Facebook supports rape?

Thee are personal attacks and saying thee aren't is a falsehood and doesn't make it so actually.

Now, whether rhubarb did or did not apoligise for this that or the other does not excuse the fact that frothy and others have not apologised at all

it is not the case that one begetts the other, we should all be reponsible for our own behaviour. It is (in my view) child like to suggest that one person shouldn't apologise becuase another one didn't. you are responsible for your behaviour. if you think your behaviour has wrong, address it or stand by it.

I also think that this derails the issue somewhat of the whole thread being rhubarb centred, and the delivery of that was not very nice.

OK .... I'm still confused but if you say it's all in my head and not in black and white on threads where we can all see it, nothing much I can see will change your mind, will it?

lenin - sorry, I did derail I know, but I didn't mean to. I just meant to call hully on her post, which I thought and still think was not honest. I'll leave it now.

You know, it's not about direct personal attacks though. If you have one poster, really trying hard to explain what they mean and lots of others are all hammering back, quite without kindness, it feels very much like one is under siege.

My point was that rapists do not necessarily fit the criteria above at all and it is wrong and dangerous to say that they do and potentially upsetting for lots of women.

I have been apologised to for upsetting me. I think that someone who hazards guesses as to the history of another poster should apologise. The original comments still stand though and have not been retracted or anything.

I can't say "I disagree with your points about rapists all being like x, y and z" because it is simply untrue. You can't debate something that is just out and out wrong and likely to cause upset to people reading.

hully - I'm fine, but I am confused. Come on - you cannot pretend you didn't make comments you did. I think it's not on to claim you don't get personal about other posters when you do, and have been called on it many times. I know you feel your attacks on Dittany were some kind of righteous crusade, but denying you ever made any comments is just plain strange.

I'm really confused and not a little freaked out by it. I don't understand what you think you're doing here. It's not helping anyone as far as I can see.

EllaDee - I honestly haven't the foggiest who you are or what you're on about.

After the whole ludicrous Dittany debacle, I made a resolution never to engage with or about her again. And haven't. So whatever you are imagining, it is just that, all in your head.

I am beyond puzzled about this.

I don't see those quotes as personal attacks. It's an attack on an argument, isn't it?

I really think people need to sort out what is an attack on an argument, and what is an attack on a person.

And if someone has made a personal attack on you, report it to MN and it will be deleted.

Well said BoF.

Elladee - are you quite well?

What is going on here hully?

If you regret the barneys with dittany fair enough - iff you don't, that's also your own business. But for goodness' sake ... it's ridiculous to pretend there haven't been these threads and these comments!

I think (hope?) the way I've posted on this thread has been fairly conciliatory and attempting to draw out points of agreement between the different positions. I can't really apologise for disagreeing with the argument that Rhubarb was initially putting forward though, even if that comes across as joining some kind of pile-in, as has been implied. There is no getting away from the fact that the way Rhubs was so insistent at the beginning, and appeared to be positioning herself as an expert who was utterly convinced of the machinations of a rapist's mind, was inflammatory and quite rude (in my opinion) to posters who took a different view. I think that set the tone, which has been quite disappointingly hostile, and could have been avoided from the beginning if absolute high dudgeon hadn't been the immediate response to a challenge.

Disagreeing with somebody's position on here should not be seen as an attack on the very fibre of their character and equated to a personal attack. Otherwise there is simply no point to a debate of any kind.

These posts are the ones that I took issues with:

"Rapists do not rape because they can. They rape because they are socially disfunctional (does that sit better?) and cannot perform unless they feel in control and powerful. "

"I didn't just mean in the bedroom SQ - I meant in life. Rapists dominate women and use them to satisfy their own needs. Therefore in life rapists are usually social wankers who like to feel powerful."

"Rapists are social wankers who usually take advantage of other situations. "

I took issue with them, and they upset me, because they said "rapists are like this, this and this" with no room for the fact (disputed apparently) that many many rapists are not like this. So where does that leave you if your rapist does not fit the criteria above? It's black and white.

Eh? No, why should I? Your comment on the 'Cheerio' thread is clearly about Dittany. I don't get why you'd say made 'no comment on any thread' - you have. Everyone knows you have. This is just surreal. I'm not a newbie btw - my name is an obvious homophone of my old one, and I've been on threads where you've made these comments. I can't understand what you're playing at.

Oh look, don't bother.

Really, I'd love rational discourse, but hey ho.

yes, I saw the comment about dittany - again! - on the other thread and I'm sure you knew it'd be seen).

Would you like to apologise for that error and slur?

DontCallMe - as I said, I'm not interested in she said she said blaming. Lots against one is never a pretty sight.

Hully, come on, that's rubbish. You've made hundreds!

It's also a shame that many, many people missed - or ignored - rhubarb's apology to a poster, earlier on in the thread.

EllaDee - I have made no comment about Dittany on any thread.

It's a shame you two missed the part where Rhubarb called me a twunt.

Not. engaging further...

I think rape is a very interesting subject. I would like to discuss it without any of the angry and nasty crap.

Sometimes people are kind of feeling their way through and exploring what they think, that should be an ok thing to do.

SardineQueen Wed 05-Oct-11 13:53:56
I just can't believe that you are saying, you are en expert in this field, rapists are like this, this and this, full stop.

What of all the women who have been raped by men who aren't like this, this and this?

They sound pretty easy to spot, so how can it be explained that women keep getting raped? Are they just a bit thick?

Message poster DontCallMeFrothyDragon Wed 05-Oct-11 13:55:31
Obviously, SQ, those women haven't been raped then... Well, not in rhubarb's eyes...

So accusing Rhubarb of saying these women haven't been raped isn't a nasty, personal attack then?

I read the thread up to this point and can't find anything suggesting rhubarb believes this, so it is a pretty nasty accusation to make, imo.

I am also wondering what was in the posts that have been deleted.

It seemed to me that you were all saying pretty much the same thing.

I don't understand why it gets unpleasant. I'm not interested in finger pointing and blame, I just genuinely don't see the point. It doesn't further discussion or help understanding. It appears to me that everyone starts getting defensive and taking things personally, ironically, all the traits women are so often accused of.

But it did, as so often happens, look like ganging up as it was lots against one.