Azrael wrote:No, he really wasn't. If a chosen means to address a problem is to repeatedly espouse a mantra only applicable in a tiny portion of relevant cases as if it were a panacea, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with stating the flaws in the method. If people want to keep doing it, they have every right to. And we have every right to keep telling them their approach is flawed.
I agree, pointing out the flaws in the "victim blamers" ideas is a perfectly legitimate passtime, but he didn't do that in the post I quoted
. Not a single instance of it. What he did say was "But it is advice that should stop taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape.", which is a concept which I feel strongly violates the statement I quoted a couple of pages ago.
Azrael wrote:Honestly, at this point you seem bent on the meta-argument, which isn't a particularly useful discussion.
I'm not particularly attached to this argument, and frankly I'm a little sad at how much it's blown out of proportion. I was hoping gmalivuk would either correct me on one or more of my assumptions (as you did when I asked you the same question) or quietly accede and change his argument. I'm quite happy to drop this entire thing if either one of you (being yelled at by mods is scary) wants me to.
gmalivuk wrote:So get off your damn high horse of trying to correct our logic for our own good or whatever.
Urm... is correcting someone's logic not a legitimate (and relatively on-topic) passtime in this subforum? Honest question. If someone walked into this thread right now and said "I oppose perpetrator-focused education because that's what Hitler did" would or would not I (and by extension, everyone else) be in the right to correct their crimes against logic in the thread? Should we just let them go at it? Should we PM them? Should we PM a mod? Should we just ignore them? Both the general forum rules and the SB rules say nothing about this issue, so an actual ruling on what's best to do in this situation would be greatly appreciated (so, you know, I know what to do in future situations).
I posted my objections in-thread because I believed it to be the best option. I even thought I was being mostly on-topic, since if the logic presented in the thread is bad, the conclusions reached in the thread will also be bad. If I was wrong then by all means correct me, but I don't see how what I've done is worth such hostility.
gmalivuk wrote:And my problem was not with people who expend their efforts giving rape-prevention advice to potential victims. My problem was with it "taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape". The fact that I agree it's wrong to derail an existing discussion by focusing on how the issue at hand can be considered a subset of some larger issue in no way logically contradicts the fact that I also think it's wrong to derail an existing discussion by focusing on one tiny subset of the issue at hand.
I wasn't under the impression that this was the thread for discussion of how to stop rape. Is it? Another honest question: this thread has been about everything and anything in the last couple of pages, and the fact that there exists a thread titled "How to stop people from becoming rapists" lead me to believe that that particular niche was well-occupied. Since perpetrator-focused rape-prevention strategies already has its own thread, wouldn't that make this thread open for victim-focused education strategies, which seems to be what people want to talk about? I've seen plenty of other threads be left alone after they've suffered similarly drastic topic-changes in the past on this forum, so I assumed that this was fairly standard practice.
If all of the above assumptions are correct, then yeah, your logic is bad. If not, then not. If any of my assumptions were incorrect, then please correct me.