OT: Roethlisberger not exactly a gentleman on the night of the incident

[upstater1]

It's pretty clear that many people in here have not taken any sort of course in critical thinking. This is a pretty easy way to explain it to these same people. However, I don't think they'll be listening to you. One can also make the point that many women treat their peers (other women) like crap in some form or fashion, whether it's verbally cutting their appearance down, their weight, height, etc. The word "b!tch" is more commonly used amongst women than it is by a man toward a woman. So then, by the logic in this thread, I guess that means that many women are also rapists.

:bricks:

Boy are you on your high horse.

If only you knew how ironic your first sentence is as it relates to me.

 

[upstater1]

You're calling me on the assertion that most jerks aren't rapists? ...wow. Yes, I stand by that, and no, it has nothing to do with disbelieving rape statistics.

Man, this forum has really fallen off a cliff in the last couple of days.

Jerks? I thought we were talking about men who have no respect for women. A jerk could be a guy who steals candy from a baby. So, we're already talking about different things. And no, I don't believe most men who hate women have sexually assaulted women. But I do believe a good number of them have.

 

[upstater1]

common sense isn't so common

And how in the world did your post address anything I wrote at all?

 

[Kontradiction]

Boy are you on your high horse.

If only you knew how ironic your first sentence is as it relates to me.

Attacking me and not my assertion is a sign that you don't have much of an argument. And no, I'm not on a high horse. I'm thinking pretty clearly. Just because someone is aggressive in their pursuit to nab women in a bar and is verbally abusive towards them does not mean that he is more or less inclined to be a rapist. That's just a complete and utter failure in logic.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Roethlis Roethlis berg yall!

 

[upstater1]

Attacking me and not my assertion is a sign that you don't have much of an argument. And no, I'm not on a high horse. I'm thinking pretty clearly. Just because someone is aggressive in their pursuit to nab women in a bar and is verbally abusive towards them does not mean that he is more or less inclined to be a rapist. That's just a complete and utter failure in logic.

I was referring to your comment about critical thinking classes. I just found it ironic that a person who misstates my positions would advise a critical thinking course.

This is what you wrote:

Just because someone is aggressive in their pursuit to nab women in a bar and is verbally abusive towards them does not mean that he is more or less inclined to be a rapist.

This is what I wrote:

It doesn't mean he raped her, but I can tell you that he treats women like crap, and a guy that has little respect for women is more likely to sexually assault someone than a guy who has respect for women. That doesn't mean all mean who have problems with women are rapists or that even more or even some of them are.

Now, I'd say people can easily see the difference in these two statements, and they definitely don't need a critical thinking class. Also, we're working from two different sets of facts. For instance, I know that Ben grabbed a woman's boobs in a bar, and then sat at the bar stool laughing as the girl's boyfriend got roughed up by his goons. I know it for a fact. So, I'll say it again: I don't think that means he's a rapist, but a guy who would do that is indeed--AS I WROTE--more likely to sexually assault someone in a bar than someone who would never do that. I firmly believe that.

I'm not sure what thread we're even in anymore since there have been multiple Ben R. threads and clearly people are working from different sets of knowledge about what Ben has done in public (and here I'm referring to links to people noting other incidents). As one lawyer noted in this case, Ben went public with the fact that the girl in question here smacked her head somehow, and he said she tripped and fell. That, in and of itself, sends up red flags, and the lawyer noted that this fact alone is subject to a jury's determination. If you don't think Ben's past exploits would come up before such a jury, what can I tell you?

On another front, I don't understand why you would say I'm attacking you, when in the first place you said I lack critical capabilities, I then said you're on your high horse, and then you said I'm attacking you. Seriously? I mean, don't make comments like that if you have such thin skin.

 

[livinginthe past]

It doesn't mean he raped her, but I can tell you that he treats women like crap, and a guy that has little respect for women is more likely to sexually assault someone than a guy who has respect for women. That doesn't mean all mean who have problems with women are rapists or that even more or even some of them are.

If you ask me, the way this paragraph reads its second half contradicts its first.

First you say Roethlisberger treats women like crap, and you then make your 1st leap that a guy like is more likely to commit a sexual assault on a woman.

Then you say that it doesn't mean that all men who have problems with women are rapists - which seems reasonable enough.

But then you go on to say "....or that even more or even some of them are" effectively saying there is no connection between 'treating women like crap' and 'being a rapist'.

I also find its annoying that people are so ready to substitute the term 'sexual assault' for 'rape'.

They aren't the same thing.

 

[Kontradiction]

I was referring to your comment about critical thinking classes. I just found it ironic that a person who misstates my positions would advise a critical thinking course.

Actually, I was talking to the person that I quoted for his stunningly on-point observation.

This is what I wrote:

I'm fully aware of what you wrote, and I disagree with it. As a matter of fact, most women who are raped or who are date raped are lured in by so called "nice guys" who sit next to them at the bar in Polo shirts and buy them expensive drinks. Most of these guys sweet talk them and are nowhere near abusive. It's happened several times across every state and country out there. Your definition just doesn't stand a chance in this case.

Now, I'd say people can easily see the difference in these two statements, and they definitely don't need a critical thinking class. Also, we're working from two different sets of facts. For instance, I know that Ben grabbed a woman's boobs in a bar, and then sat at the bar stool laughing as the girl's boyfriend got roughed up by his goons. I know it for a fact. So, I'll say it again: I don't think that means he's a rapist, but a guy who would do that is indeed--AS I WROTE--more likely to sexually assault someone in a bar than someone who would never do that. I firmly believe that.

All that makes him is a pig and a thug. I doesn't make him more likely to be a rapist at all.

I'm not sure what thread we're even in anymore since there have been multiple Ben R. threads and clearly people are working from different sets of knowledge about what Ben has done in public (and here I'm referring to links to people noting other incidents). As one lawyer noted in this case, Ben went public with the fact that the girl in question here smacked her head somehow, and he said she tripped and fell. That, in and of itself, sends up red flags, and the lawyer noted that this fact alone is subject to a jury's determination. If you don't think Ben's past exploits would come up before such a jury, what can I tell you?

Just for the record, I'm not saying Roethlisberger is not guilty. I personally believe he is. I'm just saying that making a claim that a guy who is verbally abusive toward a girl is much more likely to be a rapist than a guy who isn't is ridiculous, to say the least. I just provided you with an example with why I think so.

On another front, I don't understand why you would say I'm attacking you, when in the first place you said I lack critical capabilities, I then said you're on your high horse, and then you said I'm attacking you. Seriously? I mean, don't make comments like that if you have such thin skin.

You said I was on a high horse and then failed to address any of my points after that. While it's not a personal attack, you aren't exactly attacking any of my points either. It was a weak post/assertion all the way around since I'm not on a high horse at all.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Jerks? I thought we were talking about men who have no respect for women. A jerk could be a guy who steals candy from a baby. So, we're already talking about different things. And no, I don't believe most men who hate women have sexually assaulted women. But I do believe a good number of them have.

Frame it up however you want. Doesn't change the fact that it's reckless and stupid to conclude that a guy is probably a rapist because he called a woman a *****.

 

[upstater1]

If you ask me, the way this paragraph reads its second half contradicts its first.

First you say Roethlisberger treats women like crap, and you then make your 1st leap that a guy like is more likely to commit a sexual assault on a woman.

Then you say that it doesn't mean that all men who have problems with women are rapists - which seems reasonable enough.

But then you go on to say "....or that even more or even some of them are" effectively saying there is no connection between 'treating women like crap' and 'being a rapist'.

I also find its annoying that people are so ready to substitute the term 'sexual assault' for 'rape'.

They aren't the same thing.

I really don't see the contradiction. There's no contradiction. How does it contradict?

I've pointed out that Ben isn't accused of rape. I don't think. Rape is sodomy or intercourse of some kind. We're talking generally here about rape, not in Ben's case.

 

[upstater1]

Actually, I was talking to the person that I quoted for his stunningly on-point observation.

His quote was in reference to my post.

I'm fully aware of what you wrote, and I disagree with it. As a matter of fact, most women who are raped or who are date raped are lured in by so called "nice guys" who sit next to them at the bar in Polo shirts and buy them expensive drinks. Most of these guys sweet talk them and are nowhere near abusive. It's happened several times across every state and country out there. Your definition just doesn't stand a chance in this case.

Ok, let's get our critical thinking caps on again. A guy who will sweet talk a woman and then rape her obviously doesn't respect women. They don't fall into my idea of respecting women. Notice I never said that only guys who have no respect for women become rapists. But the guys you're talking about clearly don't fall into the respect for women category. Nor do they fall into the abuse women in public category. These are not the opposite sides of the same coin, because I'm comparing abusers to men who would not rape a woman or act in public like Ben does. These are three separate classes of men.

All that makes him is a pig and a thug. I doesn't make him more likely to be a rapist at all.

A guy who does that is likelier to rape a woman than a guy who would never do that.

You said I was on a high horse and then failed to address any of my points after that. While it's not a personal attack, you aren't exactly attacking any of my points either. It was a weak post/assertion all the way around since I'm not on a high horse at all.

Well, I can't agree. Obviously we have a disagreement and it doesn't come down to my lack of critical thinking classes.

 

[upstater1]

Frame it up however you want. Doesn't change the fact that it's reckless and stupid to conclude that a guy is probably a rapist because he called a woman a *****.

Yes it is. Now who did that?

 

[Kontradiction]

Ok, let's get our critical thinking caps on again. A guy who will sweet talk a woman and then rape her obviously doesn't respect women. They don't fall into my idea of respecting women. Notice I never said that only guys who have no respect for women become rapists. But the guys you're talking about clearly don't fall into the respect for women category. Nor do they fall into the abuse women in public category. These are not the opposite sides of the same coin, because I'm comparing abusers to men who would not rape a woman or act in public like Ben does. These are three separate classes of men.

Now you're intentionally moving the goal posts. The original argument in this thread is that a guy who is verbally abusive to the girl before the incident happens is more likely to molest or rape a girl than a guy who ISN'T verbally abusive toward the girl before the incident happens. You're essentially pulling teeth with this one as I've provided you with a pretty clear cut example of the opposite happening.

A guy who does that is likelier to rape a woman than a guy who would never do that.

So then a woman in the same situation who is verbally abusive to another woman and cuts her down to her face in a bar situation is likely to be a rapist as well?

Well, I can't agree. Obviously we have a disagreement and it doesn't come down to my lack of critical thinking classes.

Well, at least we can both agree on what a high horse is...

 

[emoney_33]

He treats women like crap. I know for a fact he treats women like crap. And that's why a lot of people are speaking out. It doesn't mean he raped her, but I can tell you that he treats women like crap, and a guy that has little respect for women is more likely to sexually assault someone than a guy who has respect for women. That doesn't mean all men who have problems with women are rapists or that even more or even some of them are. But given the statistics on rape in this country (they are incredibly high), there are a lot of men out there just like that.

I really don't see the contradiction. There's no contradiction. How does it contradict?

I'm not going to lie, I laughed out loud.

 

[livinginthe past]

I'm not going to lie, I laughed out loud.

I already tried providing the direct quotes, i'm either missing what he's saying or...well..I don't know.

Incidentally, I love the sig - very clever.

 

[emoney_33]

I already tried providing the direct quotes, i'm either missing what he's saying or...well..I don't know.

Incidentally, I love the sig - very clever.

I won't try to take credit for the quote in my sig, but I absolutely love it

 

[upstater1]

Now you're intentionally moving the goal posts. The original argument in this thread is that a guy who is verbally abusive to the girl before the incident happens is more likely to molest or rape a girl than a guy who ISN'T verbally abusive toward the girl before the incident happens. You're essentially pulling teeth with this one as I've provided you with a pretty clear cut example of the opposite happening.

The words I used were, "a guy who doesn't respect women." Ben falls under that category. It's not a matter of a person who verbally abuses women in public versus a person who doesn't. It's a matter of respect for women. Just because a guy doesn't verbally abuse women in public doesn't mean he has respect for them. (It's odd that I'm the one pointing out logical fallacies this time).

Let me say this again: though I've never witnessed Ben doing anything and never saw him in real life in any place other than the football field, I have close friends who have run into him in bars a number of times. I have personally come across Jeff Reed on the other hand. I also said that the media isn't reporting most of the stuff the people of Pittsburgh already know about.

So that's why I think he doesn't respect women, and that's why I said that "a guy who doesn't respect women is more likely to do something like this than a guy who does respect women." I find that to be an unassailable statement.

 

[upstater1]

I'm not going to lie, I laughed out loud.

Is it the word some? My bad, I meant, a few.

As in, "only some."

Read it again without some in there and it makes sense.

 

[emoney_33]

Is it the word some? My bad, I meant, a few.

As in, "only some."

Read it again without some in there and it makes sense.

That doesn't mean all men who have problems with women are rapists or that even more or even some of them are

Restate this so I can better understand. Right now it seems to suggest that there is not a correlation between that type of man and rapists.

 

[emoney_33]

So that's why I think he doesn't respect women, and that's why I said that "a guy who doesn't respect women is more likely to do something like this than a guy who does respect women." I find that to be an unassailable statement.

If .0000000001% of men who didn't respect women assaulted women then your "more likely" argument is sort of misleading.