Email from a critic. Comments?

[depicts]

This is who all of you are getting upset about. Give me a break. Go to the website Oleg posted around post 15 or so and check out who you're dealing with. Then ask yourself, do you care.

 

[atk]

Graystar,

Whether a term is or is not an insult, that doesn't change the way that the comment should be interpreted.


To break it down: "Apples are fruit." States that Apples are in the group Fruit. "Bimbos don't own guns" states that Bimbos are out of the group that own guns. "Dead people don't own guns" places Dead People outside the group that own guns. "Infants don't own guns" places infants outside the group of people that own guns. "Muffin Heads don't own guns" places Muffin Heads outside the group of people who own guns.

This has nothing to do with whether "Bimbos", "Dead people", "Infants" or "Muffin Heads" are insulting terms or not. They're simply categorization of groups.

Each of those groups overlaps the group "Women". There are "women" who are "bimbos". There are "women" who are "dead people". There are women who are "infants" (okay, so that's using the term women a little loosely, considering the age generally required to be a woman), and there are "women" who are "muffin heads".

Of the group "Women", Oleg has identified a sub-group: "Strong Women". This means that "Strong Women" are within the group "Women." Oleg has also identified a sub-group, "Bimbos". He has further indicated that the sub-group "Strong Women" does not overlap the sub-group "Bimbos".

Nothing has been stated about other sub-groups of "Women", and it is inappropriate to infer that those are the only two groups of "Women" in existence. They are simply the only two groups identified in this poster.


As an example, with an insult, "Patriotic People fly the national flag. Scum-Sucking-Criminals do not." See, there's the insult (Scum-Sucking-Criminals), but there's nothing that dictates that you're either a patriot or a Scum-Sucking-Criminal, with no possibility of anything else.

There *is* the implication that, if you don't fly a flag, you might be a Scum-Sucking-Criminal, but there's nothing that requires it. Again, there are three groups, here: People, Patriotic People, and Scum-Sucking-Criminals. People encompasses both Patriotic People and Scum-Sucking-Criminals, but it doesn't prevent other groups, such as Apathetic-People-Who-Don't-Fly-Flags And-Aren't-Criminals.

Or, same construct without the insult: "8 is a positive number. Negative numbers are not." This doesn't mean that there are no positive numbers other than 8.

 

[depicts]

Sorry to repeat myself, but go to this guys (?) website and see if you want to waste more of your life thinking about this.

His pictures are funny though...maybe the one showing ..."random girl on girl action" gives a clue to his mindset

http://llaunaynsw.tripod.com/id3.html

 

[imas]

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.

Okee dokee.

 

[XLMiguel]

I guess it all boils down to what your definiton of "bimbo" is (with apologies to Slick Willie, sorta). To me, a bimbo is a less than bright, usually young, woman who is sexually indiscriminate, generally irresponsible, and exercises little thought or control over her life. In that context, I have observed bimbos with guns, so saying "bimbos don't own guns" is not logically valid in my experience. They are scary, just as any other thoughtless, irresponsible person with a gun is scary.

In the context of Oleg's poster though, I can't readily come up with a better term than 'bimbo' without becoming verbose or obtuse, so I do think the general sentiment is effective and appropriate. FWIW

Eschew decease equine flagellation!

 

[imas]

This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped

They should! According to some sources 1 in 4 women will be raped within their lifetime.

 

[Zen21Tao]

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.)

No my friend you are in fact wrong. What law of nature, English, logic, etc. says to you that being an insult precludes membership status in a category? The word “fag” is an insult yet is still is a subcategory of a greater population. The greater population being men and the subcategory being men that have sex with other men. What is equally absurd is the statement that a “classification” cannot be include something that requires an action. Humm, what makes a “criminal” a criminal is the act of breaking the law. Of course a criminal is a subpopulation of a bigger population size.

As for your statement that a bimbo is defined by the act of not owning a gun so a woman that doesn’t own a gun is a bimbo. This assumption is not only utterly ridiculous but it is in fact a logical fallacy in two regards. First because it really is the case that bimbos are a subcategory of women, extending a defining feature of bimbos to all women is a “hasty generalization” fallacy – go ahead look it up. Second is that you are implying that because A=B then something else that is B must = A. This is completely incorrect. Consider the phrase “A dog is an animal with fir.” A bear is also an animal with fir. That doesn’t mean a bear is a dog.

 

[Doc Lukens]

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.

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.

"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.

Several years back, as a student employee with a campus police department, I stood and watched two police officers take a few punches AFTER using pepper spray on a subject. It wasn't pretty. Further, it is a police officer who teaches CCW courses at the college where I teach. I've never met a police officer that opposed citizens carrying firearms. I'm not saying they aren't out there, but it certainly refutes the quote above.

 

[Zen21Tao]

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.

We studied her situation a few semesters back in a Social Psychology class I had. Their is a phenomenon in Social Psychology where the number of people that directly observe a crime is inversely proportionate to the liklihood an onlooker will intercede to stop or even report the crime. The more people that look witness an event the more each person thinks someone else there will help.

 

[Graystar]

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.

Yes, but you're missing the point that "bimbo" is not a group. It is an insult.

Whether a term is or is not an insult, that doesn't change the way that the comment should be interpreted.

Of course it does.
You are a man.
You are a gun owner.
You are a dumbass.

The first two are purely descriptive, while the third is purely insulting. You cannot possibly interpret them all the same way.

What law of nature, English, logic, etc. says to you that being an insult precludes membership status in a category?

"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.

 

[tegemu]

Quoted from an amusing piece entitled "Real Chiefs....", the following:-

"Real Chiefs know that you never wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty, and the pig likes it."

"Real Chiefs never argue with an idiot because people watching may not be able to tell the difference."

 

[Barbara]

Well, this is where my gun rights advocacy and my anti-rape advocacy sometimes part ways.

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. Owning a gun can also, I'm afraid, lure women into a false sense of security, because the vast majority of sexual assaults are not situations where a gun would have been or could have been used. So, that's why I don't mix the two very often, and why I sometimes get prickly about people using the abuse of women as a selling point for gun rights. It's an option, and saying that is fine. It's not a cure-all and pretending it is will get you yelled at.

BUT.

Dear Mr. Launey:

What in the world makes you think you have the right to decide what options I will use to defend myself against any attack, either against my person or against my country?

Let me tell you the answer to that question: Not one damned thing.

If you're so concerned about women and our bodies and feelings, I'll be glad to suggest a list of ways you can help protect them, but I suspect you care not at all about that, but rather, would prefer to spend your time fawning over yourself on internet pages.

At the very least, you should consider a hobby that will fill your time, so as to avoid wasting it annoying people with a much better ability to reason than you possess.

Have a nice day. You should get yourself an education.

Yers Truly,

 

[1wildbill]

Lee, If you read this far I would be surprised. Your mind is closed. Your information is incorrect. I am sure you don't want to be confused by facts.

Barbara, Real men do care! I rate rape the same as murder, in some cases maybe worse.

 

[Barbara]

Maybe we should have included shiny graphics to keep his attention?

 

[1wildbill]

Maybe we should have included shiny graphics to keep his attention?

Good one.

But, naw, he lost interest as soon as some facts were given by hso and others on page one.

 

[Zen21Tao]

"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.

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. A group labeled as African-Americans would all fit a specific subcategory with the larger category of Race. The same goes for insults. Bimbo is a perameter within the larger category of insults. Those that fit the peremeter are bimbos. Take a group of ten people and the word "dumbass." Now (rightfully or wrongfully) label 4 of those people "dumbasses." Those four now fit a subcategory within the bigger population. Just because you don't like an insult doesn't keeping it from being used to establis subcategories.

 

[Graystar]

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.

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.

Now (rightfully or wrongfully) label 4 of those people "dumbasses."

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...

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[308win]

Given the language quality, spelling accuracy, syntax, tone, etc. I would simply pray that the author is sterile. A response isn't worth your time.

 

[Zen21Tao]

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...

I am not saying that an insult is the same thing as race, weight, height, etc. To claim that I am and proceed under that assumption constitutes a “straw man” argument. My point is that insults can also be used as categories.

A category is defined as “a collection of things sharing a common attribute” (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University) , “[a] specifically defined division in a system of classification”( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition ), and “[a] general class of ideas, terms, or things that mark divisions or coordinations within a conceptual scheme”( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Nothing in these definitions say that the common attribute can not be an insult, that the attribute has to be a “qualities of a person” like race, height, weight, etc. or that the attribute has to be a title or label bestowed on someone. In fact you can see that “ideas that “mark divisions” qualify as a category. Are you now going to retort saying that an insult isn’t an idea?

I get the point, you don’t like the term “bimbo” because you find it hurtful and cruel but your opinion of an attribute doesn’t negate its ability to serve (granted inappropriately) as an attribute common to more than one entity. 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.”

What is being argued here is the logical and structural nature of categorizing populations. Not whether such categories are morally hurtful or appropriate.

 

[Graystar]

Again, not only are you missing the point, but you have strayed so far from the original issue at hand that you’ve come full circle and now agree with my point.

Attributes exist. Insults and labels are opinions of the insulters or labelers. Insults and labels cannot be attributes.

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.”

And that is exactly the point I was making about Oleg’s poster.

This is ridiculous. 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. This pathetic attempt to back-pedal just because some anti-gun idiot called us on it is sickening. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; just admit that the anti was right on this one point, fix it, and move on.

And just how Oleg knows that all “bimbos” don’t own guns is beyond me.

 

[DRZinn]

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 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?

 

[QuickDraw]

Don't know if anyone else noticed/posted this,
in the profile his/her favorite movie is Art of the saber!
Kind of ironic.

QuickDraw

 

[Graystar]

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

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.

 

[AndyC]

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.

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.

 

[grimjaw]

We have a set: Fruit/Women who don't own guns.
Then a subset: Apples/Bimbos.

ARGH! Discrete Structures and Logic class flashbacks, head hurts . . .



I've looked alot many if not all of Oleg's images from his website. I don't know that I'd state things exactly as he does and I might take a different message than was intended in some cases. None of the images makes me think he deserves to be shot. Masked men kidnapping people and then beheading them on video, that kind of thing makes me want to shoot somebody.

jmm