Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[odo banks]

You guys are just going silly now. This is the Serious Thread remember!

[Pettytyrant101]

Is there anything more serious Odo than the effect of the perceiver on the perceived? Its at the heart of quantum thinking and of magic. Its taken science a long time to get there but hey nice to see them finally catching on!!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Is there anything more serious Odo than the effect of the perceiver on the perceived? Its at the heart of quantum thinking and of magic. Its taken science a long time to get there but hey nice to see them finally catching on!!

Hear, Hear!!!

GB

[Biffo Banks]

cutchonn - noo, woen cutchonn, ewe sillee peepel

[Gandalf's Beard]

Actually, i almost forgot to point out that the US Military and the Soviet Union's Military had (have?) longstanding programs to investigate and exploit paranormal abilities such as remote viewing, and telekinesis etc.

The film, The Men Who Stare at Goats, is based on actual events in regards to these programs. So the idea of competing groups of "Sorcerers" is not entirely without foundation.

GB

[odo banks]

Yes, yes, well said GB (yaaaaaaaaawnnn) --- but to other things. Have you heard the "Secret"? It's a "Place" as much as an "Opening of the Mind". So keep a keen eye out --- that's all I'm at liberty to say...

[Pettytyrant101]

i think the problem with magic is that people define it wrong so they never realize they are doing it all the time. Its so common its like breathing, we almost never stop to think about it. And of course we all have preconceived notions of magic- which is why Crowley called it magick to differentiate it.
Science has shown that observation of an event can effect the event. Just by one part of the universe 'observing' another part it alters one or the other or more likely both. Perception, exisiting and even just looking are not passive events. They are an interaction directly with whats out there and its a system of feedbacks and effect. Thats basically the basis of all magic.
The format of magic in traditional spells is; stated intent, preparation, spell and result. This sounds arcane and conjures up images of rituals. And rituals can be used for this purpose, its the original use of ritual in religion, its still used as a means of direct teaching by the Masons. But what people don't realise is that we all 'cast spells' almost continually. Magic is simply being aware you are doing it and then doing stuff delibrately to try to influence or produce results.

For me its not some vague, mystical idea its a practical part of everyday life.
Go back and read the section in my story on the other thread concering dealing with Olly. Its an example of magic and it follows the traditional pattern (I'm such a traditionalist!).

Stated intent- to calm down and relax Olly and not get whacked or worse in the process.

Preparation- in the case of Olly this was to switch to a form of thinking on my part I knew was conductuive to dealing with Olly. I assumed a demeanor, or in magic terms I moved my perception to a slightly different spot. In magic all moods you've ever been in are available positions- you know the mood and therefore can go back there. In most situations people simply react to the circumstances and their subconcious selects a mood from the back catologue that it thinks will be useful, based on similar past expercience. The only difference with magic is that the choice is concious, to pick the best mood for the situation at hand, not simply to react.

Spell- spells are nearly always words. In the case of Olly it was finding the right words to get the desired result, this part of magic often uses props (tradtionally wands and the like) in the case of Olly the prop was the cigarettes- (Terry Pratchett nails this in the Discworld books when the witches use as their props the Washboard of Terror and the Soapflakes of Doom- i used the mystical Cigarettes of Misdirection!).
I was able to find the correct choice and pattern of words because of my own mood, selected at the prepartion stage.

Result- Olly relaxed and calm and me not battered in the process. The spell was succesfull.

This sort of magic I use every day of my life in all situations. Work tends to be the more dramatic examples though.
Now you might think thats not magic- but that's the point, it is. If you dissect whats really going on you start to see whats underneath everything- and thats the magic world. Not some fairytale, demons and angels, magic is practical and we do it all the time without ever knowing its what we are doing. Its simply the consequence of there being a universe and of perception.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Well said Petty.

Now all we have to do is get a Million Leftist Sorcerers together to break through the Hypnotic Curse of Corporate Propaganda and wipe out the ledgers of the International Banking System.

It looks like someone has already had a go at it. Obviously it wasn't a very powerful spell, but it was enough to knock out the Head of the IMF.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13426069

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

To return to the Big, the Bad, and the Serious: Chris Hedges, a well known author and journalist tells it like it is:



I've been saying that it's too late for the US. And Chris Hedges concurs. It's almost too late in England.

I've been calling Corporate Globalism Neo-Feudalism for years. Finally, it's starting to catch on. I've been saying for years that only massive General Strikes, Loan Strikes, and Mortgage Strikes might have some effect.

And Damn it--call the bankers bluff--currency is a sham, an invention of the banks backed only by debt--We NEED a run on the banks. If everyone tries to pull their money out the banks all at once, the banks will collapse. They don't actually have any real money in the banks. They literally create money out of debt. Every time you lake out a loan or get a mortgage, the money doesn't actually exist until the loan is made.

GB

PS: But I'm willing to give some Wizarding a try too.

[Brian Boru]

Just discovered dis thread, its great. There are a lot of smart people here. A while ago I had to read something for school and was amazed at d findings. I want to ask you lot if you are willing to read it and answer a few questions.

Why do kids from the UK and USA have such risk taking behaviours compared to the other countries listed?
Why do the same siad countries have such bad relatioships?
and what do yee tink can be done to change it?

Here is the link: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf

It is about the quality of life of children in 21 very rich counrtries.

Hope yee don't mind me not replying for a few days as I won't have a connection. D family are going to Girvan in Scotland t see a amn about a dag.

Ps. Dis is just personal interest, ye are not helping me wit an essay. My final exams are almost over an I am getting to leave school in a couple of weeks. No more classes, yehaa.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I was going to embed the Money as Debt Youtubes. They are 2 documentaries broken into 10 minute segments due to Youtube limits. But this website has them all conveniently lined up to watch one after the other. These videos are by far the best documentaries on the subject I've ever seen. Far too many programmes like these often have an Anti-Semitic Axe to grind. These documentaries do not.

EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM NEEDS TO WATCH THESE:

http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1323

GB

PS: Having seen these videos in full (my friend runs these sorts of documentaries on his programme on a local Public Access channel) I can highly recommend them.

But I haven't fully checked out the website that is hosting these documentaries. A brief glance at some of the other stuff on the site gives me pause. Some of the other stuff at the site appears to be of a dubious nature. So I can't endorse the actual website without a complete vetting.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just watching them now GB.

On another matter- is there more than one sort of rape or is rape rape, no matter circumstances? I ask becasue is in the UK news for the follwing reason;

Ken Clarke has declined to apologise after he appeared to suggest that some rapes were less serious than others.
It followed a BBC interview about sentencing proposals in which he referred to "serious rape".
The justice secretary later returned to TV studios to stress that "all rape is a serious crime" and that he had used the "wrong choice of words"......
He dismissed suggestions rapists could be out in 15 months - calculated by halving the average sentence of five years, then allowing for the time someone would be allowed to serve on licence - as "total nonsense".
On being told that the five-year figure came from the Council of Circuit Judges, Mr Clarke said: "That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds...
"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."
When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect", Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

There have been calls for his resignation over this. I don't see the problem. I think he is right- the law might term a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old as rape becasue legal consent cannot be given as they are not an adult- but surely that is quite different from an adult violently raping another adult and should be treated as such? Don't get me wrong if the 18 year old has sex with an unconsenting 15 year old thats the same, but a boyfriend and girlfriend (and for arguments sake they could have been dating say for a few years), who started having sex when both were legally minors, and because of the age gap one of them finds themsleves termed an adult whilst the other is termed a child cannot be the same. In that scenario both are consenting but the law cannot recognize the consent of one partner because of age so it gets termed rape.
But what does everyone else think? Should the law treat each rape by circumstances, or is the interviewer (and those howling for his head) correct that "rape is rape"?

[Ringdrotten]

I'd say that if they're boyfriend/girlfriend, you cannot possibly call it rape. Some random guy sexually assaulting a woman in an alley somewhere, that's rape. As long as they both know what they're doing, and are doing so willingly, I don't see the problem.

[Kafria]

I wondered if this was going to come and was considering raising the issue myself.

The first thing to say that I have only heard this on the news today (whole school twilight session) and the two clips we got were

'A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."
When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect", Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not,

And him talking about a stranger jumping out of the bushes as serious rape - selective editing in the extreme

I had forgotten that legally sex between consenting teenagers when one is underage is rape. And I have to say in this one isolated case I agree. {EDIT: actually having done a quick check this is only the case if the child is under 13, there is a lesser offence if they are 14/15}.

However, I do take issue with the idea that date rape or a boyfriend/husband forcing an unwilling partner is somehow a lesser crime and I am dissapointed that sensationalist reporting has missed what I think is a bigger point. Less than 6% of rape allergations in this country result in a conviction. That is an appaling statistic. To an extent these ideas about lesser rape and greater rape are part of the problem (lets not forget it is just 20 years since the law recognised that a married woman had the right to say no to sex with her husband!). Now I agree that the exact nature of the offence should be considered - as it is- when sentencing those convicted, but we need to be careful with this slippery slope of lesser rape. It becomes easier to see it as not really that serious in some cases. Rape is about power and nothing else. It leaves all it's victims with the same feelings of violation (men as well in cases of male rape). Figures show that the sexual crime rate is rising and still thought to be vastly under reported, all attitudes to rape need to be challenged to change this.

A related story that I'm sure most will have heard about is the slut walks! Prompted by the following:

Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti had been giving a talk on health and safety to a group of students at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto when he made the now infamous remarks.

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," he reportedly told them. "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this - however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

He has since apologised for his remarks and has been disciplined by the Toronto police, but remains on duty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13320785

Now this has called a whole lot of argument, because a number of people feel that this was about warning young women not to take risks and dressing in certain ways is considered a bigger risk. Yet I agree with those who feel the tone of the comment, use of language particularly show a feeling that in some way woman can be to blame. And that attitude not only affects the support these woman receive, but also how the investigating officers, judicial system and jurors see them. (And before I upset those on here in law inforcement, let me add that I am not saying cops are predjudiced against rape victims and I am aware that there are extremly good procedures in place to help gather evidence and statements, with the aim of increasing convictions rate). If we are to increase reporting of these crimes and subsequent convictions then we need to tackle these undermining attitudes. (And I'm as guilty as anyone else on occasion, even in these types of cases!)

SlutWalk started because a few people were angry at the status quo, we were angry at the Toronto Police, because we were too tired of seeing sexual assault overlooked by many, because we demand better for the survivors of sexual assault, for those damaged by blaming and shaming language, and for the respect that everyone deserves and should be given. We wanted to do something in our city of Toronto so we did. We had no idea months later we’d be here. We’re still angry at a lot of the things we see in our world and we want to see better. We want to work with so many others to fight against sexual violence and sexual profiling that puts people in a hierarchy of who’s valued and who’s not. That’s what we’re hoping for.

http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/ (the toronto walk that started it all)

Nuff said!

[Pettytyrant101]

Ok I'm going to put the head above the parapet here- whilst I agree rape is about power and if someone is not consenting, whether thats in a marriage bed or not, its rape end of. However the bit about provocative dressing, whilst I agree the wording is poor, I am more torn on.
Humans are animals. I have three cats. One is male. If he gets a whiff of a female on heat he's after her, even though he's been neutered, the urge and reaction to it is so strong. Is it not expecting to much of the human animal that when confronted with sexual signals that some will not act? I'm not in any way saying its an excuse, but it is a factor surely? There are lots of places in life where there are rules that are for our own safety, should how people dress be excused from this? I wouldn't wear a Rangers shirt in the home end at Parkhead because it would most likely get me killed, if I was lucky. I might have a perfect right to choose to wear what I like, where I like, but I know it greatly increases the personnal risk I put myself at.
As I say sex with a nonconsenting person is rape, and responsibiltiy for it is solely upon the perpetrator. I'm not saying any woman 'was asking for it', but it seems sensible to me that in a species where the women give the signals that sex may be initiated, women also have some responsibility to when, where and in what circumstances they put out sexual signals. Just as males are responsible for not simply reactioning to our instincts.

[Kafria]

Question: Would you give the same advice to a bloke to avoid groping girls or male rape? If he chooses to go clubbing in little gold shorts and nothing else would you tell him he shouldn't be dressing like that or if on a summers day he walks around with his shirt off? (two extremes I know, but I think one is what people imagine the officer is talking about and the other the actuallity of what that advice means to those women and why it has caused such offense.

(I see your football analogy, but in a health and safety talk dress was a random thing to bring up, when surely: don't go on your own late at night if poss, stay in lit places, carry a personal alarm, don't take short cuts, don't fllash your valuables, might have been more appropriate!)

[Ringdrotten]

Would you give the same advice to a bloke to avoid groping girls

I'm pretty confident that bloke wouldn't want anyone to "help" him

To be more on topic, I've heard that argument recently here in Norway too (the one that women should dress more "appropriately"). We discussed it in class, and while we all agreed that it could be wise to sometimes show a little less of the good stuff, women's got a right to dress the way they want to, and shouldn't fear being attacked if they do.

[Pettytyrant101]

My point is, I think (like I say I'm torn on this one), is that in a perfect world no, noone should be attacked or in danger because of how they dress. But in the actual world we live in you are. So it seems sensible to me to take that into account.
I just don't think its possible to entirely seperate the rational human from the animal human. And the animal bit is purely reactionary. Ideally everyone can control that part and there's never any trouble- but its just not what happens.
So if a women dreses provacativley, goes out clubbing, meets a guy, flirts all night with him, goes back to his flat with him and then decides no, whilst that is her right and there it should end, there is a risk, because of the animal side of humans that something bad will happen instead (especially with alcohol involved and there nearly always is). And whilst that is no way her fault, surely she does have responsibility for all her actions leading up to that moment? It sometimes seems like from a womans point of view she has a right to do as she pleases and act as she pleases without ever having to assume any responsibility for her actions under the umbrella excuse of 'its her right'. Yes it is, but its also her responsibility. No?

[Eldorion]

There's a difference between saying that dressing provocatively in certain situations is unwise and saying that the blame for a crime is falls on or is shared by the victim. Going for a walk through a crime-ridden slum at night is also unwise, but that doesn't mean that victims of nighttime mugging got what they deserved. In both cases it is possible for the victim to put themselves at greater risk but that does not put them at fault for other people's behavior or lack of impulse control.

NB I'm not sure which position - if either - Petty is advocating, but that's my two cents on the matter.

[Kafria]

There's a difference between saying that dressing provocatively in certain situations is unwise and saying that the blame for a crime is falls on or is shared by the victim. Going for a walk through a crime-ridden slum at night is also unwise, but that doesn't mean that victims of nighttime mugging got what they deserved. In both cases it is possible for the victim to put themselves at greater risk but that does not put them at fault for other people's behavior or lack of impulse control.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. In the advice to women about dressing there is, however slight, an implication that it is partially their own fault.

And Petty I have to turn it around again. If a guy

dreses provacativley, goes out clubbing, meets a guy/girl, flirts all night with him/her, goes back to her flat with her and then decides no,

and then she jumped on him anyway? I have to say in this situation there would be no blame to him, just derogatory comments about the type of person she was. (Don't need the 'a bloke real wouldn't turn it down' comments thanks! ) And this is the problem, there is a real double standard here and it clouds our perception all the time! (And while I take your biology point, we are supposed to be way beyond that and have seen, in my lifetime, real shifts in the type of thinking that is acceptable on lots of issues, so why not here?)

[Pettytyrant101]

"we are supposed to be way beyond that and have seen, in my lifetime, real shifts in the type of thinking that is acceptable on lots of issues, so why not here?"- Kafria
Because I don't think Kafria the issue is thinking- in fact thats the problem. The bit of humans that reacts to sexual impulses has little if anything to do with thinking, the thinking bit comes later when you decide if to act on those impulses or not. My fear is that there are people out there, and for no fault other than a quirk of biology and birth, who aren't so capable of overriding the instinctive urges with reason and thought and simply act. I wish it wasn't that way. But it is, and for so long as that is the way then blatant sexual signals are always going to run the risk of unwanted attention, and in the worst cases rape. That's terrible and I say again, there is no blame on the woman here, its not about blame, but not to recognize it happens and therefore not to consider whether your own actions are appropriate seems folly.

To answer your point Kafria about the scenario I proposed but reversed- no the man would not be to blame, but he is responsible for all his actions leading him there. Was it wise to dress in such a fashion putting out strong sexual signals if he had no intention of engaging in sex? Was it wise to flirt to strongly with the person? Was it wise to go home with them? These are the responsibilities of whoever is doing the sexual provocation.


"I'm not sure which position - if either - Petty is advocating"- Eldo

Nor me Eldo! I find it useful however to fully explore as many sides a spossible to an argument, especially one on which I am so uncertain to begin with.

[Ringdrotten]

Well put, Petty, you spoke my opinion too

[Kafria]

First :to be absolutely clear, I'm unsure of where I stand on a lot of this and I am enjoying the debate to help me figure it out.

but not to recognize it happens and therefore not to consider whether your own actions are appropriate seems folly.

I agree with you here, in so much as taking sensible precautions and would do myself on any night out, plans for getting home, not leaving alone, not getting so blotto that I can't make a decent judgement etc. I have a problem with the way this is directed at clothes, beyond mankinis and posing pouches, I can't think of male clothing that would be considered provocotive in the same way as huge amounts of female clothing is. Approaching this summer many girls will dress on an ordinary day in vest tops and shorts, nothing more daring than that, but through having their figure on display and a lot of leg, chest and maybe even belly showing may be termed 'slutty'.
Equally a number of the lads will wear shorts and vest tops (or maybe not!) and no one will think anything of it.

To answer your point Kafria about the scenario I proposed but reversed- no the man would not be to blame, but he is responsible for all his actions leading him there.

My contention with this is that I don't believe he would be blamed in the same way, he may be considered daft (or soft!) But all the condemnation would fall on the girl, whereas they is always an element of 'what did she expect?' in response to these cases for women

Was it wise to dress in such a fashion putting out strong sexual signals if he had no intention of engaging in sex? Was it wise to flirt to strongly with the person? Was it wise to go home with them? These are the responsibilities of whoever is doing the sexual provocation.

Again I agree with you here!

Date rape is difficult for just these reasons and this is one of the key problems with achieving convictions.

Perception is difficult though. The senerio you describe could be the perception from the transgressors viewpoint. The victim is likely to say, they met at a club had a chat, a dance and a laugh, seemed a friendly bloke and they shared a cab back to his when the club shut, they were enjoying a chat so when he asked her in for a coffee she went, he seemed friendly and safe enough she got the cab number to call one to take her home later, when she tried to leave he pounced (femaleviewpoint in this,but still works both ways!). In this case a person believes they are being honest, didn't flirt overly or send out signals. The problem with getting convictions is getting proof of the story one way or the other (If she was behaving like that she must have been up for it!) and in this context linking dress to a 'sex please' admission is dangerous (and in my opinion wrong)

Discounting behaviour (I agree you shouldn't lead folk on!) and focusing on clothes, it seems a bit much to suggest that someone should recieve this sort of censure for dressing a certain way when they go out and I suspect the problem is as much the sexualisation of society we we have discussed before as human instinctive behaviour.

[Pettytyrant101]

Your point about men dressing in shorts, t-shirts, or even going topless in hot weather (rare up here of course, more likely to get frostbite!) is where my own thinking runs into a fog of greyness, and is one of the reasons I also am unsure of exactly where I stand on this. Some of those men who dress like that will do so for no other reason than comfort and ease, some will do it to attract sexual attention-which is no different than how women will be thinking, some out of practiciality and others to delibrately display.
Perhaps your point about the sexulization of society comes into play here- its hard to judge just from a mans point of view, but womens clothing seems sexier, more designed to put out certain signals- and if I may be brave enough to dare say so many womens clothing is popular becasue of this because women use their sexuality to influence and coerce in everyday life (I think I may be about to get shot for that, but I think its true to a degree). How much does society present an image to which women conform and how much do women themselves drive society? Are womens clothes provocative in other words becasue of a sexualization of society by men, or are they provocative becaus of a sexualization of women by women?

[Kafria]

and if I may be brave enough to dare say so many womens clothing is popular becasue of this because women use their sexuality to influence and coerce in everyday life

giggled out loud when I read this, as much through recognising the truth of it for some women as at the disclaimer that followed. And if the girls here are honest we all know of women who do use flirting and 'little women' acts to get what they want from men.

In terms of female dress, I'd say two things

Firstly, for a lot of women they dress for other women. I know that sounds a bit odd, but it is about approval from their peers, doesn't necessarily have a sexual conotation (although some do want to be sexy)

Secondly, in an internet age where the vast majority of teenage boys openly admit to having watched graphic porn, their perception of the message that clothing is giving does not relate to the reality.

(Thought I'd mention at this time personally I'm a bit of a prude when it comes to clothes, don't own a skirt that falls above the knee or a pair of shorts, cropped trousers are good enough! For school I will not wear scoop neck tops as I tend to lean over desk when talking to kids and I am very concious of not being, even unwittingly, inappropriately dressed in front of the kids!)