Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Gandalf's Beard]

On the Gadaffi thing GB are you saying you think he should be left alone?

Well let me put this way, do you really think George Bush, Tony Blair, and now Obama and David Cameron should be left alone?

The Precedent set by NATO leaves EVERY Head of State open to assassination. Which is a violation of every International Law in the book. This is a dangerous and INSANE precedent to set. And it also reveals that there are far more dangerous Mass Murderers in the NORTH ATLANTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Ghadafi doesn't even have as many people in his whole country as even ONE Mass Murder Spree that NATO engages in.

NATO has no business funding, training, and arming terrorists in other countries to destabilize their regimes, and they have no business committing Mass Murder themselves if the terrorists they fund, arm, and train are not enough to pull off the job.

Make no mistake, this isn't about killing Ghadafi, it's about controlling the Oil that Ghadafi was selling to China, it is about controlling the Oil Infrastructure that Ghadafi had Nationalized, this is about destroying the quality of life for people living in an Arab SECULAR STATE, this is about allowing certain sects of Muslim Fanatics to take over the country who are more favourable to US interests.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

"NATO has no business funding, training, and arming terrorists in other countries to destabilize their regimes,"- GB

Even if that regimes is routinely raping, murdering torturing and repressing its own people? When world wide public outcry (and I mean public, as voiced by everyday folks not just politicians) is clear, as it was when the footage first began emerging from Libya should that outrage not have an avenue to find a voice through the political system?

edit- just to put in a LotR context. The Last AAlliance you would say should never have happened. Sauron was a legitimate Head of State (Mordor). Totally corrupt and evil (like Gadaffi) but by your logic Numenor and the Elves had no buisness forming a coalition (NATO) and taking military action against him to depose him.

[Gandalf's Beard]

"NATO has no business funding, training, and arming terrorists in other countries to destabilize their regimes,"- GB

Even if that regimes is routinely raping, murdering torturing and repressing its own people? When world wide public outcry (and I mean public, as voiced by everyday folks not just politicians) is clear, as it was when the footage first began emerging from Libya should that outrage not have an avenue to find a voice through the political system?

edit- just to put in a LotR context. The Last AAlliance you would say should never have happened. Sauron was a legitimate Head of State (Mordor). Totally corrupt and evil (like Gadaffi) but by your logic Numenor and the Elves had no buisness forming a coalition (NATO) and taking military action against him to depose him.

You only see what NATO wants you to see! You only hear what NATO wants you to hear! You only read what NATO wants you to read! You only believe what NATO wants you to believe. How do you know what is true and what is a lie? We know the UK and the US lied about Iraq, I also know that NATO lied about Yugoslavia/Serbia.

Yes lets put it in LotR terms. Who kills more people than Ghadafi? Who kills more people than Saddam Hussein? NATO and the USA that's who. They are the enforcement arm of International Corporate interests. The alliance is an alliance of Evil, of an Evil far greater than any Petty Tyrant can even hope to achieve. Who does that sound like in LotR terms? The alliances formed by Sauron, that's who.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

You completely fail to address the issue GB of what do you do when some despot is murdering and raping and torturing and there is clear, and quite right public outrage at it? Just leave him be? Say its not our place to interfere, its just their tough luck?

[Gandalf's Beard]

You completely fail to address the issue GB of what do you do when some despot is murdering and raping and torturing and there is clear, and quite right public outrage at it? Just leave him be? Say its not our place to interfere, its just their tough luck?

No, i have not failed to address it. This is what the US and NATO does. But because they are the Largest Terrorist group on the Planet, they get a Free Pass. They have no moral high ground to stand on.

Again, what makes you believe the US and its allies are telling the Truth this time around?

Even if they are telling the truth, why do they give other Authoritarian Countries who Torture and Kill people a Free Pass when those countries are allies of NATO and the US?

There is a clear double standard.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm not disagreeing that their are double standards. But nor to I buy the argument that if there two people kicking two other people that there is no pont in stoppping only one of them if you can. If you can stop one you should. Better if you can stop both but one is better than neither. So to say just because NATO does nothing in some cases means they should do nothing in every case is silly.
And if memory serves NATO, nor any other western governemnt was making a case for war in Libya, Dvaid Cameron was out there on an arranged busness meeting with Gaddaffi on behalf of UK oil industyr when this all kicked off- e was embarrassed by it not helped. The call for action was by UN standards remarkably quick and this becausue of the clear outrage being expressed in western countries, byt he people, over what they were seeing. And what they were seeing was footage uploaded to the internet by the peple of LIbya, not a dodgy presentation made at the UN by Powell.
So I ask again, if the free and democractic peoples of the world witness a humanitarian crisis casued by a despot should they not have the means through their political system to do something about it?

[Pettytyrant101]

There is a remake of the Dambusters film on the go, penned by Stephen Fry and produced by PJ. In real life and in the original film the sqaudron had a mascot, a black labrador. The labradors name was used by the flight crews as the code word for a successful bombing run, and therefore get shouted out triumphantly a lot at the end. Its name was 'Nigger'. But it won't be in the remake, rather it will be 'Digger'.
So here's my question. Does it matter? Is it right the name should be changed even though the film is about an histroical event and you can still go the grave of the dog today with his name , 'nigger' proudly upon it. Is this political correctness altering histroy or is it appropriate censorship?

[Pettytyrant101]

Slutwalk in London today. I really don't get this. Women wear provocative clothing and go on a march. If there's a message I'm damned if I noticed, but then I was busy just staring at their t**s.

[Ringdrotten]

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm partly serious! What do they think is the most likely thought to be going through a mans mind when confronted with several hundred women in their underwear;

a) They are making a valid point about the sexualisation of women and that the double standards inherinent in society, and that a womens attire is not an invitation to sex.

or

b) 200 hundred women in underwear!!! Thank you Illuvator.

Men are notoriuosly poor at concentraing on other matters when confornted by a single woman in her underwear- a whole march worth? No chance. There's got to be a better way of saying "Don't view me only as a sexual object" than walking about half naked.

[Ringdrotten]

(((((Ssh, Petty - let them think it works!)))))

[Pettytyrant101]

((((Good thinking- must be all the herring good for the brain they say! ))))

[odo banks]

"B" --- but only if you're married to them.

[Kafria]

Chants of "blame the rapist not the victim, doesn't matter what I'm dressed in" rang out above the roar of traffic.

"If you go to a club you can be grabbed on the behind three times in an evening by a bloke who thinks it's ok because you're wearing a short skirt. There's an assumption it's flattering,"

Some said women experience double standards in which they are under pressure to look sexy, but are also expected to live chaste lives.

said she once served on a jury in a rape trial in which the behaviour and dress of the victim was raised by the defence - a move which was just taken for granted at the time.

"There was a suggestion the victim was in some way responsible, it was used as an expression of fault," she said.

The organiser of the London event was a 17-year-old sixth former, Anastasia

selected quotes from the beeb article on it and a few things to say.

We have had this double standards in clothing discussion before and it is part of a wider problem of the way society sexualises things, particualrly young women. I think it is telling it is a 17 year old who has organised it. Todays young girls are growing up in an environment were they are expected (to a large extent by the teenage boys around them, influenced by what they search out on the internet and see in the not quite lad mags they read) to look a certain sexualised way and behave in a certain sexualised way (all skimpy clothing and sexual behaviour), but are still isolated and called names if they do.

As I said before the most dangerous part of this is the way we view victims of sexual crimes, as the quoted example states, dress of the person can be used against them in the court of law - the victim responsible for what happened to them. This is why it is important to challenge these attitudes. (In the same way I get annoyed when parents of kids who get abducted get critisised, 'They shouldn't have left them playing' type stuff. Nothing would have happened except for the actions of the perpertrator, it is there resposibiltiy only, can you ever imagine a parent being made to stand up and a defence lawyer suggesting it is their own fault, in some way they are responsible! - I realise this is a bit extreme, but I think it holds true - a number of victims of sexual assault are teenage girls too young to really understand about putting out sexual signals!)

Why should a girl in a mini skirt and small top (revealling less than her gym workout clothes in many cases) have to worry about men touching her bum and then to add insult to injury have him suggesting that is what she wanted by wearing her clothes. The only way to challenge that is head on, yes some of the examples are extreme, but as I said before a bloke in shorts only is not consider fair game for women to grope as they feel and it be his fault!

(If you don't believe me about male teenage perceptions, on one of the sex education shows they got a group looking at female breasts to talk about what was natural and attractive. The vast majority picked the enhanced adult star variety as both the norm and what was attractive! Equally having access to this kind of stuff in a society that doesn't challenge for these youngsters whether this is normal behaviour leaves boys with a warped view of what to expect and girls under huge pressure to act certain ways.)

[Pettytyrant101]

There are double standards on womans side too. When MP's tried to ban page 3 girls it was the girls themselves who came out in protest against it demanding it was their right. I work in a female environment, sexual comments towards male staff, bum nipping/slapping, crude comments about sexual organs etc happens every single week. If I behaved in even a 10% of the fashion towards female staff members as female ones do to males I would be sacked for sexual harassment. But for some reaosn apparently when a woman does these things its 'a bit of a laugh' but when a man does it its sinister.

[Orwell]

.... when a woman does it it's welcome... when it's a male, it's just automotism... isn't it...?

[Orwell]

Seriously though, if a woman or girl dresses in a certain way she gets more attention and seems more available. Look at me. Aren't I sexy. No defence against rape but quite possibly a factor. Get more notice from more males (and females for that matter, if only to criticize). No hard and fast rules on this, but I reckon women making themselves is a primeval signal, is part of ancient rituals based on attracting a mate. As I said: "Hey, I'm sexy. Look at me." Except today with, "But don't touch - or whistle" maybe? The crime is obviously taking without permission. Yes, it's still rape and not acceptable, but sexy clothing, I feel, generally brings increased risk. Availability, real or feigned, is availability. I would never take what wasn't glady given, but others, obviously, take what they think is available. Juries take that into account. Let's not be naive.

[Ally]

Seriously though, if a woman or girl dresses in a certain way she gets more attention and seems more available. Look at me. Aren't I sexy. No defence against rape but quite possibly a factor. Get more notice from more males (and females for that matter, if only to criticize). No hard and fast rules on this, but I reckon women making themselves is a primeval signal, is part of ancient rituals based on attracting a mate. As I said: "Hey, I'm sexy. Look at me." Except today with, "But don't touch - or whistle" maybe? The crime is obviously taking without permission. Yes, it's still rape and not acceptable, but sexy clothing, I feel, generally brings increased risk. Availability, real or feigned, is availability. I would never take what wasn't glady given, but others, obviously, take what they think is available. Juries take that into account. Let's not be naive.

While I will never say that because the girls dress a certain way that they deserved to be raped/attacked or that they had it coming, but at the same time it honestly boggles my mind that some women will say that the way they dressed had no bearing on what happened. Obviously this isn't the case for all cases, it probably applies more to where alcohol as been involved, and in which the women knows how she dresses could be gratifying to men in a sexual manner.

[Eldorion]

Todays young girls are growing up in an environment were they are expected (to a large extent by the teenage boys around them, influenced by what they search out on the internet and see in the not quite lad mags they read) to look a certain sexualised way and behave in a certain sexualised way (all skimpy clothing and sexual behaviour), but are still isolated and called names if they do.

Perhaps this is just me being an ignorant male, but I'm not sure I understand what exactly is involved in young girls being "expected" to dress this way. Speaking from my own personal experience, I see girls every dressed in outfits that I don't understand why anyone would wear outside of a pool or beach and I see girls dressed so that they have barely any skin below the neck showing. What sort of pressure is there on girls (at least in certain areas) to dress more towards the revealing end of the spectrum instead of making their own decisions? Is it peer pressure or something more?

As I said before the most dangerous part of this is the way we view victims of sexual crimes, as the quoted example states, dress of the person can be used against them in the court of law - the victim responsible for what happened to them. This is why it is important to challenge these attitudes.

I missed the part about the way victims dressed being brought up in a court of law when I skimmed the BBC article. I agree that this is absurd and wrong.

[Eldorion]

Yes, it's still rape and not acceptable, but sexy clothing, I feel, generally brings increased risk. I would never take what wasn't glady given, but others, obviously, take what they think is available. Juries take that into account. Let's not be naive.

As I've said before, I don't see anything wrong in pointing out that dressing a certain way might be a risky behavior in certain environments, but why should juries take that into account when assessing the guilt of an accused rapist? If it's still rape - and I agree that it is - then I don't see the relevance of clothing beyond noting a possible preventative measure. Rapists are still just as guilty.

[Ringdrotten]

As I've said before, I don't see anything wrong in pointing out that dressing a certain way might be a risky behavior in certain environments, but why should juries take that into account when assessing the guilt of an accused rapist? If it's still rape - and I agree that it is - then I don't see the relevance of clothing beyond noting a possible preventative measure. Rapists are still just as guilty.

My opinion of the matter summed up in three lines - well put, Eldo

I see girls every dressed in outfits that I don't understand why anyone would wear outside of a pool or beach and I see girls dressed so that they have barely any skin below the neck showing.

I see this in Norway too. I've been at outdoor parties where the thermometer has been showing blue numbers (below 0 degrees celsius - not sure what that is in Fahrenheit but it's cold enough to wear a jacket at the least!) and the girls still wore skirts so short they might as well have worn nothing at all. I was saying (and so were the rest of my male friends) "what the hell are they thinking wearing that now??"
The pressure you are talking about, Kafria, is one I think is nonexistent in reality. I think many girls think that boys expect them to dress like that, while we really don't have any expectations at all. As long as a girl wears a nice smile I couldn't care less for what else she might be wearing to be honest

[Ally]

I see this in Norway too. I've been at outdoor parties where the thermometer has been showing blue numbers (below 0 degrees celsius - not sure what that is in Fahrenheit but it's cold enough to wear a jacket at the least!) and the girls still wore skirts so short they might as well have worn nothing at all. I was saying (and so were the rest of my male friends) "what the hell are they thinking wearing that now??"
The pressure you are talking about, Kafria, is one I think is nonexistent in reality. I think many girls think that boys expect them to dress like that, while we really don't have any expectations at all. As long as a girl wears a nice smile I couldn't care less for what else she might be wearing to be honest

I remember going to see a 30STM gig in the centre of Cardiff last winter, and in the city centre afterwoods there were women dressed up in their tightest, nicest dresses and their siteletos and it was snowing! Though I can understand it really, it's a party, you can't wear tracksuits and a hoodie! Parties where your peers are in attendance, you have to wear something pretty whatever the weather- to protect your social standards! If it's just you and your family then by all means wear anything. For Christmas I didn't change out of my pyjamas till miday, you just have to dress appropriately for who ever will see you! If you were a girl and had to be seen by someone you had a crush on, wouldn't you want to wear your nicest dress?

[Eldorion]

Even I (as a boy) can understand wanting to look nice in certain situations, but what I'm unclear on is the idea that girls are pressured into dressing in revealing outfits. Regardless of one's gender, one can look nice without showing a lot of skin (though one could also show skin and look nice, I don't think it really matters one way or another), at least in my opinion.

[Pettytyrant101]

I get the impression Ally from your comments that the pressure to look and wear certain clothing comes more from peer pressure within female groups, rather than any pressure applied by males. (after all if we get women to do what we wanted just by pressuring we'd have done that a long time ago and my tea would be cooked by now!). In my expercience form working with women most social pressures to conform or look a certain way comes from other women and they are the first to judge too.

[Ringdrotten]

There are so many ways a girl/woman can dress without freezing her ass off and still look very attractive, Ally