NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/rape/2178

Text File | 1992-08-16 | 7.2 KB | 127 lines

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!query
From: [e-mail] (Samuel Green)
Subject: Summary...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet on news.acns)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:15:24 GMT
Lines: 115

    Okay, since I read the "green eggs" message, I decided to nuke a
little less bandwith.  I am going to try and see if I can summarize the
pertinent points of this thread.

    My Position:

    I feel that it is a persons duty (no gender issues here) to
escort someone, when asked, without thought of recriprocation, thrugh what
the person asking for an escort feels is a dangerous or potentially
dangerous area.
    I also feel that, as far as protection and defense goes,
based on genetic and environmental factors, that a male is more able, on
average, to be able to defend the escorted person, and themselves.
Obviously, there are people who are different from the norm, and they would
be better able to assess their situation for themselves.
    The reasons for it being a 'duty' mfor someone who is
asked (although, I do insist on escorting someone who is about to go out
alone) to escort someone.  The reason for this is simple:  So that the
person who fears that there is danger brewing will be a feel safer, and
also so that that person will be a bit better defended if something does
happen.  Also, it will reduce the chances of something happening.

    DC's response:  Why should he risk his neck to help someone he does
not know?
    Why do I insist on violating someones autonomy in choice of action
by following them if they do not wish an escort?
    What about a multiple attack scenario?
    What about going for help?

    I think that DC or anyone should do what they can to help people
out.  It is partly due, in my opinion, to the fact that many people are not
willing to escort someone, or feel that they mmay be ridiculed (giving some
creedence to DC's points on machoism) for asking an escort, that so many
attacks occur.  If rapists and muggers had fewer people who went out alone,
I believe that there would be fewer of them.  It is hard to make a living
off of muggings when there aint many people to attack.  And, it is hard to
rape someone when they have a few people with them (I am speaking of total
strangers raping the victim, not the date rape or gang rape issue here, as
those are different areas).

    As far as violating someone autonomy, I do not believe that I am.
I am not forcing THEM to *DO* (i.e. perform an action or series of them)
anything.  I am following them, and not interfering unless something
happens.  I do not and cannot MAKE anyone do anything that they do not want
to do, unless I used force or threat of force.  I do roughly the same thing
as the police do, except I only watch out for one person.  If something
happens tro someone else, I will give assistance if I see it, though.  The
Gaurdian Angles, the Pink Angels and many other citizens groups do the same
thing, and they do not say "Hey, is it okay if I watch out for you, to make
sure you are all right?"  They go out and watch out for bad situations, and
in some cases, many citizens have complained about them, because they felt
that they were being controlled.  Quite the contrary, as those groups, and
some individuals, are there to help.

    As far as a multiple attacker situation, or a potential assistant
going for help:
    I say that you can still yell and scream and get attention (and, I
might add, attention quicker than the police) and also attack an attacker.
I think that in a single attacker situation, your best bet is to scream
youre lungs off while proceeding to bash the attacker.
    As far as a multi attacker scenario:  I personally would attack
whilst screaming for help, and go on a rampage, if possible.  This, again,
is what *I* would, and I cannot stress enough that if you do not have good
reason to feel cconfident facing multiple assailants, then just run, break
windows, scream for help, whatever you can do.

    Lastly, I want to comment on a few of the other tactics used by
both myself and DC.  Some of them, from a debate standpoint are not
appropriate, and I will express them here, as I have before in other posts,
so that the issue will die.
    Misquoting, or misinterpretation of statements:  This has occurred,
and, since it is counter productive to debate opinions that no one has
expressed, it should stop.  If you must make an assumption, do so, but then
do not attack the person based on that assumption.  This is wrong, and
basically, it is attacking your interpretation of someones statement.  If
you are uncertain, ask them if this is really their view, and then proceed
to base your argument on that.  Both myself and DC have done more than
enough of this.
    Name calling, or whatever you want to call it is useless.  While I
have done a bit of it myself, I will cease it.  There is no reason
whatsoever to apply a derogative label to someone based on their opinions.
The thing is, it is basically a foolish thing to say "You *are* an idiot"
because, 1) you have no way of prooving this statement, and 2) it is
basically slander, or libel, or somesuch.  Dont know if that can be
prosecuted, but, it never hurts to be careful.  (By the way, the only way
to be certain of avoiding the whole libel slander deal is to say "In my
opinion, you are a/an <fill in the blank>"  As far as it goes, DC is
probably not any of the things I have called him, nor am I, in all
likelyhood, any of the things that he has called me.  It should end.
    Hypocracy, pettiness and that other garbage:  Do not be petty and
point out typoes or spelling errors.  Not everyone feels the necessity of
using a spell checker, and, unless a word was mangled beytond all
recognition, it is extremely petty and useless.  Instead, if a word is
misspelled, and you know what the word was intended to be, let it pass.  If
you are not sure what the word was, then ask.  As far as hypocracy goes, do
not post in one place that you object to someone say, calling you a name,
and then going and doing the same yourself.  Both DC and I have done this,
and I will cease it.  Also note that if you use sarcasm, and then attack
someone else for same, that is very hypocritical.  This is probably oabout
the only thing that I haven't engaged in in this entire thread.  I
understand the use of it, and likewise employ it.  If someone dosen't get
it, then I guess that that is their problem.
    Finally (for real and for true) I will not respond to any more
posts on this thread if there is any of the petty name calling, typo
mentioning and the like.  If this group is supposed to accomplish anything,
it is being undermined by the above.  Also, I would reccommend that egotism
in the form of "I thrashed this persons arguments, so others feel the need
to attack me now" or saying things that are basically just ego strokes
about what a wonderful debater you are and the like, also are a waste of
time.  Anyway, I am sure that someone will mention the disjointedness of
this post, but, hell with it.  If they don't get the idea, I don't have the
time to make sure they do.
    Sam