:lol: :lol: :lol:Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/cOW34dr.jpg
OUUUUUUUCH!! :D
:lol:Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/cOW34dr.jpg
Jan, stop making Bjarte Foshaug cartoons funny!Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/cOW34dr.jpg
Never underestimate a Pomeranian.Brive1987 wrote:I don't know why I find the juxtaposition here amusing. Ogvorbis was following up a the "moderator alert" he had earlier squeaked out about good ol' Mr Bobcat.
Mellow Monkey could almost have been talking about Ogvorbis ..... :lol:
http://i.imgur.com/omDq47L.jpg
The key word is 'necessarily': if enthusiastic consent is to be written into law, it better be damn clear what it means, but instead everyone has their own 'I know it when I see it' version. For example, look at this post and the comments:German LurkBoatsman wrote:Maybe I'm confused here but AFAIR enthusiastic consent does not necessarily imply constant verbal feedback (even though someone who's a bit on the Aspergian side might wish for that).Dick Strawkins wrote:I don't think most men would object to the woman saying "Yes, Yes, Yes, lets have sex now!" but that is not what usually happens, even though the other person is giving signals to that effect.
I suck at cooking risotto...Chef Ramsey is always screaming about "teh risotto"..well he'd throw the pan at me...Tribble wrote:jimthepleb wrote:I use butter to saute my shallots or onions. I really prefer animal fats to vegetable fats for bringing richness to a dish.Southern wrote:
I have always found that if the onions are sweated in a light sherry it adds a flavour to any risotto.
Don't let them go all Blackety Black though. :rimshot:
But I do use wine. If it's a chicken-stock risotto, I like to use a relatively sweet, low-acid wine, like a 'white' Zinfandel in the early stages. I really like Beringer's White Zinfandel. It's very consistent year-after-year and makes a good cooking wine.
If it's a beef-stock risotto, I like to use a Chardonnay. I know it's a white wine, blah, blah, blah, red-wine is for beef, but I think it supports well without overwhelming the dish and, therefore, out-performs most red wines for risotto.
It's not a risotto recipe, but here, my recipe for punkin' pies: http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/11/ ... _late.html
Yes, slaughtering pumpkins is somewhat tedious, but there is a huge difference in taste. Be warned that a largish pumpkin can net you around 10-15 pies.
I do this once a year, crank out 20 or so pies, then swear never to do it again, until the next year when I've forgotten about the work and all i can think about is PIIIIIIIIE!!!!!
If you are on any form of diet, or diabetic, probably not the recipe you want.
The longest insect in the world (so far) is also a stick-insect. Found in Borneo, it measured 56.7 cm (more than 22 inches).BarnOwl wrote: <snip>
:lol:
We have awesome stick insects in Texas btw - longest insects in the US.
I realize that most people might find that to be a dubious distinction.
You're right. I apologize. :oops:Dick Strawkins wrote:Jan, stop making Bjarte Foshaug cartoons funny!Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/cOW34dr.jpg
We need them to serve as the negative control standard when measuring humour!
:D
Gumby wrote:I got 11 out of 13. Better than 91% of the public, according to Pew. Not bad for before 6 AM with no coffee.Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/
I got 13 out of 13 correct.
There's no point in always looking for the very worst interpretation of anything. Maybe it's a side-effect of spending too much time in FTB fantasy land. Don't let the rape paranoia bug bite you ;)FrankGrimes wrote:About this point, regardless of the defendant's reply, the prosecutor could argue till the cows came home that the consent wasn't enthusiastic enough even if the supposed victim was begging for sex.
That proposal seems to contradict itself. A couple of sentences after the 'no silent consent' bit, it says consent can be expressed "genom handling eller underlåtenhet" (through actions or by omission). How is "consent by omission" different from "silent" or "internal" consent?acathode wrote:It's also false. As I posted earlier, various feminists and feminists organizations in Sweden have been lobbying for enthusiastic consent. Even the analysts who wrote the government report in 2010, who suggesting changing the law, did discuss how consent would be defined, and opted for not allowing "silent" or "internal" consent.windy wrote:Either naive or disingenuous. Why is it constantly brought up in relation to rape cases and lack of convictions, if nobody is advocating for it as a legal standard?Nobody, and I think I mean literally nobody, is holding up enthusiastic consent as a legal standard, something that would or could be defined in statute and demonstrated in a court of law.
Sadly the information is only available in Swedish, but for those who can read it, or want to put it through google translate or something:Now, I admit that I might have misunderstood some things, I'm not a lawyer and might be reading things wrong. On the other hand, this was written by juridical experts and not feminists, as a suggestion on how to reform the law.SOU 2010:71, page 14 wrote:Det är vår bedömning att för samtycke på sexualbrottslag-stiftningens område, lika lite som för samtycke som allmän ansvars-frihetsgrund enligt 24 kapitlet brottsbalken, inte bör finnas något formkrav. Hur samtycket kommer till uttryck, för att tillåtas ha relevans i antingen en ren samtyckesreglering eller en medelsreglering, kan således variera stort och har ingen betydelse för dess giltighet. Vad gäller den särskilda frågan huruvida inre samtycken ska godtas ställer vi oss bakom uppfattningen att inre (eller tysta) samtycken inte ska beaktas. Med en frånvaro av ett formkrav för samtycket torde detta ställningstagande dock inte få någon särskilt stor praktisk betydelse. I stället är ställningstagandet av principiell natur. I en samtyckesreglering blir budskapet att sexuella handlingar som sker utan att samtycke har kommit till uttryck – genom handling eller underlåtenhet – inte är tillåtna. Vad gäller samtycken som enbart sker i det inre kan dock konstateras att även om de inte är relevanta straffrättsligt blir gärningarna förmodligen inte lagförda. Finns ingen part som uppfattar sig förorättad är sannolikheten för en anmälan närmast obefintlig.
Dick Strawkins wrote:
That pretty much blows Ally Fogg's case out of the water.
I always find it silly in these kinds of debates to claim that "nobody is asking for that". If you have any experience of the 'gender wars', as Fogg undoubtedly does, then you will know that no matter what loopy position you can come up with someone will be advocating it. Now that person may be loopy, or even disingenuously trolling, but they will be advocating the position, making the claim of "literally nobody" easily debunked.
In the current scenario - enthusiastic consent, yes, it is clear that the Swedish example falsifies his point. I would be surprised that someone involved with gender issues and laws has not been following the Swedish situation. I can only assume it is either incompetence on his part or cynical dishonesty.
But I've seen lists of feminist sub-cultures that are over 40-branches deep.Equity feminism describes a kind of feminism that sees the ideological objective to be equal legal rights for men and women, whereas gender feminism in Sommers' usage describes mainstream forms of feminism that has the objective of counteracting gender-based discrimination and patriarchic social structures also outside of the legal system in everyday social and cultural practice.
can't really connect any of this to enthusiastic consent. Your points about alcohol and retroactively non-consenting apply to all forms of consent, it has nothing to do with the enthusiasm part. If at all, going for enthusiastic participation would clear things up and leave less room for ambivalence: for me, for bystanders, for the girl, however her memory may be affected the next day. It takes some special kind of weirdo to accuse you of rape after participating the whole night. But with such a person all bets are off anyway and it's best to avoid them.James Caruthers wrote:No guy I know of would object to a woman being upfront about either wanting or not wanting sex. Men have traditionally pushed in the romance game for fewer mind fucks and more honesty. But you have to understand, these teasing games put a lot of power in the hands of the woman. You think those types of women who enjoy manipulating men with sex are going to give up that power for SJW ideology? (...)
Not a pick-up artist, but I think the artistry consist of getting the woman to enthusiastically consent. If the artistry is meant as 'how can I trick an unwilling person into not saying no too loud', well, that kind of person should gtfo, I have no intent of defending them.James Caruthers wrote:Even though I'm not a fan of so-called pick-up artists, making these ideas law would put every single PuA in prison for rape.
Well aren't you mister fancy pants 1 percent.Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/
I got 13 out of 13 correct.
Sometimes I watch, sometimes I don't have the time to devote ~an hour to watch, sometimes I want to turn my brain off and simply look at 'shops.Aneris wrote:
Out of interest, does anyone actually watch the stuff I shared? (i.e. should I bother? No hard feelings, just curious :))
I'm not sure if you are advocating for it as law. But I find it interesting as a discussion, so I'm using you as a reason to analyse the issue of enthusiastic consent as law. Apologies if you're advocating no such thing.German LurkBoatsman wrote:I don't get the hate for enthusiastic consent. I find it an ideal fit for random hook-ups up to the point where I find it a waste of time to deal with elaborate mind games what the woman really wants or whatever. Either it clicks and she participates in the flirting and then the escalating (and she better do it enthusiastically) or I'm not really interested. Life's too short and in some situations I actually don't wanna spend time with women who have hang-ups about sex or expect gender-appropriate wooing or crap. IMO it also sorts out a lot of crazy bitches who are just conflicted about sex and relationsships.
I'm also perfectly fine if some random flirt doesn't end with a one-night stand, can still be very fun. So I found if the woman enjoys herself and is a grown-up, she is perfectly able to express her wishes as how she'd like the night to end and will actually do so.
Of course, LTR and marriages are different and couples should be able to define for themselves how they define and communicate consent.
And I'm speaking about enthusiastic consent, i.e. willingly and joyfully flirting, participating, initiating etc. I don't speak about 'crystal-clear consent with notarized statements of intent within previously agreed time intervalls under the assupmtion that penis means rape'. That one is just sexless feminist fantasy nonsense. Or maybe a d/S kink I don't care for.
Again, I find that perfectly reasonable. Shouldn't anyone be able to answer that?acathode wrote:instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want.
I disagree. It's what you have to do with law. If you have a criminal definition, you must figure out how it is interpreted. It is against basic principles of justice for criminal law to be vague. Part of the substantive rule of law theory is that law must be specific, and vague law cannot be tolerated. Vague laws mean people may struggle to know when they commit crimes, and that is not a good result. It is good practice to ask "what's the worst way this law could go?" to find out if its reach is too great.There's no point in always looking for the very worst interpretation of anything. Maybe it's a side-effect of spending too much time in FTB fantasy land. Don't let the rape paranoia bug bite you
It is a politics of perpetual intra-Republican denunciation. It focuses its fire on other conservatives as much as on liberals. It takes more satisfaction in a complete loss on supposed principle than in a partial victory, let alone in the mere avoidance of worse outcomes. It has only one tactic — raise the stakes, hope to lower the boom — and treats any prudential disagreement with that tactic as a betrayal. Adherents of this brand of conservative politics are investing considerable time, energy, and money in it, locking themselves in unending intra-party battle.
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362303/print
haven't read it all, but I don't find that many problems with the link you provided. Some are more talkative in bed than others, I guess, as long as you find a way to communicate with each other and look after the other person you're okay. In my book. Can't talk for any SJW who needs extra rules as if sex's a D&D extension.***windy wrote:The key word is 'necessarily': if enthusiastic consent is to be written into law, it better be damn clear what it means, but instead everyone has their own 'I know it when I see it' version. For example, look at this post and the comments:
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/e ... c-consent/
If the advocates were willing to discuss the problems with the definition(s), that might not be an issue, but quite often it seems questions are met with "why are you even asking, are you looking to rape someone?"
This.James Caruthers wrote:There are just so many problems with "enthusiastic consent" in practice. No guy I know of would object to a woman being upfront about either wanting or not wanting sex. Men have traditionally pushed in the romance game for fewer mind fucks and more honesty. But you have to understand, these teasing games put a lot of power in the hands of the woman. You think those types of women who enjoy manipulating men with sex are going to give up that power for SJW ideology?
So now the problem of alcohol comes into it. How much alcohol invalidates consent? SJWs have been very careful to not place a limit. Of course, no amount of alcohol a man drinks invalidates HIS consent, and in the case of both being drunk, it seems fairly certain the SJWs would argue for the man to be held on rape charges using SaalPalani "men drink to become better rapists" reasoning. So we have to assume any alcohol at all in a woman's bloodstream invalidates "enthusiastic consent," no matter how enthusiastic and consensual she seems. Say goodbye to mixing alcohol and sex, you better be drier than an Abolitionist's grandma before you try any funny stuff, mister!
The next problem is retroactive removal of consent. Many SJWs seem to be arguing on Pharyngula and FTB that if a situation "feels" rapey, or you look back on it and it seems like "maybe it was all rapey and stuff", you can retroactively remove your consent and call it rape. Even if you consented at the time. The ultimate get out clause. All of us here know about the power of memory to feed us false information? The brain has no particular bias towards true information over pleasing falsehoods. Give someone permission to feed their victim complex and they'll recover all sorts of memories.
This whole enthusiastic consent thing is, I think, just another way for certain kinds of women to increase their sexual power over men, further punish male sexuality and enjoy all of the benefits of the party hard lifestyle without any of the risks. A man might drink himself blind stinking drunk and wake up the next morning with a disgusting woman who took advantage of him that night, but if she had even of a thimble full of alcohol, she'll be the one calling HIM a rapist. Most men in that situation would take it as a personal life lesson and move on. A SJW calls it a horrible rape.I agree. I also agree with your point (which I cut accidentally) that these SJW rules seem to be written by people who don't have sex, don't like sex, or have very strange sex.DownThunder wrote: I think there are just some women who need a constant emotional and legal safety net where they can blame someone the moment they experience something that isn't 100% to their expectation and satisfaction, where men and most other women manage to learn from sexual life experiences without needing to pawn off responsibility.
And a lot of men refuse to play these CCC mind games. See, I don't have a problem with "enthusiastic consent" if it's just a game some SJWs want to play when they get fucked. But Crystal Clear Consent has the stench of a SJW idea that they want to make into law. This would, along with a weakening of the presumption of innocence in rape cases (which they are already pushing for) have the potential to cause great harm to any man who has sex with any woman he doesn't know too well. Even though I'm not a fan of so-called pick-up artists, making these ideas law would put every single PuA in prison for rape.
As for me, I suppose I'll start filming my bedroom with hidden cameras in case I ever bang a SJW.
11/13. Slightly overestimated the Congress question and didn't recognize the woman near the end.Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/
I got 13 out of 13 correct.
Similarly, Myers' insistence that atheism is more than not believing in gods opens it up to arguments along the lines of "Stalin was an atheist too". Now that's a bad argument, but significantly more complicated to counter if atheism is not just lack of belief. It becomes a question of interpretation, and the argument will never end.Tribble wrote:One of the reasons I feel you can't really debate concepts I call 'isms' (feminism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, communism, etc.) is that you will inevitably run into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You point out the horrible things said recognized feminist leaders, and the feminist you're arguing with immediately decries that person as 'no true feminist' and she is 'only speaking for herself.'
The headache that argument caused was ultimately what drove me away.TedDahlberg wrote:Similarly, Myers' insistence that atheism is more than not believing in gods opens it up to arguments along the lines of "Stalin was an atheist too". Now that's a bad argument, but significantly more complicated to counter if atheism is not just lack of belief. It becomes a question of interpretation, and the argument will never end.
Similar to why I gave up on Pharyngula. The particular issue that time was male circumcision, but it went much the same way. It's not even a topic I feel very strongly about, but the way Myers shut down discussion and belittled those who had brought it up was disgusting.Sunder wrote:The headache that argument caused was ultimately what drove me away.TedDahlberg wrote:Similarly, Myers' insistence that atheism is more than not believing in gods opens it up to arguments along the lines of "Stalin was an atheist too". Now that's a bad argument, but significantly more complicated to counter if atheism is not just lack of belief. It becomes a question of interpretation, and the argument will never end.
I could not believe how belligerent he got over that. Especially considering how politely people attempted to disagree and calmly explain their reasoning.
And in true hypocritical jackass fashion he simultaneously accused people who disagreed of attempting to "shut down the discussion" while telling them individually to shut up and fuck off because he was tired of having this argument that he had broached and that he already thought he was right and that they were stupid so there was no point.
More to the point, it didn't include New Jersey, which recently legalized same-sex marriage. So I got that one "wrong." I went with minimum wage instead, since I knew it couldn't have been the other two choices (legalized weed, Asian population).Ape+lust wrote:Got the 1st one wrong. I thought it could be same-sex marriage states, but it included Iowa which seemed unlikely, so I went with minimum wage.Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/
I got 13 out of 13 correct.
Aneris wrote:Only 10 :(Barael wrote:12/13. I got the second last wrong (had no idea who she is).Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/
I got 13 out of 13 correct.
I had no idea about the Florida senator, no idea about the judge question and thought the first graph with the massive dent was the correct one, not the forth that skyrocketed later.
I don't advocate it in general. In cases of obvious differential in inebration or power I'd like to see the less 'hindered' person be held to more responsibility in ensuring the other person is actually consenting and not just going along while feeling/being unable not to do so. But I'm no lawyer and that's a massive case of grey areas and probably dependent on differing national laws. Also, in some cases there are special laws already, say, concerning professional environments or for underage sex.Huehuehue wrote:I'm not sure if you are advocating for it as law. But I find it interesting as a discussion, so I'm using you as a reason to analyse the issue of enthusiastic consent as law. Apologies if you're advocating no such thing.
Isn't it the other way around. If silence is consent (or at least non-retraction of previously given consent keeps being consent) then the only reason your scenario is rape is because the paralytic person is not able to retract their consent (not not to give it) even if they would wish to do so. This is, as long as the rapist (in your scenario) keeps saying the other person was capable of saying no but just didn't, the rapist walks away free.Huehuehue wrote:For example: if someone is paralytic from alchohol or passed out, they cannot consent and it is rape.
I find myself doing that a lot, too.ROBOKiTTY wrote:I always watch everything Aneris posts. If there hasn't been anything, I stare at the avatar.
Same with Elevatorgate. I never even cared how RW wished to be propositioned or not propositioned in an elevator, all the best to her. But establishing "you disagree with me so you're a sexist" as not only an accepted but actually an recommended form of discussion to make the community more inclusive and welcoming... unbelievable.TedDahlberg wrote:Similar to why I gave up on Pharyngula. The particular issue that time was male circumcision, but it went much the same way. It's not even a topic I feel very strongly about, but the way Myers shut down discussion and belittled those who had brought it up was disgusting.
They've already made it clear their focus on discussion (or the lack thereof): ConcentratedH20 has it memoralised in his signature.Sunder wrote:The headache that argument caused was ultimately what drove me away.TedDahlberg wrote:Similarly, Myers' insistence that atheism is more than not believing in gods opens it up to arguments along the lines of "Stalin was an atheist too". Now that's a bad argument, but significantly more complicated to counter if atheism is not just lack of belief. It becomes a question of interpretation, and the argument will never end.
I could not believe how belligerent he got over that. Especially considering how politely people attempted to disagree and calmly explain their reasoning.
And in true hypocritical jackass fashion he simultaneously accused people who disagreed of attempting to "shut down the discussion" while telling them individually to shut up and fuck off because he was tired of having this argument that he had broached and that he already thought he was right and that they were stupid so there was no point.
Yeah, I agree, it's confusing and not really clear what the author means, and it was even noticed in a thesis (page 30) that tried analyzing the proposal.windy wrote:That proposal seems to contradict itself. A couple of sentences after the 'no silent consent' bit, it says consent can be expressed "genom handling eller underlåtenhet" (through actions or by omission). How is "consent by omission" different from "silent" or "internal" consent?
?????????German LurkBoatsman wrote:Hue,
I don't advocate it in general. In cases of obvious differential in inebration or power I'd like to see the less 'hindered' person be held to more responsibility in ensuring the other person is actually consenting and not just going along while feeling/being unable not to do so. But I'm no lawyer and that's a massive case of grey areas and probably dependent on differing national laws. Also, in some cases there are special laws already, say, concerning professional environments or for underage sex.Huehuehue wrote:I'm not sure if you are advocating for it as law. But I find it interesting as a discussion, so I'm using you as a reason to analyse the issue of enthusiastic consent as law. Apologies if you're advocating no such thing.
So the only disagreement with your post is maybe here:
Isn't it the other way around. If silence is consent (or at least non-retraction of previously given consent keeps being consent) then the only reason your scenario is rape is because the paralytic person is not able to retract their consent (not not to give it) even if they would wish to do so. This is, as long as the rapist (in your scenario) keeps saying the other person was capable of saying no but just didn't, the rapist walks away free.Huehuehue wrote:For example: if someone is paralytic from alchohol or passed out, they cannot consent and it is rape.
If you change the law to define consent as actively consenting, there's a) a larger safety limit between being able to actively consent and being totally passed out, so maybe less room for actual misunderstandings. b) In the case you describe, the actual rapist has to describe how he got continued consent and this can then be compared to actual evidence (e.g. video) when that is available.
Of course in most cases there's no evidence like video tapes, the rapist could be lying, a false accuser could be lying, so I have no idea if there's any measurable difference in real life.
Also, if enthusiastic consent will ever be legislated in any form, I guess one would choose a less ambiguous term, maybe actively consenting or continued consent or something.
So, now we all wasted a lot of time because of some Swedish feminist group's rape law advocacy whose text we couldn't even understand from the beginning ;)
That's the thing. We're not actually talking about sex here. We're talking about the prelude to sex. How you GET to that point, not what you do AT that point. That may not be what's intended, even on the SJW side, but in reality that well is truly poisoned, and quite frankly, I think that you have Watson and Zvan to thank for that.Huehuehue wrote:
...
As a side note: does anyone have a view on Dr NerdLove? It looks like he lifted a bunch of PUA theory while trying to nay say PUA theory. I recall he has a blog post where he talks about how he got "out of the friend zone" with a really old friend.
Wanna know one of the things he did? I vaguely recall he (without great force or anything) pressed her into the wall of a club and kissed her without asking. No enthusiastic consent there to that. Just food for thought about how the theory doesn't do so well.
(Random note: Not huge fan of a lot of PUA theory.)
Honestly, "enthusiastic consent" really just makes the issue more complex than it is, it tends to be pretty obvious if the other party is consenting if you're paying attention.
It gets so confusing to keep up. Why does sex need "enthusiastic consent" but other areas of intimacy don't? Why sex and not kissing/fondling? Again, the whole thing sounds nice in the abstract but once we get to details it just doesn't remain coherent, hence why "consent" in itself, is a pretty good word for the whole thing.Karmakin wrote:That's the thing. We're not actually talking about sex here. We're talking about the prelude to sex. How you GET to that point, not what you do AT that point. That may not be what's intended, even on the SJW side, but in reality that well is truly poisoned, and quite frankly, I think that you have Watson and Zvan to thank for that.Huehuehue wrote:
...
As a side note: does anyone have a view on Dr NerdLove? It looks like he lifted a bunch of PUA theory while trying to nay say PUA theory. I recall he has a blog post where he talks about how he got "out of the friend zone" with a really old friend.
Wanna know one of the things he did? I vaguely recall he (without great force or anything) pressed her into the wall of a club and kissed her without asking. No enthusiastic consent there to that. Just food for thought about how the theory doesn't do so well.
(Random note: Not huge fan of a lot of PUA theory.)
Honestly, "enthusiastic consent" really just makes the issue more complex than it is, it tends to be pretty obvious if the other party is consenting if you're paying attention.
Maybe it would seem less absurd if you didn't compare sex to something that has to be endured or is just means to an end (like paying bills)?tfoot wrote:2) is there any reason why women consenting to sex should be the only interpersonal activity which has to be consented to enthusiastically?
Consenting to pay for dinner should not be enough, it should be enthusiastic consent etc etc...
Agreed. T-foot often "T-steps in it" with his insensitive comparisons (even though many of them are actually valid).German LurkBoatsman wrote:Maybe it would seem less absurd if you didn't compare sex to something that has to be endured or is just means to an end (like paying bills)?tfoot wrote:2) is there any reason why women consenting to sex should be the only interpersonal activity which has to be consented to enthusiastically?
Consenting to pay for dinner should not be enough, it should be enthusiastic consent etc etc...
Just saying.
Here ya go. No need to wait...German LurkBoatsman wrote:I find myself doing that a lot, too.ROBOKiTTY wrote:I always watch everything Aneris posts. If there hasn't been anything, I stare at the avatar.
Brive1987 wrote:10 out of 13 >85%Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/
I got 13 out of 13 correct.
I'm happy given some of the US slant.
------spoiler--------
11 of 13. Got the Dow Jones and who's that woman questions wrong.
Got the judge, graduate % and Florida questions wrong.
I bookmark all of the educational videos and links to articles/books that people provide. And when I have time, I watch/download/read etc.zenbabe wrote:Sometimes I watch, sometimes I don't have the time to devote ~an hour to watch, sometimes I want to turn my brain off and simply look at 'shops.Aneris wrote:
Out of interest, does anyone actually watch the stuff I shared? (i.e. should I bother? No hard feelings, just curious :))
But I always appreciate the opportunity, Aneris :)
Hah, that's actually a totes legit move that was taught to me by a close female friend in college :lol: It's not out of the enthusiastic consent handbook but it can be a smooth way to go from heavy flirting to kissing. If done right!Huehuehue wrote:Wanna know one of the things he did? I vaguely recall he (without great force or anything) pressed her into the wall of a club and kissed her without asking. No enthusiastic consent there to that. Just food for thought about how the theory doesn't do so well.
James Caruthers wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-proce ... rchaeology
The important thing to notice is not only do P-P archeologists believe all archeology is tainted by political bias, they believe archeology itself should serve the interests of Social Justice.
I can't find the example a prof showed me, it was something about examining the "sensuous nature" of rocks.
....
http://www.uni-kiel.de/ufg/dateien/date ... 202000.PDF
I didn't do much more than glance through it, but this article looks like a very promising mine of post-processual bullshit. Marx is mentioned, the title has "agency" in it, and it showed up under the google feminism search.
I have a much less jaundiced view-- than you do-- of intellectual fads in archeology. To me, the problem of archeologists needing to Check Their Privilege is real. The processualists tried to achieve this by applying more quantitative hard science rigor to the field, which is fine but limited. The post-processualists went the other direction by admitting that hard data has limits-- (e.g.: yes, a tribesman might keep a pack of dogs because hunting with them would increase the [quantifiable] number of calories and amount of protein obtained in a day's hunt... but another tribesman might keep a puppy that was a net loss of calories, because the puppy [unquantifiably] was fun and cuddly. Hence the need to recognize the "sensuous nature" of puppies, and rocks.) "Marxist" is a suspicious word in science, but Marxist Anthropology was a hard-data approach to tracking economies of trade and consumption, rather than making gut-instinct claims about the nature of societies... which seems sensible to me.“We also need to acknowledge the hard-earned lesson of history: that archaeology has been colonized by too many theoretical empires originating in disciplines with standpoints and agendas very different from our own.â€
"Gero draws her inspiration from explicitly politicized sources outside anthropology and archaeology: feminist political economists, third-world activists, and culture critics whose explicit agendas are to show how contemporary gender and race ideologies influence the global economic realities of women and other disenfranchised groups.â€
I also think it's fairly reasonable, and that the feminists here do have some good points. Unlike feminists though, I think both questions should be asked.German LurkBoatsman wrote:Again, I find that perfectly reasonable. Shouldn't anyone be able to answer that?acathode wrote:instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want.
I've similarly fallen to TTC lectures and recently to the YaleCourses channel on youtube (45 min lectures btw). It's the best thing to relax.another lurker wrote:Some kind and/or evil soul here linked to this: and I made it up to lecture #14 before I had to stop. Each lecture is approximately 90 minutes or more /faint. I did learn a lot, however. <3 whoever shared that link.