you seem to have not realised what was going on. I was essentially being told to get off the whole forum. I then told someone off for being sexist. Interestingly that didn't contain much in the way of personal insults but instead exclamations. I really hope you don't agree with the bigoted comments in the quote from  amymylove in that post (which I don't believe she truely holds).

Essentially I was being ordered off the whole forum (fortunately by no-one in a position of authority) by someone based on if they liked me or not. And that comes off as very illiberal from what I can tell. Maybe you disagree?

I think you and Alex Libman should be locked in a room to be condescending to one other.

I don't know who that is...

0 likes

I haven't seen a god rebuttal of any of my pervious arguments in this thread anywhere, I think most of you don't see how it's based in meta ethics. At many points it's just been different language games being played (see Wittgenstein).

With the last post on this thread you seem to have not realised what was going on. I was essentially being told to get off the whole forum. I then told someone off for being sexist. Interestingly that didn't contain much in the way of personal insults but instead exclamations. I really hope you don't agree with the bigoted comments in the quote from  amymylove in that post (which I don't believe she truely holds).

Essentially I was being ordered off the whole forum (fortunately by no-one in a position of authority) by someone based on if they liked me or not. And that comes off as very illiberal from what I can tell. Maybe you disagree?

I think you and Alex Libman should be locked in a room to be condescending to one other.

Perfectly stated.

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments