Funny (political, religious) pictures

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dei said:
I think a cultural shift would in fact decrease the rate of rapes and assaults on women. Even if you don't think it's the case, there are still plenty of men who think they are owed women, or that they are allowed to treat women like objects, or that women appreciate getting unwanted attention and catcalls. There are men who, when disabused of this notion, blame the woman, because they can't possibly be wrong, and take matters in to their own hands. It's a problem of course, that applies to many different groups of people. And maybe these same people would just commit a different violent crime instead. But you can't just shrug and say "Oh well, it happens," and go about your merry way.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you, and was not attempting to dismiss it as "it's going to happen anyway." Rather, I was trying to point out that cultural shifts are for us rank and file little people, not the powerful and the homicidal. Furthermore, contrasting your tone of "there is still cultural adjustments to be made," her tone indicated the all-too-prevalent false assertion that "men are universally incapable of taking no for an answer," which is a blatant overstatement. Yeah, yeah, I know, #notallmen sckreeeeeeeee
 
Dei

Dei

GasBandit said:
I absolutely agree with you, and was not attempting to dismiss it as "it's going to happen anyway." Rather, I was trying to point out that cultural shifts are for us rank and file little people, not the powerful and the homicidal. Furthermore, contrasting your tone of "there is still cultural adjustments to be made," her tone indicated the all-too-prevalent false assertion that "men are universally incapable of taking no for an answer," which is a blatant overstatement. Yeah, yeah, I know, #notallmen sckreeeeeeeee
Click to expand...
TIL GB can hear tweets. :p
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
GasBandit said:
... this doesn't sound correct, however. Murderers/rapists are not filling a quota.
Click to expand...
Randomly choose one immigrant, and one native-born American. The American is more likely to kill someone. I'm assuming that someone was going to be around doing the work that the illegal immigrant was in the area to do when he killed someone. If there wasn't an immigrant there doing the work, then there would be a native-born person there doing the work.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dei said:
TIL GB can hear tweets. :p
Click to expand...
Writing has a "tone" that has nothing to do with sound and you darn well know it, missy. "tongue emoji."

figmentPez said:
Randomly choose one immigrant, and one native-born American. The American is more likely to kill someone. I'm assuming that someone was going to be around doing the work that the illegal immigrant was in the area to do when he killed someone. If there wasn't an immigrant there doing the work, then there would be a native-born person there doing the work.
Click to expand...
... Ok, I am very certain that is not how that works. One murderer does not notice a statistical drop in murders due to the lack of other murders/murderers and increase their "workload" to compensate.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
GasBandit said:
... Ok, I am very certain that is not how that works. One murderer does not notice a statistical drop in murders due to the lack of other murders/murderers and increase their "workload" to compensate.
Click to expand...
No, murderers don't move to where there's murder to be done. People move to where there is work to be done. The murder was there working on a dairy farm (who claim that his immigration status was verified). If there wasn't an immigrant worker there to do that job, then it would have been done by an American.

The only way that stricter immigration laws reduce the amount of crime is by reducing the total population there to be victimized by crime. Cities with higher immigrant populations do not have higher crime rates.

EDIT: Think of it this way: men are statistically more likely to commit murder than women. If a woman killed someone at her job, and the argument was "Well, if we just kept women out of the workplace, then her victim would still be alive", that would be ridiculous. Statically, having all men in the workplace would not have been any safer. That's the same thing here. "Well, if we'd just kept the immigrants out, she'd still be alive". No, there's no correlation there.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
figmentPez said:
No, murderers don't move to where there's murder to be done. People move to where there is work to be done. The murder was there working on a dairy farm (who claim that his immigration status was verified). If there wasn't an immigrant worker there to do that job, then it would have been done by an American.

The only way that stricter immigration laws reduce the amount of crime is by reducing the total population there to be victimized by crime. Cities with higher immigrant populations do not have higher crime rates.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh I completely misunderstood where you were going with that, and misread what the "work" angle was about.

You're saying that, if illegal immigration was strictly enforced, that particular workplace would have been more likely to have a murder happen in it since native born US citizens have a higher per capita rate of becoming murderers than illegal immigrants. Gotcha. (The Cato Institute agrees with you, and so do I).

The wording on it originally threw me.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Ahhhhh I completely misunderstood where you were going with that, and misread what the "work" angle was about.

You're saying that, if illegal immigration was strictly enforced, that particular workplace would have been more likely to have a murder happen in it since native born US citizens have a higher per capita rate of becoming murderers than illegal immigrants. Gotcha. (The Cato Institute agrees with you, and so do I).

The wording on it originally threw me.
Click to expand...
Well, granted, my reasoning is rather flimsy. If we had stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws, a lot of things would change, so it's really impossible to say that it would make per capita crime go up (or down), but I'm glad I managed to finally convey the jist of what I was going for.
 
Dei

Dei

GasBandit said:
Writing has a "tone" that has nothing to do with sound and you darn well know it, missy. "tongue emoji."


... Ok, I am very certain that is not how that works. One murderer does not notice a statistical drop in murders due to the lack of other murders/murderers and increase their "workload" to compensate.
Click to expand...
If you are the type of guy who sees someone talking about men, and thinks "not all men," on reflex, then you might need to think about who has the actual issue. Generally speaking, "men" is fewer characters than "some men," or "not all men." I don't think you are that kind of person, but when you immediately assume that in a tweet specifically talking to someone else, it's probably not the tone you think it is.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dei said:
If you are the type of guy who sees someone talking about men, and thinks "not all men," on reflex, then you might need to think about who has the actual issue. Generally speaking, "men" is fewer characters than "some men," or "not all men."
Click to expand...
I have never met a woman who did not take offense when a man generalizes something to "women" instead of "some women" or "a few women." And the women who make the argument outlined in that tweet definitely mean #yesallmen.
 
Dei

Dei

I just think that the two of us have a very different perspective on what is actually being said in that tweet. (At least I didn't go off on whatever the fuck weird tangent other people went off on to your response)
 
Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Dei said:
If you are the type of guy who sees someone talking about men, and thinks "not all men," on reflex, then you might need to think about who has the actual issue. Generally speaking, "men" is fewer characters than "some men," or "not all men." I don't think you are that kind of person, but when you immediately assume that in a tweet specifically talking to someone else, it's probably not the tone you think it is.
Click to expand...
This seems specious. If I wrote "If women were less emotional, we'd have a more productive society," no one would think "He's talking specifically about overly emotional women who hesitate to do things based on things not based on reason," they'd think, "That dude has a 1950s view of women in the workplace."

It's not that I feel victimized or pigeonholed by people who write that stuff, but c'mon if you think #menaretrash should automatically be understood to mean "A minority of men behave incredibly badly," then I think you're kidding yourself.
 
Dei

Dei

Chad Sexington said:
This seems specious. If I wrote "If women were less emotional, we'd have a more productive society," no one would think "He's talking specifically about overly emotional women who hesitate to do things based on things not based on reason," they'd think, "That dude has a 1950s view of women in the workplace."

It's not that I feel victimized or pigeonholed by people who write that stuff, but c'mon if you think #menaretrash should automatically be understood to mean "A minority of men behave incredibly badly," then I think you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a specific tweet, not a #
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Careful, @lien might think you're committing an ad-hominem against me!
Click to expand...
Rolling her eyes at your argument is about the argument, not you...

Same as saying "that's stupid" vs "you're stupid".

Neither are proper arguments, but they're different fallacies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top