"andiewithanie Sun 08-Feb-15 16:51:59
"Some people call that statement a 'silencing tactic', however it's more commonly known as logical reasoning."
actually it's called an anecdotal fallacy.
1.bp.blogspot.com/-hAOwv3o-sQw/UB7S2GFcltI/AAAAAAAAATM/ZeL_sKUo1QM/s1600/90i.jpg
now fuck off"
That the burden of proof lay with the claimant, i.e. the OP, is an anecdotal fallacy?
The harder I think that though the harder it becomes for me not to laugh. Sorry.
"TwiceForkedLightningTree Sun 08-Feb-15 17:07:36
And no, Dotheyfloat, we find you irritating because you clearly think you are so superior and do not need to listen to what the women who are being affected by these issues tell you."
The OP implies that men aren't blamed for their own actions with regards to street crime/assault, e.g. "walking around drunk while holding money". I've simply ask for the evidence that is true. For this audacity I am judged to be thinking of myself as "superior"? Please.
And by some bizarre thought process people seem to construe that as an attack on women. I suspect the responses are framed within that context because they know the OP is based on an unsound and probably nonsensical premise, so attempt to shift the debate to 'safe ground'. Maybe there is a mountain of data that indicates that if a man gets shitfaced, staggers around with a fistful of money, and then gets mugged he is not told he was an idiot who put himself in danger and that he may also regard himself as a blameless victim. For the OPs idea to work this would have to be the clear case - that men are treated differently when it comes to being the victim of a specific type of crime under a specific set of circumstances.
"You do know that science starts with experience? All it is is the condensed
experience of thousands. Our experience here is rather more relevant than yours. Sadly."
You're conflating the scientific method with a collection of anecdotes. Science starts with a hypothesis which is then tested via controlled study until such time it is proven or disproven. This can eventually provide evidence to support a theory. No amount of anecdote and counter-anecdote can do that.
The OP suggests that men are not blamed for careless behaviour that results in them being the victims of street crime. Is "our experience" relevant to that scenario, i.e. being around a man who was "walking around drunk while holding money", got mugged, and you then saw how differently they were treated to women with regards to 'victim-blaming'? Would the police say nothing negative of the victim's actions, as they might do if the victim were a women rather than a man? Not even a 'I hope you wont do that again', i.e. don't walk around drunk 'asking' for someone to grab your visible cash?
I have simply asked for the evidence, not anecdote, that would help answer these questions.
And my God, hasn't that caused the tears to flow.
I have no objection in principle to the idea of telling men they at fault for this specific type of scenario, but it must first be established that this doesn't already happen. If it does then such a campaign is rendered pointless.