clew: I know it’s painful to give Aegis the last word, but I did ask for an end to this wrangle.

Ginmar, an exception handler is the part of a program that handles unexpected trouble; it was meant to be a compliment.

I don’t think we even have site-wide bans anymore. Although if we individually all ban the saem person, that comes down to the same thing.

Because you talked about other threads than just this one, I thought you were talking about a site-wide ban, which would be Amp’s department. No apology necessary ;)

Rock wrote:

GW has a bunch of big guns at his disposal, tons of money, and IMO has very little self esteem. If he did value his life and recognize how rare and fragile our lives and relationships are, he would do all he could to save them, and not brutally cast them in front of and under the swords of his flag waving loonies.

I think that folks like GW aquire their self-esteem through the existence of courtiers who constantly reinforce their right to commit the brutal acts that they do. Some courtiers are true believers, and some are obstensibly on the opposing team, but want to fawn and mimic the dominant voice anyway, usually out of fear of reprisals if they don’t.

At a personal level, you could argue that the sort of hostility directed against Nick is to be expected because by making her own decision about having the baby, et al, she has shrugged off her societally-designated role as courtier. Imagine if everyone did that ! Royalty is only royalty as long as the sycophants keep backing it up. Oh, dear… [fans self]

Hope you’re getting over your bug, Rock.

You can retire triumphant! You proved all us poor folks wrong! Please go away now. You win.

I’d also like to point out that now I’m the one being identified as saying that I said all men are rapists. Gee, all us feminists look alike, don’t we?

clew said:
There’s a distinction in some programming languages between “equal (have same address)” and “equal (have same content)”. If nothing else, it proves that ‘equate’ has more room for ambiguity than Aegis is willing to admit.

Interesting, but you don’t explain how it proves anything of the sort.

(Use of words in programming languages) != (use of words in normal speech)

It might also be a good analogy for Q Grrl’s argument; ‘men’ and ‘rapists’ are commingled at the address-level, and it’s inefficient (or unreliable at runtime, whatever) for her to disambiguate by doing a test-by-content. We can’t always link in ginmar as an exception handler.

Aegis said:
Aegis, From the same page you linked, you ignored this:

equate
v 1: consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous

Oops. I still think you are misusing the word. Thanks for answering my question on your usage of it, though.

The fact that a subset of men are rapists doesn’t mean that men in general are similar (or analogous) to rapists.

If I said I equate “hurricanes” with “property damage and loss of life”, I am “not” saying that all hurricanes cause property damage or loss of life, because they don’t. I am saying that enough hurricanes cause property damage or loss of life that I feel comfortable likening the two.

If I said I equate “drunk drivers” with “accidents”, I am “not” saying that alldrunk drivers have accidents, because they don’t. I am saying that enough drunk drivers have accidents that I feel comfortable equating the two.

I would say you are misusing the word “equate” in both cases. Yes, the consequences of hurricanes and drunk drivers are property damage and accidents. Yet hurricane and property damage are two distinct entities that are not similar or analogous at all (same with drunk drivers and property damage). “Equate” is not the right word to describe the relationship between those phenomena.

Picture a headline in the news: “Suspected Rapist Eludes Police”. Without reading the article, I could be reasonably certain that the suspect is a man. Why? Because I equate “men” with “rapists”. Why do I equate the two? Because the majority of “rapists” are “men”. It does not mean I think all men are rapists.

Ok, I understand that you have a strong association between “rapists” and “men.” I don’t think the word “equate” is an accurate way to describe that association. There is nothing in the definitions of “equate” implying that it should be used to describe correlations. If you want to point out that rapists are much more likely to be men, or that you have a strong association between rapists and men, why not simply come out and say those things instead of risking the misuse of the word “equate” (especially when the primary use of “equate” is a relationship of equality or equivalency, and many people understand the term to have that meaning)?

Ginmar : If that’s the case why have you been so determined to ignore what women have been saying about what they h ave experienced, felt, thought, and learned about rape?

That’s a damn good question, actually. Why does a certain segment of the male population insist on taking this discussion so personally, while others are perfectly capable of deducing that they they themselves as a subset of the category “men” are not under attack? And how can one expect to come to an understanding of the dynamics at work if one completely ignores the experiences of women? Riddle me that, my dear.

If that’s the case why have you been so determined to ignore what women have been saying about what they h ave experienced, felt, thought, and learned about rape?

equate
v 1: consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous

Do you see that “equal” is just one meaning? It also means “describe as analogous: ’similar or correspondent in some respects though otherwise dissimilar’ “. An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity. “Equate” also means to “consider or describe as similar”. It is used to compare or liken one thing to another.It does not always mean “equal to” or “the same as”. Words mean different things depending on the context they are used in. If you choose to go with a meaning that does not take into account the context, you will persist in not understanding.

If I said I equate “hurricanes” with “property damage and loss of life”, I am “not” saying that all hurricanes cause property damage or loss of life, because they don’t. I am saying that enough hurricanes cause property damage or loss of life that I feel comfortable likening the two.

If I said I equate “drunk drivers” with “accidents”, I am “not” saying that alldrunk drivers have accidents, because they don’t. I am saying that enough drunk drivers have accidents that I feel comfortable equating the two.

If I said I equate “men” with “rapists”, I am “not” saying all men are rapists, because they aren’t. I am saying that enough men “are” rapists that comparing, or likening, the two seems reasonable.

Picture a headline in the news: “Suspected Rapist Eludes Police”. Without reading the article, I could be reasonably certain that the suspect is a man. Why? Because I equate “men” with “rapists”. Why do I equate the two? Because the majority of “rapists” are “men”. It does not mean I think all men are rapists.

I don’t know how else to explain, Aegis. And since everyone else seems to have understood Q Grrl just fine, I see no sense in beating a dead horse.

The statement “All men are rapists” describes a state of affairs outside the speaker’s head.

Is the difference really that hard to see? It’s perfectly clear to me.

Aegis said:
As for the third, are you saying that ginmar only said she considers/treats/depicts “men” as “rapists,” but doesn’t actually say men are rapists? That still seems almost as bad.

But given it is impossible to tell which men are rapists and which are not, it is a good idea to keep in mind that any man may be a rapist and consider carefluuy how much you know/trust them before going anywhere alone with them. On some levels that is treating every man like he is a rapist, but how else can you reduce the chances of putting yourself in a situation where you may get raped.