Was Romney a high school bully? - Page 20

Richard Masters · 13th May 2012, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that there are enough suicides that result from bullying to conclude we ought to take it very seriously.

I hope you will watch the move.

The trailer can be found here.

I'll take a look. Thanks for the links.

Upchurch · 13th May 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

I'm quoting someone else.

You were seriously quoting my example of something so ridiculous it wasn't worth taking seriously. Therein lies the problem. I'll grant you that there are no absolutes in morality, but you are stretching the pendantery such an extreme edge case that it is no longer realistic.

You might as well blame Romney's behavior on mind-controlling aliens. It is certainly possible and it doesn't excuse what happened, but it is a ludicrous attemp to minimize how it reflects on Romney.

Halfcentaur · 13th May 2012, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

No, I am not kidding. Was the intent a prank, or as you said, to gently guide a fellow student in the appropriate appearance for someone of his gender, or was he trying to cause physical pain? Was he trying to inflict long-lasting emotional trauma? Was he completely unaware of the consequences of his actions?

The intent doesn't excuse what happened or lessen the severity of the outcome, but it is, again, part of how I measure morality.

Can you personally imagine overpowering someone who was not only struggling against you but openly crying as you gently held their head still enough to cut their hair?

I don't see how you can and infer this was gentle suggestion or a prank without making Romney into a walking psychopathic golem. The person was in tears as his hair was being cut from his body for being a homosexual in the 1960s. That alone elevates the psychological magnitude of the event beyond anything you're suggesting.

I'm racking my brain here at the moment, feel free to offer an alternative, but the only way I can see this in the possible contexts you're presenting would be if the victim of this violation was just a whiny cry baby who over reacted and screamed and cried over anything and was no genuinely being psychologically and physically assaulted. Is this what you are suggesting?

I understand the desire for rationality and skeptical inquiry, but either this is being presented as a lie, or this was an act intended to shame another human being over something that in that era was serious taboo. If this was not clearly done due to his perceived sexuality, I could possibly see the sense in your skepticism a little more clearly, but are you suggesting this was possibly not actually based on the suspicion of this student being a homosexual and the anecdotes are all false?

Richard Masters · 13th May 2012, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You were seriously quoting my example of something so ridiculous it wasn't worth taking seriously. Therein lies the problem. I'll grant you that there are no absolutes in morality, but you are stretching the pendantery such an extreme edge case that it is no longer realistic.

It was intended in jest and also seriously. It may have been Romney's justification (except for the "gently" part). It doesn't make it right, but it certainly is consistent with attitudes toward sexuality at the time. It's not even a stretch to think that his father privately congratulated him for a job well done.

Criticizing me for using your own language is ridiculous.

Quote:

You might as well blame Romney's behavior on mind-controlling aliens. It is certainly possible and it doesn't excuse what happened, but it is a ludicrous attemp to minimize how it reflects on Romney.

Um, what's unrealistic about attributing his attitude to contemporary attitudes? And do you really think mind-controlling aliens is remotely on the same level?

Richard Masters · 13th May 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Can you personally imagine overpowering someone who was not only struggling against you but openly crying as you gently held their head still enough to cut their hair?

Yes.

Quote:

I don't see how you can and infer this was gentle suggestion or a prank without making Romney into a walking psychopathic golem.

Arguments from lack of imagination or ignorance are not very impressive.

Quote:

The person was in tears as his hair was being cut from his body for being a homosexual in the 1960s. That alone elevates the psychological magnitude of the event beyond anything you're suggesting.

It may, but without Lauber to tell you whether that's true, you're assuming more than you should.

Quote:

I'm racking my brain here at the moment, feel free to offer an alternative, but the only way I can see this in the possible contexts you're presenting would be if the victim of this violation was just a whiny cry baby who over reacted and screamed and cried over anything and was no genuinely being psychologically and physically assaulted. Is this what you are suggesting?

It's not improbable that the reaction was exaggerated due to a real perception that he was in danger (especially if he didn't know what they were going to do with the scissors), or that there's more to the story. Do we know for sure that Lauber didn't incite the event directly? Not enough information to draw a major conclusion.

Quote:

I understand the desire for rationality and skeptical inquiry, but either this is being presented as a lie, or this was an act intended to shame another human being over something that in that era was serious taboo. If this was not clearly done due to his perceived sexuality, I could possibly see the sense in your skepticism a little more clearly, but are you suggesting this was possibly not actually based on the suspicion of this student being a homosexual and the anecdotes are all false?

It certainly sounds like it was done because of his perceived sexuality, but I'm not confident enough in this to claim conclusively that it was the reason or even the only reason.

Upchurch · 13th May 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

Um, what's unrealistic about attributing his attitude to contemporary attitudes? And do you really think mind-controlling aliens is remotely on the same level?

On the same level as suggesting that Romney's intent was anything other than malevolent? Yes, I really think its about as likely as that.

fuelair · 13th May 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

A lot of people cry and yell for help. The emotional response has little to do with the intent of the perpetrators. Someone once threatened to push me off a balcony. They held me against the rails and I cried and yelled for help. It was a terrible experience, but it's fairly obvious that no physical harm was done. In a case you are dealing with anecdotes. What it "sounded like" is a little too subject to interpretation, and without hard facts it'd be more responsible not to assume too much. In other words how can you claim they were not concerned with his safety?

Did you kill them?

I Ratant · 13th May 2012, 04:09 PM

I doubt there's a bag of clues large enough and simple enough to make it through to comprehension.

fuelair · 13th May 2012, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

To hang out? Or to give them hassle?

To give them all free BJs no doubt!!

fuelair · 13th May 2012, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Can you personally imagine overpowering someone who was not only struggling against you but openly crying as you gently held their head still enough to cut their hair?

I don't see how you can and infer this was gentle suggestion or a prank without making Romney into a walking psychopathic golem. The person was in tears as his hair was being cut from his body for being a homosexual in the 1960s. That alone elevates the psychological magnitude of the event beyond anything you're suggesting.

I'm racking my brain here at the moment, feel free to offer an alternative, but the only way I can see this in the possible contexts you're presenting would be if the victim of this violation was just a whiny cry baby who over reacted and screamed and cried over anything and was no genuinely being psychologically and physically assaulted. Is this what you are suggesting?

I understand the desire for rationality and skeptical inquiry, but either this is being presented as a lie, or this was an act intended to shame another human being over something that in that era was serious taboo. If this was not clearly done due to his perceived sexuality, I could possibly see the sense in your skepticism a little more clearly, but are you suggesting this was possibly not actually based on the suspicion of this student being a homosexual and the anecdotes are all false?

In the 60's it is quite possible they were cutting his hair simply for being a "damn hippie" without concern for gayness (which was not the term of choice in those years anyway) -doesn't matter, no reason for their continued existence.

Regnad Kcin · 13th May 2012, 06:00 PM

One more time:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Physically overpowering a person, with intent to intimidate or harass, assisted in doing so by cohorts: acceptable or unacceptable?

Not immediately ceasing the act when faced with the apparent distress of that person: acceptable or unacceptable?

Forcibly changing that person's physical appearance (even temporarily): acceptable or unacceptable?

Not demonstrating or expressing remorse within a relatively short time period of the incident (say, one-four weeks): acceptable or unacceptable?

Not demonstrating or expressing remorse after a significant time period (say, 10-20 years): acceptable or unacceptable?

Bolding of my words mine.

We can deconstruct and analyze the event and the mores and the setting and whether or not it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius until Election Day. It seems to me beside the point. The incident was bad. Bad.

How is Mr. Romney handling this issue now?

Skeptic Ginger · 13th May 2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

In the 60's it is quite possible they were cutting his hair simply for being a "damn hippie" without concern for gayness (which was not the term of choice in those years anyway) -doesn't matter, no reason for their continued existence.

This has been suggested. Both motives are possibilities. The era suggests long hair, the fact this kid and one other than Romney harassed both came out later as gay suggests feminine behavior.

It's 50:50 and not all that relevant. Romney's current embrace of the right wing anti-gay position reveals his lack of support for civil rights of LGBT individuals, the bullying incident aside.

Skeptic Ginger · 13th May 2012, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

...
How is Mr. Romney handling this issue now?

Like a man who lacks empathy and doesn't get it.

Tsukasa Buddha · 13th May 2012, 08:31 PM

I heard Obama ate a gay kid in Indonesia!

AdMan · 13th May 2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

...
How is Mr. Romney handling this issue now?

Like a man who lacks empathy and doesn't get it.

Hearing him comment on the issue, as he chuckles and laughs about it as if it lacks any importance whatsoever for him, certainly conveys that he doesn't get it at all.

JihadJane · 14th May 2012, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Hearing him comment on the issue, as he chuckles and laughs about it as if it lacks any importance whatsoever for him, certainly conveys that he doesn't get it at all.

Not getting it, of course, is no obstacle to him becoming President. It just proves that he's a man of the people!

pgwenthold · 14th May 2012, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

my understanding is that you think the physical nature of holding someone down and forcibly cutting their hair is being unfairly described as violent.

Apparently, rape is not an act of violence if there are no bruises or bleeding as a result.

Besides, what's so wrong with having a little sex?

Honestly, I am trying to understand how Richard Masters's apologetics do not equally apply (or even moreso) to rape. Is rape a non-violent crime, then? In principle, it does less _physical_ harm than holding a guy down and cutting his hair.

Halfcentaur · 14th May 2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Apparently, rape is not an act of violence if there are no bruises or bleeding as a result.

Besides, what's so wrong with having a little sex?

Honestly, I am trying to understand how Richard Masters's apologetics do not equally apply (or even moreso) to rape. Is rape a non-violent crime, then? In principle, it does less _physical_ harm than holding a guy down and cutting his hair.

As long as you're careful about it, sure. I was thinking the same thing while driving the other night, but it just seemed pointless to even posit when someone is reducing things like violence and assault down to such pedantic minutia.

AdMan · 14th May 2012, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

As long as you're careful about it, sure. I was thinking the same thing while driving the other night, but it just seemed pointless to even posit when someone is reducing things like violence and assault down to such pedantic minutia.

Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine.

It's the intent that matters.

(I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.)

I Ratant · 14th May 2012, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine.

It's the intent that matters.

(I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.)

.
"Assault with a friendly weapon", I heard it said in a western movie.

Molinaro · 14th May 2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Stupid, sure. Offensive, maybe. Cruel, no.

Cutting someone's hair during high school is not cruel? Yes, those are the most understanding years where personal image means nothing.

Richard Masters · 15th May 2012, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Apparently, rape is not an act of violence if there are no bruises or bleeding as a result.

Besides, what's so wrong with having a little sex?

Honestly, I am trying to understand how Richard Masters's apologetics do not equally apply (or even moreso) to rape. Is rape a non-violent crime, then? In principle, it does less _physical_ harm than holding a guy down and cutting his hair.

The negative consequences of rape for the victim are much greater. The victim can spend over six months worried about the criminal transmission of HIV; psychological anxiety over not being able to rid oneself of someone else's bodily fluids; the perception of being thought of differently by family and your spouse and the reality of being thought of differently by family and spouse as a result (a whore, dirty, weakling, spoiled, unclean, etc.); the stress and pain of reliving vivid memories of the attack during future consensual sex; the possibility of carrying a stranger's child in the case of women; the religious and personal pressure of having or not having an abortion; the dissonance of unwanted arousal; having your clothes ripped apart and having your nakedness exposed; pain; self-blame, etc., all more invasive and taxing on the self than a haircut. More so if it's incest. And has even stronger long-lasting effects due to stigmatization by society.

Richard Masters · 15th May 2012, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine.

It's the intent that matters.

(I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.)

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

As long as you're careful about it, sure. I was thinking the same thing while driving the other night, but it just seemed pointless to even posit when someone is reducing things like violence and assault down to such pedantic minutia.

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
"Assault with a friendly weapon", I heard it said in a western movie.

What's with all the straw-men? I'm disappointed in you.

BenBurch · 15th May 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

The negative consequences of rape for the victim are much greater. The victim can spend over six months worried about the criminal transmission of HIV; psychological anxiety over not being able to rid oneself of someone else's bodily fluids; the perception of being thought of differently by family and your spouse and the reality of being thought of differently by family and spouse as a result (a whore, dirty, weakling, spoiled, unclean, etc.); the stress and pain of reliving vivid memories of the attack during future consensual sex; the possibility of carrying a stranger's child in the case of women; the religious and personal pressure of having or not having an abortion; the dissonance of unwanted arousal; having your clothes ripped apart and having your nakedness exposed; pain; self-blame, etc., all more invasive and taxing on the self than a haircut. More so if it's incest. And has even stronger long-lasting effects due to stigmatization by society.

I love the way you like to justify crimes of violence. Reminds me of apologists for Ceaușescu.

mikedenk · 15th May 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I love the way you like to justify crimes of violence. Reminds me of apologists for Ceaușescu.

Reminds me of apologists for Hitler. Or, even worse, apologists for the Koch brothers.

Newtons Bit · 15th May 2012, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

The negative consequences of rape for the victim are much greater. The victim can spend over six months worried about the criminal transmission of HIV; psychological anxiety over not being able to rid oneself of someone else's bodily fluids; the perception of being thought of differently by family and your spouse and the reality of being thought of differently by family and spouse as a result (a whore, dirty, weakling, spoiled, unclean, etc.); the stress and pain of reliving vivid memories of the attack during future consensual sex; the possibility of carrying a stranger's child in the case of women; the religious and personal pressure of having or not having an abortion; the dissonance of unwanted arousal; having your clothes ripped apart and having your nakedness exposed; pain; self-blame, etc., all more invasive and taxing on the self than a haircut. More so if it's incest. And has even stronger long-lasting effects due to stigmatization by society.

It can last a hell of a lot longer than six months.

BenBurch · 15th May 2012, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

It can last a hell of a lot longer than six months.

I knew of a woman who became suicidal after her rape. Tried four times. Finally messed herself up so bad she was physically incapable of trying again. Died in a nursing home in her 40s.

I Ratant · 15th May 2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

What's with all the straw-men? I'm disappointed in you.

.
Why, that's a unanimous opinion.
You're disappointed in us, and we are equally disappointed in you!
Unanimity on JREF!
A first!

Richard Masters · 15th May 2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

It can last a hell of a lot longer than six months.

Yes, it can.

Richard Masters · 15th May 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I love the way you like to justify crimes of violence. Reminds me of apologists for Ceaușescu.

I completely lost you.

BenBurch · 15th May 2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

I completely lost you.

I sure hope so.

The Central Scrutinizer · 15th May 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh it will be a very big story. It already is.

It's such a huge story that it has already disappeared off the front page of the CNN website. Did it even last a week?

Skeptic Ginger · 15th May 2012, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It's such a huge story that it has already disappeared off the front page of the CNN website. Did it even last a week?
..

If your thinking is so limited that you can only see the single event being discussed rather than all the related issues, you only look at a couple mainstream broadcast news stations for the stories, you only look at the "front page" headliners, and you use a very limited time frame, I can see why you have this shortsighted view.

The dog on the car roof story is still coming up decades after it was first outed. The gay marriage and LGBT rights remains in the political spotlight including references to the anti-gay aspects of the bullying incident, the anti-bullying movement in the country which varies from background to forefront now has a Romney narrative to add to the issue, and the Net chatter about the incident has certainly not gone away.

But you go ahead with your right wing apologetics. It's amusing.

bookitty · 15th May 2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Cutting someone's hair during high school is not cruel? Yes, those are the most understanding years where personal image means nothing.

I think maybe the meaning of this got lost in the thread. Someone (cleon?) said something along the lines of stupid, offensive or cruel actions in high school should be excused. I replied with stupid yes, offensive maybe, cruel, no. In other words, cruelty (which includes Romney's attack) should not be excused.

Especially because we have evidence that lack of empathy and cruel acts in childhood is an indication of possible psychosis in the adult.

BenBurch · 15th May 2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It's such a huge story that it has already disappeared off the front page of the CNN website. Did it even last a week?

Oh, I think it's gone underground. I have three group emails now from different people re-telling the story in totally different ways. I suspect they will circulate like the Birther stuff did. Mitt Malfoy isn't ever going to be free of this one.

AvalonXQ · 15th May 2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Mitt Malfoy isn't ever going to be free of this one.

Hmmm. Mitt Malfoy vs. Barry Potter.

Has a ring to it.

eeyore1954 · 15th May 2012, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Hmmm. Mitt Malfoy vs. Barry Potter.

Has a ring to it.

Yes I agree but what about Snape or Dumbledore or Voldemort.

And I can picture Romney as a Malfoy type character in prep school.

Halfcentaur · 16th May 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine.

It's the intent that matters.

(I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.)

Which is basically what it seemed one could argue based on how the idea of assault was being dissected earlier. As long as the rapist meant well and didn't tear anything.

bookitty · 16th May 2012, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

I'm just responding to Travis. He did mention a civil suit.

To me intent does matter.

Only part I agree with highlighted.

You agree that the event was dehumanizing for the victim and yet you don't think it is serious. This goes a long way towards explaining your position and makes it clear that further discussion would be useless. Empathy can rarely be taught.

The Central Scrutinizer · 17th May 2012, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If your thinking is so limited that you can only see the single event being discussed rather than all the related issues, you only look at a couple mainstream broadcast news stations for the stories, you only look at the "front page" headliners, and you use a very limited time frame, I can see why you have this shortsighted view.

The dog on the car roof story is still coming up decades after it was first outed. The gay marriage and LGBT rights remains in the political spotlight including references to the anti-gay aspects of the bullying incident, the anti-bullying movement in the country which varies from background to forefront now has a Romney narrative to add to the issue, and the Net chatter about the incident has certainly not gone away.

But you go ahead with your right wing apologetics. It's amusing.

Here we are, 7 days out from the OP, and I can't find the "story that won't go away" anywhere. I'm puzzled. I've checked CNN, the WSJ and the NY Times websites, and none have the biggest story of the century anywhere on the home page. Surely there must be some sort of mistake? How can a story this important, this big, this huge, this absolutely ginormous, the "Story of the Century" (if you don't mind me saying), not be covered by the leading news organizations? Maybe I need to check "news" sites like Daily Koz and Media Matters?

I'd also like some updates on the 40 year old dog on the roof story.

13th May 2012, 02:05 PM	#763
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Originally Posted by Richard Masters No, I am not kidding. Was the intent a prank, or as you said, to gently guide a fellow student in the appropriate appearance for someone of his gender, or was he trying to cause physical pain? Was he trying to inflict long-lasting emotional trauma? Was he completely unaware of the consequences of his actions? The intent doesn't excuse what happened or lessen the severity of the outcome, but it is, again, part of how I measure morality. Can you personally imagine overpowering someone who was not only struggling against you but openly crying as you gently held their head still enough to cut their hair? I don't see how you can and infer this was gentle suggestion or a prank without making Romney into a walking psychopathic golem. The person was in tears as his hair was being cut from his body for being a homosexual in the 1960s. That alone elevates the psychological magnitude of the event beyond anything you're suggesting. I'm racking my brain here at the moment, feel free to offer an alternative, but the only way I can see this in the possible contexts you're presenting would be if the victim of this violation was just a whiny cry baby who over reacted and screamed and cried over anything and was no genuinely being psychologically and physically assaulted. Is this what you are suggesting? I understand the desire for rationality and skeptical inquiry, but either this is being presented as a lie, or this was an act intended to shame another human being over something that in that era was serious taboo. If this was not clearly done due to his perceived sexuality, I could possibly see the sense in your skepticism a little more clearly, but are you suggesting this was possibly not actually based on the suspicion of this student being a homosexual and the anecdotes are all false?
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

13th May 2012, 04:08 PM	#767
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Richard Masters A lot of people cry and yell for help. The emotional response has little to do with the intent of the perpetrators. Someone once threatened to push me off a balcony. They held me against the rails and I cried and yelled for help. It was a terrible experience, but it's fairly obvious that no physical harm was done. In a case you are dealing with anecdotes. What it "sounded like" is a little too subject to interpretation, and without hard facts it'd be more responsible not to assume too much. In other words how can you claim they were not concerned with his safety? Did you kill them?
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

13th May 2012, 04:21 PM	#769
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by BenBurch To hang out? Or to give them hassle? To give them all free BJs no doubt!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

13th May 2012, 04:26 PM	#770
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur Can you personally imagine overpowering someone who was not only struggling against you but openly crying as you gently held their head still enough to cut their hair? I don't see how you can and infer this was gentle suggestion or a prank without making Romney into a walking psychopathic golem. The person was in tears as his hair was being cut from his body for being a homosexual in the 1960s. That alone elevates the psychological magnitude of the event beyond anything you're suggesting. I'm racking my brain here at the moment, feel free to offer an alternative, but the only way I can see this in the possible contexts you're presenting would be if the victim of this violation was just a whiny cry baby who over reacted and screamed and cried over anything and was no genuinely being psychologically and physically assaulted. Is this what you are suggesting? I understand the desire for rationality and skeptical inquiry, but either this is being presented as a lie, or this was an act intended to shame another human being over something that in that era was serious taboo. If this was not clearly done due to his perceived sexuality, I could possibly see the sense in your skepticism a little more clearly, but are you suggesting this was possibly not actually based on the suspicion of this student being a homosexual and the anecdotes are all false? In the 60's it is quite possible they were cutting his hair simply for being a "damn hippie" without concern for gayness (which was not the term of choice in those years anyway) -doesn't matter, no reason for their continued existence.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

13th May 2012, 06:00 PM	#771
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,219	One more time: Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin Physically overpowering a person, with intent to intimidate or harass, assisted in doing so by cohorts: acceptable or unacceptable? Not immediately ceasing the act when faced with the apparent distress of that person: acceptable or unacceptable? Forcibly changing that person's physical appearance (even temporarily): acceptable or unacceptable? Not demonstrating or expressing remorse within a relatively short time period of the incident (say, one-four weeks): acceptable or unacceptable? Not demonstrating or expressing remorse after a significant time period (say, 10-20 years): acceptable or unacceptable? Bolding of my words mine. We can deconstruct and analyze the event and the mores and the setting and whether or not it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius until Election Day. It seems to me beside the point. The incident was bad. Bad. How is Mr. Romney handling this issue now?
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 13th May 2012 at 06:01 PM.

13th May 2012, 01:31 PM	#761
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that there are enough suicides that result from bullying to conclude we ought to take it very seriously. I hope you will watch the move. The trailer can be found here. I'll take a look. Thanks for the links.

13th May 2012, 02:04 PM	#762
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by Richard Masters I'm quoting someone else. You were seriously quoting my example of something so ridiculous it wasn't worth taking seriously. Therein lies the problem. I'll grant you that there are no absolutes in morality, but you are stretching the pendantery such an extreme edge case that it is no longer realistic. You might as well blame Romney's behavior on mind-controlling aliens. It is certainly possible and it doesn't excuse what happened, but it is a ludicrous attemp to minimize how it reflects on Romney.

13th May 2012, 03:10 PM	#764
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by Upchurch You were seriously quoting my example of something so ridiculous it wasn't worth taking seriously. Therein lies the problem. I'll grant you that there are no absolutes in morality, but you are stretching the pendantery such an extreme edge case that it is no longer realistic. It was intended in jest and also seriously. It may have been Romney's justification (except for the "gently" part). It doesn't make it right, but it certainly is consistent with attitudes toward sexuality at the time. It's not even a stretch to think that his father privately congratulated him for a job well done. Criticizing me for using your own language is ridiculous. Quote: You might as well blame Romney's behavior on mind-controlling aliens. It is certainly possible and it doesn't excuse what happened, but it is a ludicrous attemp to minimize how it reflects on Romney. Um, what's unrealistic about attributing his attitude to contemporary attitudes? And do you really think mind-controlling aliens is remotely on the same level?

13th May 2012, 03:21 PM	#765
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur Can you personally imagine overpowering someone who was not only struggling against you but openly crying as you gently held their head still enough to cut their hair? Yes. Quote: I don't see how you can and infer this was gentle suggestion or a prank without making Romney into a walking psychopathic golem. Arguments from lack of imagination or ignorance are not very impressive. Quote: The person was in tears as his hair was being cut from his body for being a homosexual in the 1960s. That alone elevates the psychological magnitude of the event beyond anything you're suggesting. It may, but without Lauber to tell you whether that's true, you're assuming more than you should. Quote: I'm racking my brain here at the moment, feel free to offer an alternative, but the only way I can see this in the possible contexts you're presenting would be if the victim of this violation was just a whiny cry baby who over reacted and screamed and cried over anything and was no genuinely being psychologically and physically assaulted. Is this what you are suggesting? It's not improbable that the reaction was exaggerated due to a real perception that he was in danger (especially if he didn't know what they were going to do with the scissors), or that there's more to the story. Do we know for sure that Lauber didn't incite the event directly? Not enough information to draw a major conclusion. Quote: I understand the desire for rationality and skeptical inquiry, but either this is being presented as a lie, or this was an act intended to shame another human being over something that in that era was serious taboo. If this was not clearly done due to his perceived sexuality, I could possibly see the sense in your skepticism a little more clearly, but are you suggesting this was possibly not actually based on the suspicion of this student being a homosexual and the anecdotes are all false? It certainly sounds like it was done because of his perceived sexuality, but I'm not confident enough in this to claim conclusively that it was the reason or even the only reason.

13th May 2012, 04:01 PM	#766
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by Richard Masters Um, what's unrealistic about attributing his attitude to contemporary attitudes? And do you really think mind-controlling aliens is remotely on the same level? On the same level as suggesting that Romney's intent was anything other than malevolent? Yes, I really think its about as likely as that.

13th May 2012, 04:09 PM	#768
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I doubt there's a bag of clues large enough and simple enough to make it through to comprehension.

13th May 2012, 06:39 PM	#772
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,609	Originally Posted by fuelair In the 60's it is quite possible they were cutting his hair simply for being a "damn hippie" without concern for gayness (which was not the term of choice in those years anyway) -doesn't matter, no reason for their continued existence. This has been suggested. Both motives are possibilities. The era suggests long hair, the fact this kid and one other than Romney harassed both came out later as gay suggests feminine behavior. It's 50:50 and not all that relevant. Romney's current embrace of the right wing anti-gay position reveals his lack of support for civil rights of LGBT individuals, the bullying incident aside.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

13th May 2012, 06:40 PM	#773
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,609	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin ... How is Mr. Romney handling this issue now? Like a man who lacks empathy and doesn't get it.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

13th May 2012, 08:31 PM	#774
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,920	I heard Obama ate a gay kid in Indonesia!
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

13th May 2012, 08:57 PM	#775
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,201	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin ... How is Mr. Romney handling this issue now? Like a man who lacks empathy and doesn't get it. Hearing him comment on the issue, as he chuckles and laughs about it as if it lacks any importance whatsoever for him, certainly conveys that he doesn't get it at all.
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,201	Last edited by AdMan; 13th May 2012 at 08:59 PM.

14th May 2012, 02:49 AM	#776
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,744	Originally Posted by AdMan Hearing him comment on the issue, as he chuckles and laughs about it as if it lacks any importance whatsoever for him, certainly conveys that he doesn't get it at all. Not getting it, of course, is no obstacle to him becoming President. It just proves that he's a man of the people!
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

14th May 2012, 08:47 AM	#777
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,073	Originally Posted by Upchurch my understanding is that you think the physical nature of holding someone down and forcibly cutting their hair is being unfairly described as violent. Apparently, rape is not an act of violence if there are no bruises or bleeding as a result. Besides, what's so wrong with having a little sex? Honestly, I am trying to understand how Richard Masters's apologetics do not equally apply (or even moreso) to rape. Is rape a non-violent crime, then? In principle, it does less _physical_ harm than holding a guy down and cutting his hair.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

14th May 2012, 05:04 PM	#778
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Apparently, rape is not an act of violence if there are no bruises or bleeding as a result. Besides, what's so wrong with having a little sex? Honestly, I am trying to understand how Richard Masters's apologetics do not equally apply (or even moreso) to rape. Is rape a non-violent crime, then? In principle, it does less _physical_ harm than holding a guy down and cutting his hair. As long as you're careful about it, sure. I was thinking the same thing while driving the other night, but it just seemed pointless to even posit when someone is reducing things like violence and assault down to such pedantic minutia.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

14th May 2012, 05:39 PM	#779
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,201	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur As long as you're careful about it, sure. I was thinking the same thing while driving the other night, but it just seemed pointless to even posit when someone is reducing things like violence and assault down to such pedantic minutia. Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine. It's the intent that matters. (I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.)
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,201	Last edited by AdMan; 14th May 2012 at 05:41 PM.

14th May 2012, 06:29 PM	#780
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by AdMan Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine. It's the intent that matters. (I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.) . "Assault with a friendly weapon", I heard it said in a western movie.

14th May 2012, 07:23 PM	#781
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by bookitty Stupid, sure. Offensive, maybe. Cruel, no. Cutting someone's hair during high school is not cruel? Yes, those are the most understanding years where personal image means nothing.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

15th May 2012, 02:53 AM	#782
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Apparently, rape is not an act of violence if there are no bruises or bleeding as a result. Besides, what's so wrong with having a little sex? Honestly, I am trying to understand how Richard Masters's apologetics do not equally apply (or even moreso) to rape. Is rape a non-violent crime, then? In principle, it does less _physical_ harm than holding a guy down and cutting his hair. The negative consequences of rape for the victim are much greater. The victim can spend over six months worried about the criminal transmission of HIV; psychological anxiety over not being able to rid oneself of someone else's bodily fluids; the perception of being thought of differently by family and your spouse and the reality of being thought of differently by family and spouse as a result (a whore, dirty, weakling, spoiled, unclean, etc.); the stress and pain of reliving vivid memories of the attack during future consensual sex; the possibility of carrying a stranger's child in the case of women; the religious and personal pressure of having or not having an abortion; the dissonance of unwanted arousal; having your clothes ripped apart and having your nakedness exposed; pain; self-blame, etc., all more invasive and taxing on the self than a haircut. More so if it's incest. And has even stronger long-lasting effects due to stigmatization by society.

15th May 2012, 02:58 AM	#783
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by AdMan Hey, if the rapist doesn't mean to do any harm, then it's fine. It's the intent that matters. (I have to apologize--I'm trying to cut down on my sarcasm. Hard to do in this case.) Originally Posted by Halfcentaur As long as you're careful about it, sure. I was thinking the same thing while driving the other night, but it just seemed pointless to even posit when someone is reducing things like violence and assault down to such pedantic minutia. Originally Posted by I Ratant . "Assault with a friendly weapon", I heard it said in a western movie. What's with all the straw-men? I'm disappointed in you.

15th May 2012, 04:17 AM	#784
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,203	Originally Posted by Richard Masters The negative consequences of rape for the victim are much greater. The victim can spend over six months worried about the criminal transmission of HIV; psychological anxiety over not being able to rid oneself of someone else's bodily fluids; the perception of being thought of differently by family and your spouse and the reality of being thought of differently by family and spouse as a result (a whore, dirty, weakling, spoiled, unclean, etc.); the stress and pain of reliving vivid memories of the attack during future consensual sex; the possibility of carrying a stranger's child in the case of women; the religious and personal pressure of having or not having an abortion; the dissonance of unwanted arousal; having your clothes ripped apart and having your nakedness exposed; pain; self-blame, etc., all more invasive and taxing on the self than a haircut. More so if it's incest. And has even stronger long-lasting effects due to stigmatization by society. I love the way you like to justify crimes of violence. Reminds me of apologists for Ceaușescu.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th May 2012, 04:47 AM	#785
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 793	Originally Posted by BenBurch I love the way you like to justify crimes of violence. Reminds me of apologists for Ceaușescu. Reminds me of apologists for Hitler. Or, even worse, apologists for the Koch brothers.

15th May 2012, 05:28 AM	#786
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,904	Originally Posted by Richard Masters The negative consequences of rape for the victim are much greater. The victim can spend over six months worried about the criminal transmission of HIV; psychological anxiety over not being able to rid oneself of someone else's bodily fluids; the perception of being thought of differently by family and your spouse and the reality of being thought of differently by family and spouse as a result (a whore, dirty, weakling, spoiled, unclean, etc.); the stress and pain of reliving vivid memories of the attack during future consensual sex; the possibility of carrying a stranger's child in the case of women; the religious and personal pressure of having or not having an abortion; the dissonance of unwanted arousal; having your clothes ripped apart and having your nakedness exposed; pain; self-blame, etc., all more invasive and taxing on the self than a haircut. More so if it's incest. And has even stronger long-lasting effects due to stigmatization by society. It can last a hell of a lot longer than six months.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,904	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th May 2012, 05:34 AM	#787
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,203	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit It can last a hell of a lot longer than six months. I knew of a woman who became suicidal after her rape. Tried four times. Finally messed herself up so bad she was physically incapable of trying again. Died in a nursing home in her 40s.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th May 2012, 09:06 AM	#788
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Richard Masters What's with all the straw-men? I'm disappointed in you. . Why, that's a unanimous opinion. You're disappointed in us, and we are equally disappointed in you! Unanimity on JREF! A first!

15th May 2012, 09:06 AM	#789
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit It can last a hell of a lot longer than six months. Yes, it can.

15th May 2012, 09:07 AM	#790
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by BenBurch I love the way you like to justify crimes of violence. Reminds me of apologists for Ceaușescu. I completely lost you.

15th May 2012, 09:44 AM	#791
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,203	Originally Posted by Richard Masters I completely lost you. I sure hope so.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th May 2012, 10:01 AM	#792
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Oh it will be a very big story. It already is. It's such a huge story that it has already disappeared off the front page of the CNN website. Did it even last a week?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

15th May 2012, 10:43 AM	#793
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,609	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer It's such a huge story that it has already disappeared off the front page of the CNN website. Did it even last a week? .. If your thinking is so limited that you can only see the single event being discussed rather than all the related issues, you only look at a couple mainstream broadcast news stations for the stories, you only look at the "front page" headliners, and you use a very limited time frame, I can see why you have this shortsighted view. The dog on the car roof story is still coming up decades after it was first outed. The gay marriage and LGBT rights remains in the political spotlight including references to the anti-gay aspects of the bullying incident, the anti-bullying movement in the country which varies from background to forefront now has a Romney narrative to add to the issue, and the Net chatter about the incident has certainly not gone away. But you go ahead with your right wing apologetics. It's amusing.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

15th May 2012, 11:46 AM	#794
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by Molinaro Cutting someone's hair during high school is not cruel? Yes, those are the most understanding years where personal image means nothing. I think maybe the meaning of this got lost in the thread. Someone (cleon?) said something along the lines of stupid, offensive or cruel actions in high school should be excused. I replied with stupid yes, offensive maybe, cruel, no. In other words, cruelty (which includes Romney's attack) should not be excused. Especially because we have evidence that lack of empathy and cruel acts in childhood is an indication of possible psychosis in the adult.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

15th May 2012, 11:49 AM	#795
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,203	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer It's such a huge story that it has already disappeared off the front page of the CNN website. Did it even last a week? Oh, I think it's gone underground. I have three group emails now from different people re-telling the story in totally different ways. I suspect they will circulate like the Birther stuff did. Mitt Malfoy isn't ever going to be free of this one.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!