Click on the link. you'll see the letters asterisked out in the address bar. Fill them in. It's worth the time.
I checked it out.
Click on the link. you'll see the letters asterisked out in the address bar. Fill them in. It's worth the time.
So a group of women getting together, dressed scantily, and having a "sl!twalk" does what to stop the objectification of women?I have discussed this topic in another forum before. The general consensus seemed to be that the cop was uneducated, insensitive, and somewhat offensive with his remarks. It was a continuation of the stereotyping of women based solely on the way they dress and the way many men treat them as sex objects.
So a group of women getting together, dressed scantily, and having a "sl!twalk" does what to stop the objectification of women?
I've never had 'shrooms' before.
I'm going out on a limb here, I take it you meant to say "shouldn't be".I think that those who objectify women will and those that don't won't. It may change a few people but the greater majority will continue on as if it never happened.
I think the statement these ladies are trying to make is that it doesn't matter how they are dressed they should be treated as objects.
We don't know he didn't.And this is the advice the Toronto police officer should have given as well.
I'm going out on a limb here, I take it you meant to say "shouldn't be".
How does prancing down Toronto streets in their underwear do that?
So do you believe that women bear no accountability if they are raped, because of their attire, their actions?
No, you're right.We don't know he didn't.
Really?Yes, I believe they can walk around naked and should not get raped. Actions may have some bearing but even then....I can control myself as a man and have no respect for men that can't.
If he was so educated and intelligent he should therefore be aware of the possible repercussions and be held more accountable than those uneducated persons he incited to a riot.
No, nor does it make you a prude.Would it make me a bad man, if I said I kind of side with the Cop on this?
Really?
That's not what you say here...
According to you there. Women should bear accountability. While you almost completely exonerate the criminal of culpa ability.
Correction, very germane.Wow, bringing in a quote from a dfferent thread on a different topic....very creative.
Do you really want to stick to that, or would you like to go and reread that thread first?First let me say I do not exonerate the criminal of liability in any way, I use the legal principle of 'causative effect' to bring the Rev into joint liability. The murder is still wrong and should be punished accordingly.
But freedom of expression doesn't get that same liberty?The way a women dresses should have no effect on her safety in our western society. Our values are to accept the freedom to dress as we please.
Correction, very germane.
Do you really want to stick to that, or would you like to go and reread that thread first?
IMHO I would call burning a bible or other religious text in an attempt to inflame an entire religion a hate-crime and therefore freedom of expression would not be applicable.But freedom of expression doesn't get that same liberty?
Oh wait, dress is expression. So is burning a bible.
Either you support freedom of expression, or you don't. Or you suffer from moral relativism.
How did this get to murder, hate crimes and bible burning?
I thought it was about "dressing safely"?