Louise O Neill on rape culture.

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 04:04PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

They're not trying to actually legalize incest or forcing you to shag your sister.

I'm completely mystified as why you think that's a relevant point? I've said multiple times the topic is utterly pointless, so I hardly think they are trying to convince me to ride my sister.

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 04:06PM

jimgoose wrote: »

It is traditional within the walls of Academia to use controversial, even outrageous, debate topics such as "Should Bestiality Be Legalised". This is quite deliberate, and goes back about 200 years with the Oxford Union.

Interested to know what purpose that ultimately serves, the ability to defend the indefensible? (That is an actual genuine question btw)

Free Falling · 15-12-2016 04:07PM

Liam Cunningham dismissed the events in Cologne (1200 women robbed and sexually assaulted) as 'anecdotal'. Why is he not being hounded by feminist organisations?

jimgoose · 15-12-2016 04:10PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Interested to know what purpose that ultimately serves, the ability to defend the indefensible? (That is an actual genuine question btw)

That's part of it - useful for those who end up as criminal defence lawyers, for one example. The students and academics find that getting used to forcing yourself to compose and present a logical, coherent argument in favour of something you find absurd and/or reprehensible is a useful skill.

mzungu · 15-12-2016 04:20PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Good job on completely distorting my words, not even remotely what i said. No where did i say 'ban' anything I dont agree with it. I said incest isn't legal, nor should it be and that debating it is a complete waste of time.

At the moment marijuana is illegal, so should we stop all debates on legalising for medicinal use?

Of course there is no chance of pedophilia ever being acceptable, or legal, which is why it makes for an interesting debate. It won't be a waste of time because both sides will develop their skills at argumentation. A very useful skill to have.

It is a college society after all, I've no idea why there is such furore about it.

givyjoe wrote: »

I perfectly understand the point of debating societies, which is why debating nonsense such as this (in my view) is a complete waste of time. There's a million and 1 other topics (soft and fluffy or relevant to students) that they could/should use their time to debate.

Exposure to alternate viewpoints is healthy and is pretty much the point of university. Long may they continue to debate such matters.

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 04:20PM

jimgoose wrote: »

That's part of it - useful for those who end up as criminal defence lawyers, for one example. The students and academics find that getting used to forcing yourself to compose and present a logical, coherent argument in favour of something you find absurd and/or reprehensible is a useful skill.

Aye, the defence lawyer scenario did spring to mind but again as that is literally indefensible (i.e. illegal) I'm dubious of the usefulness of this particular topic. My point being, controversial topics sure.. e.g. legalising cannabis.. its possible to have a reasonable argument from both sides.. the above, not so much.

To make this somewhat relevant to the thread, debating societies and talking ****e such as the above, was LON a member of one in college :P?

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 04:24PM

mzungu wrote: »

At the moment marijuana is illegal, so should we stop all debates on legalising for medicinal use?

Of course there is no chance of pedophilia ever being acceptable, or legal, which is why it makes for an interesting debate. It won't be a waste of time because both sides will develop their skills at argumentation. It is a college society after all, I've no idea why there is such furore about it.

Exposure to alternate viewpoints is healthy and is pretty much the point of university. Long may they continue to debate such matters.

On cannabis, absolutely not.. which was the exact point I've just made and the opposite to incest. It has no chance of ever becoming legal and no right minded individual would think it should, hence putting students in a position where one side has to think like well 'someone who is not of sound mind' is not useful nor should it be encouraged.

Like I said, some things are black and white. PS, no furore from me, i just saw the post about it and gave my opinions.

Sorry, but what... long may they continue to debate such matters.. as legalising incest.. get the boat will you. Healthy debate on any number of topics, controversial or not is fine.. that **** isn't.

Tell ye what, would you be happy for your son to be debating whether its ok to forecefully have sex with someone (i.e. rape) from the POV of the rapist. The general jist being, is rape shouldn't 'exist' or be illegal rather and should I fcuk whoever i want however i want, that they should think of ways to defend that position, put themselves in a state of mind to understand why that should be acceptable..? Sorry but, long may those kind of debates continue my arse.

ohnonotgmail · 15-12-2016 04:27PM

givyjoe wrote: »

On cannabis, absolutely not.. which was the exact point I've just made and the opposite to incest. It has no chance of ever becoming legal and no right minded individual would think it should, hence putting students in a position where one side has to think like well 'someone who is not of sound mind' is not useful nor should it be encouraged.

Like I said, some things are black and white. PS, no furore from me, i just saw the post about it and gave my opinions.

you do realise that these debates are entirely voluntary?

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 04:33PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do realise that these debates are entirely voluntary?

As is actually going to college, but while they are there. someone decides what they will learn and how or rather debate.

ohnonotgmail · 15-12-2016 04:39PM

givyjoe wrote: »

As is actually going to college, but while they are there. someone decides what they will learn and how or rather debate.

again, you seem to think they are being forced to participate. If they dont want to, they dont. these debates are not ran by the college themselves.

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 04:41PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again, you seem to think they are being forced to participate. If they dont want to, they dont. these debates are not ran by the college themselves.

Hang on just a second, first off i started to defend myself based on something i didnt actually say, christ.

I said putting students in a position.. i didnt say forced. I can put you in an awkward position by asking you well, an awkward question.. nothing forced about it. You can choose to answer, or not and just walk away. Just like these societies. Do me a favour and stop twisting my words

ohnonotgmail · 15-12-2016 04:56PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Hang on just a second, first off i started to defend myself based on something i didnt actually say, christ.

I said putting students in a position.. i didnt say forced. I can put you in an awkward position by asking you well, an awkward question.. nothing forced about it. You can choose to answer, or not and just walk away. Just like these societies. Do me a favour and stop twisting my words

But they are not in any "position". what "position" do you think they are in?

osarusan · 15-12-2016 05:07PM

givyjoe wrote: »

By all means debate soft and fluffy all you like, that sort of stuff has no place anywhere.

You say this, and still waffle on about others who need 'safe spaces'.

The lack of awareness is stunning.

givyjoe · 15-12-2016 05:17PM

osarusan wrote: »

You say this, and still waffle on about others who need 'safe spaces'.

The lack of awareness is stunning.

Thanks, by all means not pick on one point. Stunning contribution from yourself there.

The only waffle is legitimising the value of a debate on incest.. Where one side of the debate has literally no chance of making anything close to a coherent point about why it should.be allowed. Not sure what the person on that side of the argument can learn.

me_right_one · 15-12-2016 05:19PM

So who did fiddle with LON? Did she say in her article?

mzungu · 15-12-2016 05:20PM

givyjoe wrote: »

On cannabis, absolutely not.. which was the exact point I've just made and the opposite to incest. It has no chance of ever becoming legal and no right minded individual would think it should, hence putting students in a position where one side has to think like well 'someone who is not of sound mind' is not useful nor should it be encouraged.

At one stage, people would have argued that any talk of legalising cannabis was not worthwhile. This is why debates need to be had, not to encourage behaviour, but rather to thrash out the morals involved. I don't think students need to be protected from it, it is just an academic exercise when all is said and done. One that will stand them in good stead. Plus, as another poster said above, some of those may be law students who have to one day defend people on trial. Being cosseted from unpalatable ideas won't really work in their favour in the long run. Actually, it works in nobodies favour in the long run.

If there is an idea out there, let it be debated and it can stand and fail on its merits. That is pretty much how western civilisation operates.

givyjoe wrote: »

Like I said, some things are black and white. PS, no furore from me, i just saw the post about it and gave my opinions.

It is not like it was being put before the Dáil. The entire notion is completely zany, which I am sure was most likely what Maynooth were aiming for.

givyjoe wrote: »

Sorry, but what... long may they continue to debate such matters.. as legalising incest.. get the boat will you. Healthy debate on any number of topics, controversial or not is fine.. that **** isn't.

Universities have used controversial topics for debates for centuries, it happens on most campusses everyday in the west. It will continue to do so long after we are gone.

givyjoe wrote: »

Tell ye what, would you be happy for your son to be debating whether its ok to forecefully have sex with someone (i.e. rape) from the POV of the rapist. The general jist being, is rape shouldn't 'exist' or be illegal rather and should I fcuk whoever i want however i want, that they should think of ways to defend that position, put themselves in a state of mind to understand why that should be acceptable..? Sorry but, long may those kind of debates continue my arse.

Firstly, I don't think any debate has been, or would be, framed in such a colourful manner. Secondly, if somebody is on a debating society they will have to, at times, play the role of contrarian. This is not about putting "themselves in a state of mind to understand why that should be acceptable", but rather developing a technique to argue with facts and dispense with emotional aspects. E.g. A defence lawyer is hardly going to agree with murder, but it is their job to provide the best possible defence for their client, even if they are full sure they are guilty.

me_right_one · 15-12-2016 05:25PM

mzungu wrote: »

It is not like it was being put before the Dáil. The entire notion is completely zany, which I am sure was most likely what Maynooth were aiming for.

Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.

These people are naifs. But they are the ones who will shape the future with their attitudes, and more importantly, votes.

Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.

mzungu · 15-12-2016 06:41PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.

These people are naifs. But they are the ones who will shape the future with their attitudes, and more importantly, votes.

I highly doubt all of the above.

me_right_one wrote: »

Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.

This is more or less a safe space scenario you are asking for here. If you want a safe space that is fine, however, you can not expect the college to change what they do just to accommodate your views on the matter.

me_right_one · 15-12-2016 06:52PM

mzungu wrote: »

I highly doubt all of the above.

Haha!!! Do ya now? Well I highly doubt that you highly doubt it. I suspect you know exactly what colleges are like and for some reason you are in a state of denial about it. Maybe thats because you contribute to the naif-SJW culture yourself?

mzungu wrote: »

This is more or less a safe space scenario you are asking for here. If you want a safe space that is fine, however, you can not expect the college to change what they do just to accommodate your views on the matter.

I have never mentioned "safe spaces". I dont expect anyones views to change to suit mine. careful, you're beginning to sound like a naif-SJW there.

kunst nugget · 15-12-2016 08:56PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.

I'd say you couldn't move for all the gimp suits, ball gags and broccoli...

ohnonotgmail · 15-12-2016 08:59PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.

These people are naifs. But they are the ones who will shape the future with their attitudes, and more importantly, votes.

Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.

So you are saying that they are the same as they always have been? twas ever thus.

mzungu · 15-12-2016 09:05PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Haha!!! Do ya now?

Yep.

me_right_one wrote: »

Well I highly doubt that you highly doubt it.

That's cool. It changes nothing, though. I still highly doubt it.

me_right_one wrote: »

I suspect you know exactly what colleges are like and for some reason you are in a state of denial about it.

Colleges in this country are by and large free of the antics that you would see in the US. Could it happen here? Yeah, maybe it could. Is it like that now? Apart from a few scattered headtheballs, things appear to be largely sane enough.

Remember, you described the Maynooth gathering as:

me_right_one wrote:

an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.

So yeah, I will call BS on that.

me_right_one wrote: »

Maybe thats because you contribute to the naif-SJW culture yourself?

me_right_one wrote: »

I have never mentioned "safe spaces". I dont expect anyones views to change to suit mine. careful, you're beginning to sound like a naif-SJW there.

Ah, so anything goes against your worldview is immediately labelled with pejoratives. Hmmm, wonder where I've seen those tactics before? I think your irony meter is malfunctioning!

Regarding "safe spaces", you never mentioned them by name, but yet you believe that certain topics that make you uncomfortable should not be debated. Which is the practically same thing.

Lets have a look at what you said:

me_right_one wrote:

Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.

So, you really don't believe in free and open debate, not in its truest sense anyway. How is this any different to the people you rail against who try to stop Milo whatshisface et al. from speaking in the US? You may not protest at Maynooth and block the debate, but you still hold the view that they should not take place. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you are for free speech and that includes ideas that are unpalatable, or you are going down the pick 'n' choose free speech route. You can have one, but you can't have both.

ivytwine · 16-12-2016 12:02AM

me_right_one wrote: »

So who did fiddle with LON? Did she say in her article?

Disgusting post.

ivytwine · 16-12-2016 12:04AM

me_right_one wrote: »

Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.

These people are naifs. But they are the ones who will shape the future with their attitudes, and more importantly, votes.

Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.

Ah vegetarianism, one step away from paedophilia.

And you'd be the first to scream down the place about SJWs looking for safe spaces and trigger warnings no doubt.

RonFan · 16-12-2016 02:28PM

If power and responsibility are one, and women in a culture like this undoubtedly posses an exaggerated level of sexual power over men, what constitutes their obligation of responsibility in this regard?

me_right_one · 16-12-2016 10:17PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Disgusting post.

Disgusting act. Do you happen to know the answer?

ivytwine wrote: »

Ah vegetarianism, one step away from paedophilia.

And you'd be the first to scream down the place about SJWs looking for safe spaces and trigger warnings no doubt.

Ooookay

me_right_one · 16-12-2016 10:21PM

RonFan wrote: »

If power and responsibility are one, and women in a culture like this undoubtedly posses an exaggerated level of sexual power over men, what constitutes their obligation of responsibility in this regard?

I dont think they do. They have a sexual attractiveness, sure, but men equally should have a "self-control" responsibility, especially considering they are usually physically way more powerful than women. And to be fair, 99.99% of men do.

RonFan · 16-12-2016 10:46PM

me_right_one wrote: »

I dont think they do. They have a sexual attractiveness, sure, but men equally should have a "self-control" responsibility, especially considering they are usually physically way more powerful than women. And to be fair, 99.99% of men do.

Sex is the fundamental driving force of men, directly or indirectly. This does give women an inordinate amount of power. And there is a strong teasing element. "Tease all, toy with some".

Grayson · 16-12-2016 11:06PM

RonFan wrote: »

Sex is the fundamental driving force of men, directly or indirectly. This does give women an inordinate amount of power. And there is a strong teasing element. "Tease all, toy with some".

You mean when they talk to you and then don't sleep with you.

RonFan · 16-12-2016 11:13PM

Grayson wrote: »

You mean when they talk to you and then don't sleep with you.

Merely saying sex is central, but being taken as periphery. And in this set up, it's seen as a toy for women to use.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments