Another Catholic Priest talks through his hole

runawaybishop · 31-03-2015 02:25PM

Steve_Carella wrote: »

Fair enough. I just don't think it's funny.

Humour is subjective. That aside yourself and Sean seem unable to grasp the rather glaringly obvious point to her satire, which is completely different to just not liking her humour. You seem to think its an out and out attack on men, when it is not.

Wacker The Attacker · 31-03-2015 02:27PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you're 50 and never had so much as a **** in your entire life, your brain must become ****ed up, surely.

So what youre saying is that **** is good for your brain. That's it. I'm off for a ****.

Mardy Bum · 31-03-2015 02:34PM

Some people need to google the word parody in this thread. Silverman's list is a parody of the common lists for women.

PARlance · 31-03-2015 02:34PM

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

So what youre saying is that **** is good for your brain. That's it. I'm off for a ****.

I ain't no Rocket Scientist.......

SeanW · 31-03-2015 02:44PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Swing and a miss. Her point is the opposite of what you seem to think it is.

That may have been so, I'll admit, but my original appraisal is not completely without merit. Clearly there are some people who regard this is something that should actually be taught, see below:

kylith wrote: »

Yes, teaching boys not to rape could be described as offensive, condescending, and hateful but the alternative, which we are doing now, is to teach women and girls that all men are potential rapists and are to be feared and mistrusted. And how is that any better? Teaching 50% of the population to fear the other 50% so some people don't have to get offended because they would never sexually assault someone?

So according to this person - a Feminist I expect - there are two binary choices and no others:

Presume all men are rapists and "teach" them not to.
Teach all women to fear ALL men as potential rapists.

Maybe I'm missing something but that list of options seem to me to be neither exhaustive nor either choice acceptable.

Mardy Bum · 31-03-2015 02:49PM

SeanW wrote: »

That may have been so, I'll admit, but my original appraisal is not completely without merit. Clearly there are some people who regard this is something that should actually be taught, see below:

So according to this person - a Feminist I expect - there are two binary choices and no others:
Presume all men are rapists and "teach" them not to.

Teach all women to fear ALL men as potential rapists.

Maybe I'm missing something but that list of options seem to me to be neither exhaustive nor either choice acceptable.

Parody. Parody. Parody. Silverman is highlighting the stupidity of the female list by making an even stupider male list. Parody. Parody. Parody.

wp_rathead · 31-03-2015 02:56PM

SeanW wrote: »

Yes "forward this to all the men in your life" because all men are potential rapists?

Perhaps I should write a "10 ways not to be a gangster thug" fill it with crude stereotypes and forward it to all the black people I know?

Or how about a "10 ways not to be a terrorist" and send it to a bunch of Muslims? Or (for balance) how about "10 ways not to be a Zionist murderer of Palestinians" and send to a bunch of Jews?

Not a good idea? That would be offensive? Crass? Discriminatory? Disproportionate?

*sigh*
She was parodying the advice often given out like "women: how to avoid get raped" - by simply switching it to "men: how to avoid raping" - pretty straight forward satire

LDN_Irish · 31-03-2015 03:05PM

SeanW wrote: »

That may have been so, I'll admit, but my original appraisal is not completely without merit. Clearly there are some people who regard this is something that should actually be taught, see below:

So according to this person - a Feminist I expect - there are two binary choices and no others:
Presume all men are rapists and "teach" them not to.

Teach all women to fear ALL men as potential rapists.

Maybe I'm missing something but that list of options seem to me to be neither exhaustive nor either choice acceptable.

I think you're missing that Kylith isn't proposing that as actual advice that should be given. They are saying that's it's no better or worse than the current advice given. Like the Sarah Silverman retweet is doing.

efb · 31-03-2015 03:08PM

Jesus wept

floggg · 31-03-2015 03:20PM

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it reflects a certain point of view that is popular among the Feminist-Left - as will be highlighted below.
It doesn't matter. Even as a joke, it would never be accepted about any other group.

No, it's more like "don't walk through Finglas unless you absolutely have to, but then if you must, then use extreme caution"

In a perfect world yes. But we don't live in a perfect world, and while all of this might be done some day and have some effect, today the place is a kip because of a small number of its inhabitants and the best way for an individual to deal with that is through extreme care.

It would never be accepted for any other group. If you narrowly avoided being killed by Islamic fundamentalists, you would never say "we need to teach all Muslims not to be Jihadists, who cares if this offends the majority of peaceful Muslims who would never be involved" and you'd be considered a sectarian Neanderthal if you did - and with good reason.

The same is true of any other case of guilt-by-association. It would never be accepted about any other group in society. Full stop.

I'm calling BS.

I find it right disingenuous that you argue against branding groups as responsible for the actions of a minority of their members whilst supporting arguments such as "don't go to Finglas with valuables" or the acceptability of arguments calling for women to modify their behaviour to avoid being raped.

Any argument that women shouldn't travel alone with men, even ones they know, for their own safety contains an inherent assumption that all men should be considered potential rapists.

Equally arguing that you should stay away from Finglas is drawing some pretty negative inferences about that entire community.

You are coming at it from a different perspective from the (satirical) poster, but both arguments are based on the same principle (except that the poster was satirical and therefore isn't actually arguing what you want it to).

Galway K9 · 31-03-2015 03:51PM

lazygal wrote: »

Are you aloud (sic) to start a sentence with "And"?

And its Grammar not Grammer

/Runs too

Reoil · 31-03-2015 03:55PM

lazygal wrote: »

Are you aloud (sic) to start a sentence with "And"?

Bad grammar makes me (sic).

Reoil · 31-03-2015 03:57PM

Galway K9 wrote: »

And its Grammar not Grammer

/Runs too

Ah! I was so enraged with the lousy grammar that I missed that! :mad:

galljga1 · 31-03-2015 04:02PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Parody. Parody. Parody. Silverman is highlighting the stupidity of the female list by making an even stupider male list. Parody. Parody. Parody.

We could make a "stupider male list" taking into account the content of some of the posts on this thread. Not sharing their point of view about the pending feminist threat or not having had a hunourectomy, I really cannot see their point of view.

DarkyHughes · 31-03-2015 04:20PM

We should just have one big thread for anytime a stupid priest says something stupid. Although that could cause the internet to blow up.

I bet at least 10,000 priests worldwide say something really stupid in public or private to another priest evreyday.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 31-03-2015 04:39PM

floggg wrote: »

His lack of faith had nothing to do with his decision to rape, just as many cleric abusers abundant faith had nothing to do with their decision.

The idea that faith is the only thing keeping our sadistic, murderous or unhealthy sexual urges in check is offensive to believers and atheists alike.

Ehh, I know that. Just pointing out that if a priest is going to criticise someone for a lack of faith you'd think it'd be the murderous rapist and not the woman who had the bad fortune to walk past him.

wp_rathead · 31-03-2015 06:45PM

Steve_Carella wrote: »

Why? Speaking as a man who has never raped anybody, nor been inclined to rape anybody (like the overwhelming majority of men), I'm interested to know why you like this.

Been pointed out already, it is a parody of "rape preventative tips" you see for women.. No need to get all #NotAllMen hashtag

SeanW · 31-03-2015 07:26PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I think you're missing that Kylith isn't proposing that as actual advice that should be given. They are saying that's it's no better or worse than the current advice given. Like the Sarah Silverman retweet is doing.

Fair enough, I might have misread that the first time around - Kylith might not have been suggesting what I thought, at least not the extent that I thought.

Mea culpa

floggg wrote: »

I find it right disingenuous that you argue against branding groups as responsible for the actions of a minority of their members whilst supporting arguments such as "don't go to Finglas with valuables"

Am I wrong here? If nothing else other than the fact that Finglas is primarily a residential district, you're not going to be going there unless you have a very good reason, especially given its bad reputation.

Yet, if you must go there, it might not be a good idea to saunter around the place flashing valuables while generally giving the impression that you're a babe in woods who just came down in the last shower.

It isn't "victim blaming" to suggest that this might not be a good idea, it's just common sense. Nor is it so to suggest that the additional danger might be ameliorated by:
1) Being aware of your surroundings
2) Keeping an eye out for something dangerous.
3) Using the results of point 1) and 2) to avoid additional danger.

or the acceptability of arguments calling for women to modify their behaviour to avoid being raped.

It is IMHO entirely acceptable to give people - men and women - reasonable advice on how to avoid becoming victims of crime.

It's even more so because the only alternative offered by feminists is "teach men not to rape" which is offensive, insulting, condescending and sexist.

Any argument that women shouldn't travel alone with men, even ones they know, for their own safety contains an inherent assumption that all men should be considered potential rapists.

I never argued this, but one rule I recall from a youtube video I saw a while back was that a criminal who will attack you in a public place is looking for the maximum reward with minimum risk, so, something like a group of men suspiciously loitering in the stairway of a car park building for no aparent reason, there's a moderate chance they're up to no good.

If you're a man, avoiding them might prevent you getting knifed in the back for your iPhone. If you're a woman, it might prevent any of that plus something worse.

Either way, telling people how to avoid becoming victims of crime is a good idea. To suggest that people should assume we live in a perfect world, or should live in a perfect world and not worry about anything is unrealistic, irresponsible and likely to create more victims.

Equally arguing that you should stay away from Finglas is drawing some pretty negative inferences about that entire community.

I'm just living in the real world where some places are rougher than others, and situational awareness is a good idea. Granted it's not as bas as Ciudad Juarez for example, but many of the same ideas apply.

Steve_Carella · 31-03-2015 07:27PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Humour is subjective. That aside yourself and Sean seem unable to grasp the rather glaringly obvious point to her satire, which is completely different to just not liking her humour. You seem to think its an out and out attack on men, when it is not.

Eh I just don't think it's funny. I'm well aware that humour is subjective. I get it. And I get that it's satire. You can sit there and analyse my posts and second guess me and berate me as much as you want. I just don't think it's funny.

floggg · 31-03-2015 07:37PM

Tinley Spicy Cigar wrote: »

Ehh, I know that. Just pointing out that if a priest is going to criticise someone for a lack of faith you'd think it'd be the murderous rapist and not the woman who had the bad fortune to walk past him.

Yes, but it's a priest talking about faith.

Your entirely logical point has no business here.

eviltwin · 31-03-2015 07:45PM

The only reason a woman is raped is because she is a woman. Not much she can do about that.

How many women are raped walking home alone or because they were dressed in a sexy way? A rapist will rape whoever is vulnerable but vulnerability can mean a lot of things. I went running yesterday in my local park and because of the weather there wasn't a soul around and I was running off the beaten track at times, that made me as vulnerable as Jill Meagher was that night. Should I have stayed at home? Was I tempting fate?

One eyed Jack · 31-03-2015 08:21PM

eviltwin wrote: »

The only reason a woman is raped is because she is a woman. Not much she can do about that.

How many women are raped walking home alone or because they were dressed in a sexy way? A rapist will rape whoever is vulnerable but vulnerability can mean a lot of things. I went running yesterday in my local park and because of the weather there wasn't a soul around and I was running off the beaten track at times, that made me as vulnerable as Jill Meagher was that night. Should I have stayed at home? Was I tempting fate?

If that's not a rhetorical question, do you want the 'right' answer, or an honest answer?

The 'right' answer: You have every right to run in your local park in any weather and go off the beaten track as much as you like because your personal safety is everyone else's responsibility.

The honest answer: You were tempting fate because your personal safety is your responsibility and I wouldn't recommend relying upon the idea that other people will absolutely treat you with the respect you think they should.

eviltwin · 31-03-2015 09:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that's not a rhetorical question, do you want the 'right' answer, or an honest answer?

The 'right' answer: You have every right to run in your local park in any weather and go off the beaten track as much as you like because your personal safety is everyone else's responsibility.

The honest answer: You were tempting fate because your personal safety is your responsibility and I wouldn't recommend relying upon the idea that other people will absolutely treat you with the respect you think they should.

So where does that end? You could end up being afraid to go anywhere.

One eyed Jack · 31-03-2015 10:02PM

eviltwin wrote: »

So where does that end? You could end up being afraid to go anywhere.

Not at all, geez I'm not suggesting at all that you don't do whatever it is you want to do, going for a run in the park or whatever it is, but being mindful of your own personal safety is surely pertinent advice?

I'd certainly advise anyone to be mindful of their personal safety before I'd advocate that they have every right to put their personal safety at risk to prove a point to society that they have the freedom to do as they choose.

I understand what you mean by "you could end up being afraid to go anywhere", but the key phrase there is "reasonable precautions". I would suggest that anyone use their best judgement to decide whether their personal safety is a priority their their personal freedom in terms of where the line is drawn in any given situation.

Cold War Kid · 31-03-2015 10:11PM

I agree people should take safety precautions - I don't see anything wrong with saying it is unwise of someone (male or female) to put themselves in a situation where danger increases - but it becomes victim-blaming when this is deemed to eclipse the responsibility of the person who attacks/robs them.
The overwhelming share of the responsibility lies with the attacker.

One eyed Jack · 31-03-2015 10:22PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I agree people should take safety precautions - I don't see anything wrong with saying it is unwise of someone (male or female) to put themselves in a situation where danger increases - but it becomes victim-blaming when this is deemed to eclipse the responsibility of the person who attacks/robs them.
The overwhelming share of the responsibility lies with the attacker.

Absolutely, but that doesn't make a whole lot of difference unfortunately when the attack has already taken place. Blaming the attacker doesn't prevent an attack, and we already have the legal system which punishes the attacker, but punishing the attacker doesn't do anything to change the fact that the attack has already taken place, when the person who is attacked becomes a victim.

Encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their own safety, at least reduces their personal risk, and that's more important to instill in people than instilling in them an expectation that the rest of society will respect their right to personal freedom.

In the example eviltwin gave above, I'd be heading home pronto, rather than staying out for a jog in a park where I'm likely to be attacked. There's not much point in me saying afterwards that the attack wasn't my fault when I could have taken reasonable precautions to prevent it from happening.

galljga1 · 01-04-2015 10:16AM

Many moons ago when the world was still my lobster I fell asleep on a bus after copious amounts of alcohol. I woke up in Phibsboro bus depot at about 2 in the morning. After getting out of the bus and giving a sleeping security guard a heart attack, I ended up wandering towards the city centre (no money for a taxi). Got the crap beaten out of me by 7 lovely gentlemen (there were only 2 but 7 sounds better). I think it was somewhere around Summerhill, I was not really sure where I was going. Anyway, I ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not feel that I was to blame nor do I feel that anyone ending up on the wrong side of a beating or worse is to blame regardless of how others like this moronic priest view life.

I have not worn a mini skirt since... well just some weekends... in my own home...

Another Catholic Priest talks through his hole

Comments