Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 1) 885

by Attila Dimedici (#47516057) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

it *is* illegal to have sex with someone who is visibly intoxicated to the point that they cannot make a reasonable decision.

What happens when BOTH people involved are visibly intoxicated to the point that they cannot make a reasonable decision? In that situation, who raped whom? That is the problem with counting it as rape when a woman went to a college party, had too much to drink and had sex with a guy she met at the party. Chances are good that the guy had too much to drink as well. So, when doing statistics on rape, if the woman feels that she was not raped in that situation one might want to accept her opinion unless you have more information than just that she was too drunk to legally consent. Perhaps, the woman was the sexual aggressor and convinced the (drunk) man to have sex? Perhaps the woman went to the party intending to have sex with the man she ended up having sex with? There are many reasons why a woman would not consider sex in that situation to be rape. Is it not sexist to assume that she does not know whether or not it was rape? Especially when we assume that the man, who was also drunk, was not raped because he wanted to have sex.
PLEASE NOTE: This is not a defense of any man who uses alcohol (or any other substance which reduces the ability to make rational decisions) to engage in sex with a woman who would otherwise turn him down.

Comment: Re:From a list of Fallacious Arguments .. (Score 2) 368

by Attila Dimedici (#47440225) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System
I am so glad you brought that up because I was reading a post elsewhere earlier today when I realized a problem with many of the people who cry "ad hominem fallacy" in arguments. The poster you responded to pointed out that the article does not contain any actual data, just the opinion of "expert(s)". When considering arguments made by someone who does not provide any actual data, it is entirely relevant to consider the credibility of the person who is making the argument. If that person, or organization, has been known to distort facts in order to support their position, it throws into doubt the validity of the claim they are currently making.

Comment: Re: How about (Score 1) 385

Well, yes, Obama could have fired Eric Holder, but despite not doing so, he got re-elected. If he was the head of a corporation and did something similar, I could choose to not do business with the corporation. I cannot choose to not do business with the U.S. government without moving out of the country, and even then I might still have to do business with it.

Comment: Re: How about (Score 1) 385

It is amazing how many people seem to have forgotten what this thread is about. It is about whether it is better to have powerful corporations which I can chose not to do business with or a government which can theoretically be voted out of office. So, let's ask this another way. Which is easier? Not doing business with Comcast if I decide that their terms of service, price, and invasion of my privacy are not worth it in order to have access to the Internet? Or voting the government out of office in such a way as to actually change the DHS which I don't like for more or less the same reasons?
People seem to forget that if I am willing to do without the products or services a particular company provides, I can easily not do business with them. On the other hand, it is very hard to actually vote a change in the government (possible, but very hard).

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater