**** walk..?

[karrie]

No it isn't. It would not be difficult to detail whether rape victims were wearing shorts, mini skirts, pants, etc. or whether vicitims had on jackets, sweaters, t ****s, halter tops. It would not be difficult to draw a line between the amount of skin showing and an increased chance of assault if there was indeed one.

Okay, define the amount of skin showing that means a woman is being modest.

And keep in mind too that '****s' essentially are the outliers, the ones pushing the boundaries, and once you pull the boundaries back in, the outliers will still be looked at as ****s, even if they are now covered from elbow to knee.

 

[CDNBear]

Okay, define the amount of skin showing that means a woman is being modest.

Your confusing modesty (moral), with area, type of, quantity of, (empirical data).

He's not asking for a judgment, just stats.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

Modesty defined:

Modesty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalNick]

No it isn't. It would not be difficult to detail whether rape victims were wearing shorts, mini skirts, pants, etc. or whether vicitims had on jackets, sweaters, t ****s, halter tops. It would not be difficult to draw a line between the amount of skin showing and an increased chance of assault if there was indeed one.

So if it is so easily definable the please let us know what the definition is. And is that your definition or mine or someone else's we are going to use?

According to your position and theory we could justifiably legislate what a woman can wear in public for her own safety...does this sound like a free society or Iran?

If you don't want someone else legislating what you wear or eat or do for fun you best not start trying to impose your beliefs on anybody else.

 

[karrie]

Your confusing modesty (moral), with area, type of, quantity of, (empirical data).

He's not asking for a judgment, just stats.

The topic at hand is '****tiness' (I've switched to 'modesty' as its direct opposite since it doesn't get censored) . He can go chase all the empirical stats he wants... neither is an empirical term.

 

[CDNBear]

If you don't want someone else legislating what you wear or eat or do for fun you best not start trying to impose your beliefs on anybody else.

We not? You want to impose yours on our freedoms?

 

[mt_pockets1000]

Try exhibitionist for ****tiness.

 

[CDNBear]

The topic at hand is '****tiness' (I've switched to 'modesty' as its direct opposite since it doesn't get censored) . He can go chase all the empirical stats he wants... neither is an empirical term.

I realise that. What is empirical, is the clothing, colour, area of skin in view.

Like Cannuck, I would love to see stats on that, but as he mention, it's not politically correct to statistically collate that data.

 

[Cannuck]

Okay, define the amount of skin showing that means a woman is being modest.

You don't have to do that. Modest is subjective. The amount of skin showing is not.

 

[karrie]

Not in the least. What I was dissappointed with was the rate at which the "chief" withdrew support from the constable.

The chief would have withdrawn his support just as quickly if the constable had told old people not to act senile while out in public lest they make themselves targets of crime, had he asked men not to act in any way which could be taken as aggressive, or if he'd asked people to please ensure that they not give off airs of affluence. Giving victims completely moveable targets to try to attain implies that if and when they become victims of crime, it must be their own fault... they must have done something outside of the prescribed behaviour. Not that someone ELSE is behaving inappropriately, they are.

Any police department that spends more time telling you as a victim how to behave, than it does telling criminals what is and isn't acceptable, should be seriously examined.

 

[gerryh]

How sad, that parents of male children in North America, seem to be too stupid to be able to teach their boys that no means no and it doesn't matter how a woman is dressed or undressed, you keep your pecker in your pants.

This is what I'm getting out of all this modest/immodest dress bullshyte. How about you Bear, you teach your 2 boys to respect a womans wishes and control their "urges" ?

 

[CDNBear]

How about you Bear, you teach your 2 boys to respect a womans wishes and control their "urges" ?

You already know that answer to that. And I understand what you're driving at.

I'm not advocating for a womans dress to be a mitigating circumstance in a rape trial. No mewans no, full stop. What I am advocating is, self respect, and personal security (If there was any available data on dress and rape).

 

[PoliticalNick]

We not? You want to impose yours on our freedoms?

Actually Bear as a Canadian you are not protected by the first ammendment, or any other ammendment so arguing over it is fruitless. Your rights are limited to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and can be limited.

1.- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

 

[karrie]

You already know that answer to that. And I understand what you're driving at.

I'm not advocating for a womans dress to be a mitigating circumstance in a rape trial. No mewans no, full stop. What I am advocating is, self respect, and personal security (If there was any available data on dress and rape).

It is up to parents to create what you're discussing. Self respect, confidence, and an awareness of one's own personal security is not something shame can instill. What shame instills is a shuffling, floor staring, woman, dressed in what amounts to a tent, in an attempt to hide all the horrible invitations her body sends to men. Trust me. Implying to women that '****tiness' is a factor in their rapes, will do zero to help.

Now, if Cannuck and you want to come up with an equation on skin revalation and rape statistics, awesome. I'd suggest you start in equatorial countries... lol.

 

[PoliticalNick]

You don't have to do that. Modest is subjective. The amount of skin showing is not.

So who decides what amount of skin is allowed? Is that your decision, my decision, Karrie's, or maybe some hooker? Do you see the problem with where you are going?

 

[Cannuck]

So if it is so easily definable the please let us know what the definition is. And is that your definition or mine or someone else's we are going to use?

According to your position and theory we could justifiably legislate what a woman can wear in public for her own safety...does this sound like a free society or Iran?

If you don't want someone else legislating what you wear or eat or do for fun you best not start trying to impose your beliefs on anybody else.

Weren't you just on another thread yapping about somebody erroneously telling you what your opinion was. Please point out where I have said I want to legislate anything? I would like my daughters to see information if it exists so they can make an informed decision.

My chances of being mugged would increase if I moved to Calgary (from my 300 person town). I do not wish to legislate a ban or prevent people from moving to Calgary from here. I do not hold people (from here) that get mugged in Calgary personally responsible for their attack. I do support people having access to crime data so they can make an informed choice about whether to move there or not. Do you really have such a problem with giving people knowledge?

 

[PoliticalNick]

You already know that answer to that. And I understand what you're driving at.

I'm not advocating for a womans dress to be a mitigating circumstance in a rape trial. No mewans no, full stop. What I am advocating is, self respect, and personal security (If there was any available data on dress and rape).

I highly doubt there are any stats collected as the issue of victim's dress is irrelavant to the crime, as it should be.

 

[Cannuck]

So who decides what amount of skin is allowed? Is that your decision, my decision, Karrie's, or maybe some hooker? Do you see the problem with where you are going?

No I don't because I'm not going there....you seem to want to drag me there....why is that?

I'd suggest you start in equatorial countries... lol.

There you go again with the apples and oranges.

I personally believe we (Canadians) are far to puritanical when it comes to sex. I'm wondering what the stats are like for more sexually open countries (again, I'm talking random attacks). Weren't the Bear Naked Ladies banned from Toronto because of their name. Is it any wonder some people get giddy over a naked arm.

 

[CDNBear]

Actually Bear as a Canadian you are not protected by the first ammendment, or any other ammendment so arguing over it is fruitless.

That's not what you've been doing. Just so you don't make the same mistake again, Florida is in the US.

Your rights are limited to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and can be limited.

Thanx to people like you. You know, anti freedom types that love HRC's.

1.- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

And burning Bibles and Qurans is legal here too.

Yep, that would be the smilie that is best to address your posts.

It is up to parents to create what you're discussing. Self respect, confidence, and an awareness of one's own personal security is not something shame can instill. What shame instills is a shuffling, floor staring, woman, dressed in what amounts to a tent, in an attempt to hide all the horrible invitations her body sends to men. Trust me. Implying to women that '****tiness' is a factor in their rapes, will do zero to help.

I understand that.

Now, if Cannuck and you want to come up with an equation on skin revalation and rape statistics, awesome. I'd suggest you start in equatorial countries... lol.

Will you pay my air fare?

So who decides what amount of skin is allowed?

We should leave it up to you. You're the one that wants to force you opinions on peoples freedoms.

Do you see the problem with where you are going?

We already know you don't.

Weren't you just on another thread yapping about somebody erroneously telling you what your opinion was.

Correction, you spelled accurately wrong.

I highly doubt there are any stats collected as the issue of victim's dress is irrelavant to the crime, as it should be.

I understand that, which would be why we stated we'd like to see some.

No I don't because I'm not going there....you seem to want to drag me there....why is that?.

Because he discusses/debates like you. Fun, ain't it?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Weren't you just on another thread yapping about somebody erroneously telling you what your opinion was. Please point out where I have said I want to legislate anything? I would like my daughters to see information if it exists so they can make an informed decision.

My chances of being mugged would increase if I moved to Calgary (from my 300 person town). I do not wish to legislate a ban or prevent people from moving to Calgary from here. I do not hold people (from here) that get mugged in Calgary personally responsible for their attack. I do support people having access to crime data so they can make an informed choice about whether to move there or not. Do you really have such a problem with giving people knowledge?

Sorry Cannuck, you are correct I may have misintepreted your statements and drawn the wrong conclusion, my bad.