Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Stained frontman stops show after girl getting assaulted in crowd [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)65. Scare quotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Way the first:
That 'honor' is at stake at all. Sexual abuse goes quite beyond such considerations as a criminal and moral matter. It's an irrelevance.
Way the second:
That sexual abuse holds any connotation whatsoever to a victim. That honor might be damaged by an attack implies some shared guilt to the victim.
"Honour (also honor in American English; from the Latin word honor) is an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body such as a family, school, regiment or nation. Accordingly, individuals (or corporate bodies) are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions with a specific code of honour, and the moral code of the society at large."
Way the third:
That opposing sexual abuse when one observes it, has anything at all to do with some sort of chivalrous gallantry, as opposed to just basic human decency.
The whole thing was noxious to read. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, just trying to convey how it was perceived. I note your post has garnered considerable negative attention too, so that's worth considering when weighing if you feel my objection has merit.
Way the first:
That 'honor' is at stake at all. Sexual abuse goes quite beyond such considerations as a criminal and moral matter. It's an irrelevance.
Way the second:
That sexual abuse holds any connotation whatsoever to a victim. That honor might be damaged by an attack implies some shared guilt to the victim.
"Honour (also honor in American English; from the Latin word honor) is an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body such as a family, school, regiment or nation. Accordingly, individuals (or corporate bodies) are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions with a specific code of honour, and the moral code of the society at large."
Way the third:
That opposing sexual abuse when one observes it, has anything at all to do with some sort of chivalrous gallantry, as opposed to just basic human decency.
The whole thing was noxious to read. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, just trying to convey how it was perceived. I note your post has garnered considerable negative attention too, so that's worth considering when weighing if you feel my objection has merit.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I've read that he's a Republican, and that the Teabaggers claim him as a favorite,
Heidi
Jun 2014
#18
Yep. that's why defenses of women often are phrased in terms of "someone's Mother,
BlancheSplanchnik
Jun 2014
#39
Indeed. No DUer should link to the Blaze on this site when tbe story is on other sites.
SunSeeker
Jun 2014
#16
WOW. Hard to make any comment on D.U. anymore w/o offending someone or having it
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#49
No, that definition was not my intention. If my post was read all the way through,
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#69
NOW, the three types of bullshit? I still don't understand why my quotes would imply "scary"
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#70
I replied to you an HOUR before you posted this question in the wrong place. #65
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2014
#75
PLEASE GO BACK AND READ VERY CAREFULLY. Where do I imply that I am offended by the language
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#50
For want of a better word (body? or person? or ???). And what doesn't sexual assault
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#52
No, no, no...you miss my point. "Vulgar" language IS a verbal assault. Even if you or
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#71
Did you READ and THINK about the whole post and make your judgement when finished?
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#72
You should probably not pre-judge how someone else should or should not have judged your post.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2014
#74
Even mentioning Mr. Lewis's choice of language in this context strikes me as absurd, or worse.
nomorenomore08
Jun 2014
#84
You sound as if you "got" my comment in spirit in which it was intended. I hope...
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#64