Link to a comment that makes that claim. You can only find a link to ACs?

Lovely - Now I am responsible for the meanderings of random ACs in a separate thread? No one, in this thread, "implied that they deserved it". Actually, from a brief squizz through the comments I seem unable to find someone making that claim that the victims "deserved" it, other than ACs.

So much for your "factually inaccurate" claim...

I'd like to see you tell a sexual assault survivor that her ordeal was as bad as someone looking at her naked photos.

Then reply to them not to me - I haven't made that claim nor have I implied it. Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?

Society "drives" more men to suicide than women. Much much more. No claiming of "mostly women" is going to change that, and no amount of posturing is going to make it okay.

this wasn't to me, yet you respond as if it was. Once again, before you go around accusing people of incompetence you might consider a remedial English class.

Too hard for you, though. My point still stands - parity as a goal is stupid, hence the qualifiers.

Firstly, you shouldn't go around accusing people of incompetence when you can't even read the thread properly - I didn't reply to this message yet.

Secondly, as a matter of fact the slightly deranged group of people who keep posting stories about the *numbers* of women in certain jobs/games/industries are, in actual fact, asking for the *numbers* themselves to reflect parity. It's not my damn argument that men and women must be equally represented in $FOO.

It's illogical, irrational and inconsistent to say "parity must be achieved in $FOO, but only when $FOO is one of $BAR, $BAZ and $BAM, but not if $FOO is $CAR, $CAZ or $CAM". You can either choose a consistent viewpoint or (as many here currently do) constantly experience cognitive dissonance.

No one implied that they deserved it; that's just how *you* choose to read it, which says more about you than it does about me.

What was your point? That parity between males and females is not a good thing?

I don't have to - the logic that there must be parity between males and females is currently fully accepted as is with no explanation. The whole "there must be parity" logic is not even mine, I'm just quoting feminists here. Take it up with them not with me.

Well, male suicides vastly outnumber female suicides, so until there is parity it's pointless to talk about how females suicides are a problem.

More males kill themselves than females. Why not blame society for that too?

No, it cannot.

The trouble is that you're classifying both the Philosophy majors (expert critical thinkers, usually better trained logicians than engineers are) with Gender Studies majors (who are indistinguishable from creationists) under "Liberal Arts", while you are conveniently leaving out the fact that engineers tend to be 4 times more likely than other professions to kill in advance of their belief in an invisible sky friend

I'd take that bet you offer and pit philosophy(formal logic) majors against your A+ or MCSE "engineers". I'd make good money off of you before you wised up.

The same goes for the actual sport actually - just because you don't like $SUBJECTIVE_THING does not mean that it is unreasonable for others to like $SUBJECTIVE_THING. Of course, $SUBJECTIVE_THING in this case is "noises made by powerful combustion engines", but it raises the question of why you see no reason for people to get enjoyment from "noises made by combustion engines" but you seem to see the reason for "watching cars go around a lap for an hour". After all, they're both equally without reason and yet you only question one of them?