PurpleGurl wrote:With all due respect, it got its own thread because you ran with my side comments in two different threads, and if it isn't addressed here, you will keep doing that with me elsewhere. I've ran into this in other places where some are not mature enough to read side comments without commenting and derailing the topic. So I generally start threads to deal with the things people keep using to derail topics with, or even to discuss me when I am the target. Then they can get it out of their system and stop polluting the threads. When a person mentions a side example, etiquette dictates never jumping on a minor point someone else mentions as a mere example. You've inserted comments about PCness and sexism in two of my posts.
Again, my comments only refer within the context of the US. We don't have many suicide bombers in the US, and Middle Eastern is considered "White" if you go by archaeological classifications and the 3-race hypothesis. But in the US, bombers tend to be White and loners, and it is more lone terrorism. It was a simplified overview with liberties taken and not a treatise. If you think I am going beyond what you say, I am, because I always expand topics to look at the whole picture. Any idiot can see details, but it takes a genius to see the big picture.
The facts are that men currently rape, abuse, and commit violence the most, so laws need to be set up to punish these acts far stronger when men do them to reduce such activity down to female levels. That used to be the case. Now men are organizing and pretending to be victims as a way to abuse and trivialize women and their concerns even more. And I would say the same needs to be done with race until the higher numbers of certain crimes drop. Part of the problem is that minority groups think of themselves as communities rather than as individuals. The majority in the US think of just themselves and their own family and don't automatically "go to war" every time someone does something anti-White. So really, there needs to be a way to drive a wedge between the good people and the criminals instead of the good people letting warped loyalties cause crime to go unpunished.
I get tired of the "my poor baby" routine when someone is caught. No, they didn't make "a mistake." There is no way to mistakenly rape. That is unless one has a rare medical condition that causes them to do it in their sleep, and there might be a few documented cases of that. I am unsure about someone getting very drunk and getting into the wrong bed and having sex with whoever else is there. Nor could someone "accidentally" rape except for a few far-fetched scenarios (like an unclothed man falling out of a tree onto an unclothed woman and things miraculously aligning properly). I don't really understand why one ethnic group would take up for criminal family members and another ethnic group wouldn't. Maybe the difference is the family structure, where a mother might be more likely to develop unhealthy nurturing bonds (codependency or whatever) with her children if there is no father around.
And me saying a certain race in the US is currently more likely to do something is not making a generalization. Besides, if you feel you are a victim of a generalization or stereotypes, then it is your job to take it out on those in your own group and let them know how bad they are making you look. Let me switch names of groups to try to make things less offensive. Lets suppose Green guys have a bad rap for raping Purple women. I believe it is the Green Community's job to do inside housecleaning and stop other Green guys from sexually assaulting women - Green, Blue, Purple, Polka-dotted, or otherwise. They should work to reduce violence from their own to targets outside their race because such interracial violence only causes more racism, even when the attackers don't attack from a place of racist animus against the victim. (In other words, a victim may perceive racism regardless of the motive.)
So if you don't like anti-male "sexism," then you as a man need to stop making excuses and instead work to reduce certain male behaviors. I believe instead of making women more "assertive," efforts should be put on making men less aggressive and less macho. I believe the world needs many more passive, non-competitive, non-athletic, non-macho men. Ironically, the more macho someone is, the more insecurity they have, and often, the most violent of men may be closeted homosexuals or transgendered (because they are running from themselves and have the most to try to prove). I'm glad the NFL is finally taking a stand on domestic violence, though it still seems players get in more trouble for abusing animals than their lovers or spouses. I am glad they are starting to close the penalty gap there. It isn't fair to be involved in a dog or rooster fight and get benched for a year, but put a lover/spouse in the hospital for a while and get suspended for only 3 games. I did sign a petition on the issue. The NFL now has an internal panel to tackle this issue, but it is not a fully representative group. Most of the players are African-American, and yet there are no Black women on the panel. So if none of the women
I will say something else, if a person mentions a group, they never mean the entire group unless they use the word "All" or another prefix.
I guess it's a cultural difference, then. Where I come from, it's exactly deemed to be mature to accept that, if you make sidecomments, people may and can respond to it as well. In fact, in any living discussion this ALWAYS happens. For me, starting a thread in the wrong area is indeed not very suited, but I would never make comments on somebody who responds to an aside when I made asides as well, for instance. (Frankly, THAT seems pretty immature). I don't know what your etiquette says, but there is no such thing as what you described in my book. It seems contrary to any normal discussion, and it's also rather hypocritical to complain someone is diverging off topic when one is doing the same. (Not saying you do, just talking on the principle of the matter). If one wants to stay on topic, stay on topic. If persons deviate from that with asides in a thread, others may deviate from it with asides too in that thread. It's that simple. It's called reciprocity.
I'm not sure why you use the 'in USA context" to something which deals with the basic principle and is universal in nature (in as far as anything is universal, but that's another discussion). Whether or not there are more suicide-bombers in the USA does nothing to refute the fact any sort of presumed or real link can be wrong, or interpreted wrongly. For instance; are blacks more criminally inclined, or is it that they are just more targeted by the police? Or both? Do men commit more murders, or is it that women murder in ways that are less conspicuous? (I read a paper where it is said women use far more poisoning to kill than men, for instance, and poisoning is more difficult to recognise as murder, than, say, a headshot). I'm not making a definite statement one way or another, just making clear one has to be cautious of supposed links, and even if there is a correlation, not to infer there is also a causality.
I do not agree with you that men should be more targeted than women because there is a real or perceived 'more prevalence' for crimes. Such a concept is inherently unfair, since it arbitrarily assumes all members of a group share the responsibility of that group, even if the only link is being born into that group. That's exactly what I mean by it being morally incorrect to target a whole group through the actions of individuals. I'm sorry, but I do not feel responsible for the actions of other individuals EVEN if they are men. (Actually, the 'man' or 'woman' thing is completely irrelevant to it). It's also not clear why you choose women as point of reference - one could think it's actually a bit self-serving, in fact. For instance, it could well be that budhist monks - men or women - commit even far less crimes than 'women' as a group. Thus, we should 'punish those acts far stronger when non-budhists do them, to reduce such activity to Buddhist levels'. Ridiculous? Yes. And so is the same thing you said. One is NOT responsible for other individuals' actions, and thus one should not receive harsher punishment because one is born into a certain group. The fact that I have to point out the moral lacune in such sort of reasoning, I find concerning.
Much of your other paragraphs deal, again, with an offender which might use 'others do it too' as an excuse. But that was never the point of the discussion in the first place, so I take it as an aside (mind you, *I* am not complaining about it, nor do I ask to make yet another thread about it
). As said, I agree with that, and it was never a point of contestation in the first place. Nor do I have a problem of making women more assertive (and other victims in general too, btw). But I am not to blame for what other people do, nor do I think a harsher punishment is needed because one has been born in a certain group. Any group is arbitrary chosen as reference point in any case. You take women, but there is no real necessity to use that as reference group. Say you have a very peaceful matriarchal Indian tribe somewhere, and you take that as point of reference, than it's fully justified to say white western women should be harsher punished, because there is more 'prevalence' there. So, no, to punish 'Greens' more because there are more individuals there that commit certain crimes, is still not correct, even if they commit more of those crimes than Purple. You do not get culpabilisation nor criminalisation by belonging by birth to a certain group. I know this is viewed differently by feminists, but I don't regard 'men' as a particular group I 'should' feel responsible for as a whole. I do not feel more responsible for the actions of individual men than I feel responsible for the individual actions of women, and of humans as a hole. The prevalence of crimes is much higher with the Islamic State, but even if I were a muslim, I would not feel responsible for their actions neither, nor would I argue that Muslims should be harder punished because of it. The idea that one should is, frankly, pretty bizarre and alien to me, and impossible to implement within the setting of the Categorical Imperative of Kant, which is what I use as moral compass. If all groups set themselves as normative for all other groups for every or any specific behaviour, then all could ask for harsher punishment for all other groups for such behaviour. Thus the logical conclusion would be an extremely harsh punishment equal for all except the meekest of all such groups (and only that specifically to certain behaviour, since it's unlikely there is a group that is in all and every behaviour more meek than in any other group).
As one can see, the whole concept is not only morally dubious, but also logically incoherent. In fact, culpabilisation of whole groups of people for actual or imagined wrongdoings of some individuals, led to myriads of historical atrocities in the past. Racial profiling is also a logical consequence of such a concept. This is exactly the 'big picture' you were talking about.