What difference does it make to you?

Effects

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Pay attention. I did not say because somebody mocks a moustache but because they assault people and threaten them.

I'm not paying enough attention because you're a boring troll.

You're the very person who said you assault people just because they don't like the way you dress.

I don't think you even dress that interestingly, it's all in your head.
You say you can't grow a beard yet can manage a handlebar moustache? I don't believe that either.

Antares35

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Pay attention. I did not say because somebody mocks a moustache but because they assault people and threaten them. I also didn't single out a moustache just mentioned it in passing as a thing people may comment on and if you don't accept it as they want they can be violent.

So it isn't the comment it is the intimidation with threats of violence that are the issue.

Funny how people are going out of there way to make up what I said to mock the points I am making yet a person saying they HATE people who wear what they consider outlandish. No condemnation for that but suggesting that people shouldn't be attacked is laughed at.

Must tell my friend who has to wear dentures because he had his teeth kicked in he was looking for trouble and it was his own fault. How about my friend who has a scar on his cheek from being cut with a Stanley knife because he was a "hippy" and was walking home?

Sure they should just laugh off these serious assaults.

I think the point that some people are trying to get at is that we have laws in place against violence, assault etc. Nowhere does it say in Irish law that it is ok to slash someone with a Stanley knife or kick their teeth in, and nowhere on this thread, despite your allegations, has anyone condoned this type of behaviour. Assault is assault and is, rightly, illegal. I think the issue might be that we don't really know what you are getting at. Assault is already illegal - do you want to make it "more illegal" if people are assaulted because of what they wear or their facial hair? I was assaulted on the Luas several years ago. Simply because there was a shove and I asked the scobe behind me not to dig her elbows into me. That was enough for her to drag me off the tram by my hair and punch me square in the face. My glasses broke, but they took the impact at least. Was that less of an assault or less of a crime because it wasn't motivated by me wearing an emo outfit or a quirky moustache or dentures? I certainly wasn't less traumatised by it than any other assault victim

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

Is that you, Mr. Hook?

So how much of the blame should the skimpily dressed woman take for her rape?

My approach is the same that we would accept in every other situation.

We don't walk down dark alleyways because we understand the risks involved.

If we decide to walk down the alleyway regardless, and get attacked, full responsibility goes to the person committing the crime.

However, how many of us would argue that people should walk down the dark alleyway regardless of the risk, because the criminal is responsible anyway?

It's exactly the same principle when it comes to other crimes in society. When we are aware of the risks of doing something, we should always opt to minimize those risks.

But that's not the same as exculpating the criminal, as he must always take full responsibility for the crime. However, it's up to us to reduce the likelihood of experiencing those crimes (not walking down that dark alleyway etc.).

sbsquarepants

So Ray, it's not just yourself but also your wider circle of friends who are subject to this relentless fashion based vigilantism?

Fúck me, that's almost as unfortunate as it is unlikely!

the beer revolu

Deleted User wrote: »

My approach is the same that we would accept in every other situation.

We don't walk down dark alleyways because we understand the risks involved.

If we decide to walk down the alleyway regardless, and get attacked, full responsibility goes to the person committing the crime.

However, how many of us would argue that people should walk down the dark alleyway regardless of the risk, because the criminal is responsible anyway?

It's exactly the same principle when it comes to other crimes in society. When we are aware of the risks of doing something, we should always opt to minimize those risks.

But that's not the same as exculpating the criminal, as he must always take full responsibility for the crime. However, it's up to us to reduce the likelihood of experiencing those crimes (not walking down that dark alleyway etc.).

Fair enough. Except that's not what you said.
What you said was:

If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you.

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

Fair enough. Except that's not what you said.
What you said was:

Which is entirely accurate.

The problem with the sexual harassment question is that two entirely different things are conflated into one, namely guilt for the crime and guilt for increasing the risk of experiencing that crime.

They are entirely separate.

So, to take my example above, an individual is not responsible for being attacked down the alleyway, but he should take responsibility for his ill-judged decision to walk down that alleyway against all reasonable advice.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

However, how many of us would argue that people should walk down the dark alleyway regardless of the risk, because the criminal is responsible anyway?

.

Away with you and your sense, there's just no place for that in todays world i'm afraid!

If you bring trouble on yourself, you really have to accept the fact that you invited the trouble you got and you possibly could have avoided it if you were a bit savier.

You should be able to leave your door open and have no one take your stuff, but you aren't - so the smart thing to do is lock it, maybe even get an alarm, just in case locking it isn't enough.

You should be able to get shít faced drunk and walk through town on your own at 4 am with your tits hanging out and a skirt that barely covers your arse without some dirt bird assaulting or robbing you - but you aren't, so the smart thing to do is keep your wits about you + get a taxi.

You should be able to dress like the historical character of your choice with added questionable facial hair and have no one comment.....do you see where this is going Ray?

Somehow I bet you don't!

Newsflash Ray - there are lots arseholes out there, from annoying ones to downright nasty dangerous ones. They aren't going to suddenly dissapear.

There are also arsehole magnets (like yourself)

No good ever comes from being an arsehole magnet!

Lewis_Benson

This has to be the 6th worst thread on boards......ever.

Ray Palmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nowhere in my comments will you find sanction for harassing women.

However, we must accept a stark reality: that not everyone in society is civil and reasonable and unable to cause violence or harassment.

Knowing these people exist means that women must be responsible - accepting that these violent thugs exist and that, by drawing attention to themselves, they increase the risk that these thugs will attack.

It's the same with violent thugs generally. If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you. Often, swallowing pride and walking away is the far more responsible approach.

Same with what women wear. The woman who stands out most, will also stand out most to violent thugs.

It doesn't take much of a logical leap to suggest that perhaps women shouldn't stand out to these thugs if they want to entirely avoid their attention/behavior. The thug is responsible for their crimes, but the woman can do much to eschew their attention.

I never said you sanctioned harassment of women I said that it equates to the same thing.

You have now sanctioned it now however and are victim blaming.

If said thug attacks somebody because they feel their clothing means they are gay to the thugs mind it is a homophobic attack. Doesn't matter if the person is gay or not because it is the cause of the action.

The same thing happens to manly dressed women perceived as lesbian.

Recently in London a lesbian couple were attacked for refusing to kiss for a group of lads. It started out as a joke by the lads but when the women refused they were beaten up. These "jokes" and "banter" all have the undercurrent of threats of violence. Don't react the way the harraser want and it becomes violent.

Effects

Ray Palmer wrote: »

These "jokes" and "banter" all have the undercurrent of threats of violence. Don't react the way the harraser want and it becomes violent.

Except you say you prefer to just punch people in the face, before it escalates from slagging.

Ray Palmer

Effects wrote: »

Except you say you prefer to just punch people in the face, before it escalates from slagging.

No I didn't say that. I said I will punch some people straight away. Never really defined the difference of why I punch some straight away. Certainly never said it was my preference. My preference is mind you own business and keep your comments to yourself. If you insult a stranger don't expect them to say or do nothing.

Plenty of people pay me complements. When I am in the USA the responses are always positive and most of Europe is the same with the exception of the UK, Poland and of course Ireland.

jimgoose

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I didn't say that. I said I will punch some people straight away. Never really defined the difference of why I punch some straight away. Certainly never said it was my preference. My preference is mind you own business and keep your comments to yourself. If you insult a stranger don't expect them to say or do nothing.

Plenty of people pay me complements. When I am in the USA the responses are always positive and most of Europe is the same with the exception of the UK, Poland and of course Ireland.

You'd make a magnificent superhero.

Ray Palmer

jimgoose wrote: »

You'd make a magnificent superhero.

Well I do have a cape but I would be more Rorschach than anything else

housetypeb

jimgoose wrote: »

You'd make a magnificent superhero.

The image of Yosemite Sam springs to mind for some reason,could be just the mustache and bad temper though.

Ray Palmer

housetypeb wrote: »

The image of Yosemite Sam springs to mind for some reason,could be just the mustache and bad temper though.

People really oppressing on the mention of a handlebar moustache. Generally it is pointy sideburns with a quiff

Effects

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Generally it is pointy sideburns with a quiff

Sure it is, yeah. You just keep changing up your style, sounds like you aren't really that comfortable with your fashion choices. Maybe that's why you think people are always looking and commenting on you.

This might be unpopular, but there is absolutely no way I could be friends with someone with a handlebar moustache.

At the very minimum, it would just remind me of Joseph Stalin.

Ray Palmer

Effects wrote: »

Sure it is, yeah. You just keep changing up your style, sounds like you aren't really that comfortable with your fashion choices. Maybe that's why you think people are always looking and commenting on you.

No I haven't. Just because you can't comprehend doesn't change what I said.

EmmetSpiceland

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People really oppressing on the mention of a handlebar moustache. Generally it is pointy sideburns with a quiff

How long are these “pointy” sideburns? Are we taking the old Star Trek series or long mutton chop types?

Women do not like long sideburns on a man. Gives off the impression of “rollie” cigarettes and bad teeth.

Ray Palmer

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

How long are these “pointy” sideburns? Are we taking the old Star Trek series or long mutton chop types?

Women do not like long sideburns on a man. Gives off the impression of “rollie” cigarettes and bad teeth.

What difference does it make? I change about

Ray Palmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This might be unpopular, but there is absolutely no way I could be friends with someone with a handlebar moustache.

At the very minimum, it would just remind me of Joseph Stalin.

Why not Dali? Anyway you are proving the point you are judgemental about something that has no impact on you. To believe you confine this judgement is unlikely and probably the type of person I am talking about.

If a friend got scared and reminded you of Freddy Kruger would that stop the friendship?

EmmetSpiceland

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What difference does it make? I change about

Depends on what you’re after. But a man’s “side-locks” should never extend further than the top of the ear lobe.

Ray Palmer

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Depends on what you’re after. But a man’s “side-locks” should never extend further than the top of the ear lobe.

Says you

EmmetSpiceland

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Says you

The ladies don’t like those awful long sideburns. Just giving you a “heads up”.

Andreas77

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The ladies don’t like those awful long sideburns. Just giving you a “heads up”.

Too true, he got it in one. I had sideburns when I was 18, very curly and long for combing. During this time I was not approached by a female, how curious emmet, did you observe me (he was also right about the rolling papers):pac:

Deebles McBeebles

Deleted User wrote: »

This might be unpopular, but there is absolutely no way I could be friends with someone with a handlebar moustache.

At the very minimum, it would just remind me of Joseph Stalin.

That is odd for many reasons. Mainly because it made me think about Joseph Stalin's Friends. Which is the title of the screenplay I'll be writing in coffee shops for the next few months. I'll probably just replace Joey with Joseph, to be honest.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why not Dali?

A fine moustache. It was a show of his creativity, right there on his f*cking face.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If a friend got scared and reminded you of Freddy Kruger would that stop the friendship?

Ray, what does that sentence mean? When have you seen Freddy Krueger scared? Even when he fought Jason, fear was never shown. I would never end a friendship with Freddy.

Andreas77 wrote: »

Too true, he got it in one. I had sideburns when I was 18, very curly and long for combing. During this time I was not approached by a female, how curious emmet, did you observe me (he was also right about the rolling papers):pac:

Andreas, please, where is that accent from?

Shady Grady

Andreas77 wrote: »

Too true, he got it in one. I had sideburns when I was 18, very curly and long for combing. During this time I was not approached by a female, how curious emmet, did you observe me (he was also right about the rolling papers):pac:

Nah brother, if you want to rock the burns ya keep them trimmed not curly and resembling some sort of jungle growth.

jimgoose

Eeee, t'booger-grips laaahk!

sbsquarepants

housetypeb wrote: »

The image of Yosemite Sam springs to mind for some reason,could be just the mustache and bad temper though.

That's exactly who i was picturing too.

Do you ever dress cowboy style Ray?

s7ryf3925pivug

Regarding a silly appearance, I'd be more inclined to make fun of you behind your back. Just because it's fun, not because I care. Me I wear slightly different versions of the same few combinations of clothes all the time. Plenty of room to make fun there I guess. Don't care, knock yourself out.

"Unimaginative dresser", I imagine you saying. "What does he think he is, a Gap ad?" "So boringly classic and conventionally handsome."

Though actually I favour Banana Republic over Gap, so more fool you.