it gives your site not only NO credibility but shows that the author is probably a man and if not a man a woman whose obviously a fool.
you should be shot.
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped
Yes, it does. The reason it does is because the term “bimbo” is not an actual classification of a person, such as tall, short, single, married, man or woman. The term “bimbo” is an insult. Some kind of action or behavior is usually required to earn such an insult. In your text, the suggested action is not owning a gun. Therefore, women who do not own guns (action) are bimbos (insult.)
grimlock said:This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.
Ask Kitty Genovese about the kindness of strangers.
Lee said:"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.
In my history classes, I devote about 20 minutes to 1960s crime. My students are startled by the Kitty Genovese killing, but it leaves the women thinking about self protection. For anyone unfamiliar with Kitty (is there such a person?) she cried for help for nearly 45 minutes. Over 30 people heard her screams. NONE called the police. ZERO.
Yes, but you're missing the point that "bimbo" is not a group. It is an insult.chopinbloc said:doczinn is aluding to a concept called the oehler diagram, if my memory (and spelling) serves. the idea is that two groups - represented by circles - can overlap or one can be completely contained within the other but by being one it doesn't necessarily follow that you are the other.
Of course it does.atk said:Whether a term is or is not an insult, that doesn't change the way that the comment should be interpreted.
"BIMBO" IS NOT A CATEGORY!! That's what's wrong with your entire analysis. It is a durogatory insult. To say "bimbo" is a category is like saying "dumbass", "****head" are categories. To me those three terms are of the same type, and on the same level. They are hardly HighRoad material and shouldn't be used.Zen21Tao said:What law of nature, English, logic, etc. says to you that being an insult precludes membership status in a category?
Maybe we should have included shiny graphics to keep his attention?
"BIMBO" IS NOT A CATEGORY!! That's what's wrong with your entire analysis. It is a durogatory insult. To say "bimbo" is a category is like saying "dumbass", "****head" are categories. To me those three terms are of the same type, and on the same level. They are hardly HighRoad material and shouldn't be used.
Are you serious??? The term “bimbo” is nothing but insult. It is not a parameter or category of any kind whatsoever. To say it is the same as height, weight, or race demonstrates incredible insensitivity and belligerence toward women.Zen21Tao said:Bimbo is the parameter that defines a specific subcategory. Race, sex, height and weight are collections of paremeters. For example, African-American is a paremeter of race.
And therein lies the problem with your erroneous comparison. Race, sex, height, and weight are qualities of a person. A person always has a race, is always a particular sex (usually for life...,) is always at some height or weight. But a person is never a dumbass (or a bimbo) unless *someone else* says they are. THAT is the big difference. And to call someone a dumbass (or a bimbo) requires some reason to do so. And THAT is what’s wrong with Oleg’s poster. It suggest’s that not having a gun makes a woman a bimbo.Zen21Tao said:Now (rightfully or wrongfully) label 4 of those people "dumbasses."
Are you serious??? The term “bimbo” is nothing but insult. It is not a parameter or category of any kind whatsoever. To say it is the same as height, weight, or race demonstrates incredible insensitivity and belligerence toward women.
And therein lies the problem with your erroneous comparison. Race, sex, height, and weight are qualities of a person. A person always has a race, is always a particular sex (usually for life...,) is always at some height or weight. But a person is never a dumbass (or a bimbo) unless *someone else* says they are. THAT is the big difference. And to call someone a dumbass (or a bimbo) requires some reason to do so. And THAT is what’s wrong with Oleg’s poster. It suggest’s that not having a gun makes a woman a bimbo.
If I said “Strong men own guns; wimps don’t.” Are you going to say that “wimp” is merely a classification of men? “Tall”, “short”, “skinny”, “hairy”, “wimp”? It most certainly is NOT a class or parameter of men. The statement is crystal clear in its meaning...you’re a wimp if you don’t own a gun. And that statement is no different than the one on Oleg’s poster.
I swear...I can't believe we're even discussing this!!! For a bunch of smart guys you're so much like lemmings sometimes...
Zen21Tao said:You ask “f I said ‘Strong men own guns; wimps don’t.’ Are you going to say that “wimp” is merely a classification of men?” Actually the term or idea “wimps” as you use it IS a category of “things” that shares the common attribute of not owning guns. In the greater population are things that own guns and things that don’t own guns. Within the subgroup of “don’t own guns” is a group that holds the attribute you labeled as “wimp.”
You don't know it, and I don't know it, and not a single one of us knows it. It certainly doesn't look that way to me; it only looks like what it means exactly what it says, semantically speaking. Why don't we ask Oleg?The poster was meant to imply that a woman is a bimbo if she doesn’t own a gun. That’s the message it gives, that’s what Oleg intended, I know it, and everyone single one of you know it.
You DO know it, and it DOES look that way to you. But if you have convince yourself otherwise so you can feel superior to some idiot anti then there’s really nothing more to say because to continue would be like...well...arguing with an anti.DocZinn said:You don't know it, and I don't know it, and not a single one of us knows it. It certainly doesn't look that way to me
Some men are rape-survivors too, you know - me, for one. I think I'm more qualified than most to speak on this topic, so be careful of falling into the gender-trap yourself.Barbara said:When I see men use the anti-rape rhetoric, it annoys me because frankly, I don't think the vast majority of them really care, its just a convenient buzz word for them.