This discussion arose in the comments on the post about the dialogue agenda, and I have moved it here to allow it to continue without disrupting the discussion of the agenda.
Here are the comments that were posted so far on the other post:
I also agree with Renee #8. Once again, in your previous post, I tried to get the “other side” to discuss the issues we disagree on – things like patriarchy, rape culture, etc. No success. Despite what the “other side” might think about me, and the slymepit in general, I do care a lot about social justice issues.
The difference as far as I can tell is that they take a deontological approach (“tell men not to rape, don’t blame the victim”) vs. my consequentialist approach (“what’s the most effective way to actually lower the incidence of rape?”).
So, in the twenty-first century people weren’t receptive to your nuanced views on rape?
I don’t have nuanced views on rape. Rape is wrong. I do, however, have nuanced views on rape *prevention*.
John C Welch
Now, at no point is Metalogic saying “yay, RAPE!” Nor is he excusing it. He’s showing an example of the difference in the way he sees Skepchick et al approaching the problem vs. his approach.
Neither approach is inherently good nor bad, they are simply different ways of getting to the same goal: Less Rape.
Weird. I said a bunch of stuff about patriarchy, rape culture, etc. on the last thread and you didn’t respond to any of it.
See comments #163, 169, 176, 187, and 202 over on the previous thread.
But, if you want to discuss after all, let’s have Michael Nugent make that other thread he mentioned earlier and discuss it. You can have the first move, and point to your previous comments which I haven’t addressed.