Freebase Dali

Whether societal factors play a role is all well and good, and should be looked at, but the point I wanted to make is that I think it's misguided to support a social agenda by acknowledging only one of its possible aspects.

We both know that rape isn't some new thing that occurred after a particular social change. It has been around since human nature has. And while I'm not saying rape is just human nature and should be disregarded, I do not think that any particular social situation is the cause of it, and representing the act in such a way is misleading.

However, if she's saying that a social problem is the cause of less restrained behavior, then she might be absolutely right. However, I don't see the need to prop up a position on it using rape as the motivational factor when the very issue of the problem has far wider-reaching implications in and of itself.

Edit:
Also, I'm not sure what you're attempting to say with that link. So far, it looks like a straw man to me.

Sparky

So in this particular scenario, you believe it's wrong for the U.N. to allocate more aid to Haiti solely based on domestic violence?


But in different societies it is less prominent. Certain social conditions increase the likelihood. I think it's apparent she's talking about a crisis, not just instances of rape.

That is what she's saying, and i agree, she may be right. It's a universal issue, i don't see what's wrong with addressing it from a personal perspective.

The link was just for jokes. You may be on to something with the "Straw man" because i did find that link incredibly stupid.

Freebase Dali

No. Of course issues like domestic violence problems should be addressed.
Do you believe that domestic violence should be addressed solely on the basis of racial oppression?
I don't disagree. But she is representing the larger discussion with something that is designed to create an emotional reaction in order to advance a social agenda, which I don't think is appropriate in lieu of actually taking all factors into account and using statistics to back it up. Of course, that could very well take some of the light off her own situation, which I'm guessing is why she approached at the angle she did. She's in the victim position, which carries more weight if she doesn't allude to other factors that could possibly weaken it from a standpoint of convincibility.

I agree, but if we both agree to this, then we cannot see the wrong in others addressing the issue from a perspective that runs counter to hers, assuming we're willing to take the issue seriously enough to accept that these individual perspectives could be a distraction from the truth as a whole. I would say the most reasonable position to take would be one that appreciates all factors, rather than those that simply have the propensity to create an emotional, reactive perception, which I'm sure she was going for, otherwise she would not have made it seem like the only reason she was raped is because black men are repressed in Haiti and white men rule the world.

I was just wondering if you included it to attack my position based on what some random people on a random "conservative" forum said. I'd also wonder if you think conservatism is based on what moronic kids on the internet say.

Sparky

Oh totally. If it was up to me.

The statistics do back her up though. Your trying to put some alterior motive on her, "shes just using her rape to take advantage of you, the reader". I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that the addition of her rape in the article wasn't merely a guilt trip.

Why can i only align with her? If i see someone else's article I'll accept if i want to. By all means show me a "counter" to her article and I'll read it.

You keep trying to simplify what she said to fit your interpretation. I don't think she made white men the sole reason behind the troubles in haiti, but it is a very significant one. They are in a position to do something about it.

I'm sure you have quite a lot to ponder. I wouldn't exclude it to kids,no.

Freebase Dali

I don't think I really need to respond to this. It sort of speaks for itself.
You don't seem to understand the idea behind what it is I'm actually saying. I'm not saying she's manipulating people intentionally. Unintentionally, however, it's hard for that to not be the case when you publish an article to the public only telling your readers a particular angle as it relates to an agenda. I'm simply saying that if she were unbiased and objective, her story would have not just used a personal tragedy to unequivocally link to the totality of oppression.
The counter is right in front of your face. Opposing opinions do not have to manifest themselves in the form of the media that's being opposed. If you do not consider my opinion a valid form of opposition, then I wonder about your definition of basic things in general.
Anyway, I'm simply making an analysis of the article on which to base my opinion on. That's generally how you do it, if you wish to form and vocalize an opinion about something. And as far as whether I'm only seeing one portion of the evidence for my own interpretation, I could say the same about you. In reality, we're both right. What you're saying is correct, and what I'm saying is also correct. Our real disagreement, whether you still have yet to realize it or not, is in the degree at which either position is more important on a larger scale.

For me, considering all the factors behind this sort of thing as it relates to racial oppression is a tad bit more important than casting rape as the sole arbiter of its existence. Especially when you can get more support for change based on the totality of the problem, versus a single circumstance and event.

We're both speaking the same language. We're just not saying the same thing.

I won't assume your meaning here, so I'll just chalk this up to garbled nonsense unless you're confident and articulate enough to say what's actually on your mind.

Sparky

Why is the article biased? Why are we judging it's merit based on whether or not it has an agenda?


I'm all for opposing opinions, i just think your opinion is flawed.
I disagree with the notion that she took liberties with her article in order to portray something other than reality. I don't see the two portions of evidence, I see one, and it's all synonymous with her article.

Again, this is not what she was doing with the article. It's strange to criticize the article for not being an something entirely else.

The totality of the problem has been apparent for many decades. She decided to share her direct misfortune due to it.