[jeffreyjerpp]

(10-29-2018 09:55 PM)RDF Wrote:  

I've seen a similar concept play out sometimes on non-mainstream message boards, where people begin to propagate conspiracy theories such as the Earth being flat (!!!), or making edgy statements such as a 21-year old chick being culpable for her own murder, and when faced with backlash in response, claim that the burden of proof is on the responder for not providing "sufficient facts", not on themselves for posting comments that don't warrant a logical response.

Yes, you have the right to say mostly whatever you want. But just because you do doesn't mean people have to reply to you in a logical fashion.

I read your response to my earlier comment. With my multi-year financial background, I'll say this: Comparing mathematical modeling and handling of "tail risk" of a financial portfolio to how a human behaves in interaction with other humans isn't even comparing apples and oranges... its comparing apples and baseball fields.

Women are different than men, in that in many cases, especially in interactions with men, women are not rational. Women are emotional and can be "manipulated" by the right man. That is why social framework is so important in guiding how interactions between men/women occur, and why some places have more "traditional" women and others don't.

Perhaps one can argue that society failed this woman. She probably shouldn't have been in this situation to begin with, and this piece of shit should've never had the chance to do what he did.

I don't believe we are culpable as individuals for society's mistakes.

I actually agree with the last part of this. Women shouldn't have rights they can't exercise responsibly, and society probably failed this young woman in a major way. In that sense she's not responsible for what happened.

However. Every argument I've made I included plenty of support for, both logical and the available evidence. Critically different from making baseless, edgy claims.

One of two things is true:

1) My argument is ridiculous, and like the flat earth thing, would be really easily to immediately discredit. For example, if she had just been shot randomly in a drive by, and I argued it was her fault for not wearing body armor.
2) My argument is strong but ideologically objectionable, in which case the rebuttals will be ad hominems, convoluted nonsense, straw men, etc, that avoid the core of the argument.

It sure looks like #2 is what's happening.