And they will know we are Christians by our...

[Dave]

1. I never said that everyone that disagrees with me is a fundy.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. A start without a personal attack.

 

A fundy, in this case, is a person that takes the Bible literally, and behaves thus.

Since I do not believe one word of the bible, I cannot be considered a fundy.

 

You did this: when you cut and pasted only one part of my initial response to you, ignoring the rest.....

 

Like I said earlier, I stop reading at the first insult. Why do you think I would even be interested in reading further just to get further insulted? My first post in this tread insulted no one so why did I get a shower of insults in return? I really, sincerely, do not understand.

 

But in any case, you're not a fundy because you supposedly disagree with me. You were merely BEHAVING LIKE ONE, and still are, by taking my words out of context. Context is an important tool in the human language. I'm sure you know that.

 

From where I sit you are the one acting like a fundy. You attacked me for not going along with the group. I thought this was a discussion forum, not an agreement forum.

 

2. I'm not exactly sure where you said you disagree with me. Nor am I exactly sure where I said that I disagree with you. I agree with you that if you go out of your way to garner negative attention, you should not be surprised when you garner negative attention.

That's all I was saying! Which is why I cannot understand the attacks I got for saying it?

 

3. But I'm not sure where anyone was surprised that these people (Top Gear) garnered negative attention. Could you point that out for me, Dave?

 

There were several people that expressed shock at the events that happened on the video.

 

4. No, Dave, when I said I often wonder if you blame victims, it was not meant as an insult.....

That could only be taken as in insult since it was a strawman argument that was way out of proportion to anything I said. In this case, AND THIS CASE ONLY, those guys were not victims but instigators. Like I said, go into a lions den and poke them with a stick and you're going to get bit. They knew those yokels were going to get upset and that was their goal.

 

As for women and suggestive clothing - a woman can dress any way she wants, or just be standing there naked, and no one has any right to force sex on her. That you made up a strawman argument that said otherwise, was the insulting part.

 

5. Related to the above, you are not a mind reader. And like a fundy, you are claiming to understand the full motivation and intention of something I said when, in fact, you do not.....

 

That seems to be where I see you acting like a fundy. You attributed far more to what I said than what was there. And there's a bit of hypocrisy there too, it's alright for you to add and take out of context what I said, but it's not alright for me to do the same.

 

6. The previous post is the first time in this entire thread, that I have noticed, that you actually called the "rockthrowers" out on their faulty behavior.......

Sorry, I have this problem with not stating the obvious. I fully expected people to realize that the hicks were wrong too.

 

7. when you act like a victim blamer and a fundy.....

 

At no time did I blame any "victim". Only though your strawman. In this story there were no victims. Is that guy poking a lion with a stick a victim of a lion attack? No, I'm not automatically blaming anyone that could ever be construed as a victim. Just in this case, and in this case only, both sides were wrong.

 

So, it seems to me that you were acting like a fundy in making up an argument and believing it was real.

 

But most important - you don't have to agree with me. If you don't like my opinion, then you have every right to disagree with me and disagree with me in public. Just do it without the strawmen and insults please. If you don't understand something I said, then ask me to clarify and I'll gladly try to rephrase it or expand on it. I swear, I'm not the troll that many want to make me out to be. I'm just a plain old guy that sometimes doesn't get his point across all that great.

[Ramen666]

Dave, I personally think the rape question was a valid one not an insult at all. But you are indeed cutting and pasting the argument and not responding. The rape question gives a good point if a girl has revealing clothes is it right for her to get raped and does she deserve it? This applies with the overall situation in the video. Just because they had opinions does it mean the people should act in violence. This doesn't have to even be a religous argument but a moral issue. Such as the abortion clinic is it fair for them to get bombed/ killed for what there job is?

 

I am not trying to insult you and not even the book of Dave thing was a joke. But lets get on the cutting floor on this issue because you are not talking about the people who actually did violence.

[Dave]

Dave, I personally think the rape question was a valid one not an insult at all. But you are indeed cutting and pasting the argument and not responding.

 

I did not cut and paste anything. I stopped reading at the first insult. Why should I have read further? Do you actually believe I like being insulted? I cannot help but believe it was intended as an insult since throwing rocks at someone is way out of proportion to a rape which is a violent physical assault meant to terrorize and demean a woman.

 

The rape question gives a good point if a girl has revealing clothes is it right for her to get raped and does she deserve it?

Never, ever, at any point in my life have I EVER thought a woman wearing revealing clothes deserves to get raped. it's insulting for someone to even insinuate that I ever have.

 

This applies with the overall situation in the video. Just because they had opinions does it mean the people should act in violence. This doesn't have to even be a religous argument but a moral issue. Such as the abortion clinic is it fair for them to get bombed/ killed for what there job is?

 

That's all find and dandy, but, as I have said, if you poke a lion with a stick, you're going to get bit. That's what these guys were doing - intentionally antagonizing some brain dead yokels to elicit a violent response. How can one be a victim if their goal was to be attacked?

 

What made it worse is that they did it through Atheism. For a whole group of, admittedly moronic, people they just lent credence to all of the prejudices those people already had against Atheists.

 

I am not trying to insult you and not even the book of Dave thing was a joke. But lets get on the cutting floor on this issue because you are not talking about the people who actually did violence.

 

Yes, I am. I just thought everyone understood it was obvious the punks at the gas station were acting like the typical yokels they were. Which is the response the guys on the tape wanted. Did I expect too much?

[Ramen666]

I feel like Dave just let out his anger at me. I saw the rape question as just a question varyfing your logical reasoning. Nothing is wrong with that I do that all the time. What he was doing was basically saying is then, he knows your logic you used. Is that ok...then he just gave an example of the same logic and you took it offensive.

 

NOTE- When I say cut and paste I meant cherry pick the response and you took it totally in the wrong direction.

 

I honestly don't see any insult there.

[mwc]

I feel like Dave just let out his anger at me. I saw the rape question as just a question varyfing your logical reasoning. Nothing is wrong with that I do that all the time. What he was doing was basically saying is then, he knows your logic you used. Is that ok...then he just gave an example of the same logic and you took it offensive.

 

NOTE- When I say cut and paste I meant cherry pick the response and you took it totally in the wrong direction.

 

I honestly don't see any insult there.

Dave likes to misrepresent things that are said so that he can look like the poor victim and we're all attacking him. Dave likes to dish it but he cannot take it in the slightest. He's the child that puts their finger next to you and chants "Not touching you" for hours and cries when his hand is finally slapped away.

 

He will likely look at this post and call it an "attack." He might even make a snide remark if he goes beyond his usual "I stopped reading at the first insult..." ploy. If he truly does stop reading it allows him to remain ignorant as to the WHY people might be upset with him and since he alone interprets what is considered an insult he can stop reading at any point he chooses.

 

In other words, Dave sees what Dave wants to see. He's a coward that won't stick around to defend his actions or words. Dave is a rather pathetic excuse for a man.

 

You, on the other hand, Ramen, like so many others that ended up on the wrong end of Dave did nothing wrong. The can be said of Trancelation just before you in this very thread. The difference between your posts and this one is Dave knows that he's crawled up my ass and I'm none too happy about it. Your posts were innocent and mine has an intent.

 

mwc

[Dave]

I feel like Dave just let out his anger at me. I saw the rape question as just a question varyfing your logical reasoning.

 

It was not MY logical reasoning, but a strawman argument designed to dismiss whatever I had to say.

 

And a little background on what you or others perceived as anger; I've had two friends raped. The emotional scars that have lasted decades are far worse than having a few rocks thrown at them. Equating rape with what those hicks did was, in my view, belittling rape.

 

NOTE- When I say cut and paste I meant cherry pick the response and you took it totally in the wrong direction.

 

I honestly don't see any insult there.

 

Like I said, I just read to the first insult. I took it as a direct assault since the claim was no where near anything I had said. I blamed no victims since these guys were not victims in that they actually achieved their goal. And was I wrong? If I had read more of that post would I have come across more ad hominem attacks?

[Trancelation]

Greetings, Dave. I hope you find the weather in your area of work and residence to be enjoyable.

 

There. Absolutely nothing about that that can misconstrued as an insult. Although you've already taken two things I've said out of context, twisted the words around, and then completely ignored my explanations of them. So who knows?

 

As for not responding after the first insult . . . you have responded to more than one insult on this thread. That tells me that, no, you DON'T stop reading after the "first insult," but that you intentionally cut and paste what I said to suit your needs.

 

But we've already gone there. So let's see what you take out of context THIS time:

 

Since I do not believe one word of the bible, I cannot be considered a fundy.

 

Of course not. But you can damn sure act like one.

 

From where I sit you are the one acting like a fundy. You attacked me for not going along with the group. I thought this was a discussion forum, not an agreement forum.

 

You just don't quit, do you? Do you agree that fundies make accusations without backing up their accusation? If you don't, then you haven't had much experience with fundies, nor will you understand that once again, you are behaving like a fundy by doing thus. See? It's easy to make an accusation and back it up, if it has merit.

 

If this is indeed a discussion forum, anyone can damn well attack you for not going along with the group if they please. That does not make it an "agreement" forum. In any case, nobody attacked you for not going along with the group. People "attacked" you, and I use that term very, very, VERY loosely, because it appeared that you were blaming the victims.

 

That's all I was saying! Which is why I cannot understand the attacks I got for saying it?

 

Bingo. You never pointed out that the other people were in the wrong, too. That's called blaming the victim, Dave.

 

That could only be taken as in insult since it was a strawman argument that was way out of proportion to anything I said. In this case, AND THIS CASE ONLY, those guys were not victims but instigators. Like I said, go into a lions den and poke them with a stick and you're going to get bit. They knew those yokels were going to get upset and that was their goal.

 

As for women and suggestive clothing - a woman can dress any way she wants, or just be standing there naked, and no one has any right to force sex on her. That you made up a strawman argument that said otherwise, was the insulting part.

 

Time for numbers again, kids!

 

1. The only one making any scarecrows here is you, Dave, since I never made an argument for or against you blaming rape victims. The only thing I did in that regard was tell you my honest feelings. You, apparently, have not gotten the fuck over it yet. So what?

 

2. Once again, you are insinuating that you blame the victim. regardless of whether a person instigates an act of violence, that does not make that act of violence right. Most mommies teach that at a very early age. Did yours, or was she run over by a drunk driver like your father?

 

3. I find it funny that now, after pointing out that you're behaving like a fundy by only responding to CERTAIN parts of a post, that you're actually responding to everything I post. Wery pert, indeed.

 

4. Here are some definitions for victim: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Avictim when you consider this, the fact thast you have only ONCE said that the attackers were wrong, means you are blaming the victims in this particular case.

 

5. So you don't blame rape victims. Good. You shouldn't. But you're still blaming THESE victims

 

I'll have more tomorrow.

[mwc]

... Most mommies teach that at a very early age. Did yours, or was she run over by a drunk driver like your father?

 

mwc

[godlessgrrl]

I just posted something there.

 

This is my post.

[Dave]

Greetings, Dave. I hope you find the weather in your area of work and residence to be enjoyable.

 

It's snowing.

 

big skip.

 

5. So you don't blame rape victims. Good. You shouldn't. But you're still blaming THESE victims

 

They were not victims.

[Japedo]

5. So you don't blame rape victims. Good. You shouldn't. But you're still blaming THESE victims

 

They were not victims.

 

They were victims of assault and vandalism Dave, did you not watch the video? Do you not consider having rocks thrown at you and your property a crime?

[HuaiDan]

How can they be victims if getting attacked was their goal? They stated quite clearly it was the goal of the task to get their buddy killed. Several times this was stated.

 

If I walk outside, knowingly wearing a sign that says 'kick me', and someone kicks me, how does that make me a victim? That's a far cry from the example of a woman dressing in a suggestive manner, whose goal is ostensibly to attract a person's wanted attention.

 

So here's the devil in the detail, and why calling this stunt asinine isn't tantamount to blaming the victim:

 

Provocatively dressed woman: Does not wish to invite an attack.

Top Gear guys: Intentionally set out to provoke an attack.

 

The difference here is culpability. In the example of the raped woman, she didn't spend the whole evening preparing herself as she snickered to herself "Oh, this is going to get me killed!" Her only goal is to make herself attractive as she sees fit and hope the boys can be gentlemen about it. Thus if she gets attacked, she is the victim of that attack and not to be blamed.

The Top Gear guys, on the other hand, can only be described as successful in their attempt to draw the ire and gunfire of the hicksville residents. Hence, they are to be blamed or congratulated based your opinion of the original premise of the stunt: to incite an attack.

[godlessgrrl]

Damn. I just realized I had a major brain fart and posted up there in totally the wrong place.

 

So my post doesn't make any sense, because it isn't where it's supposed to be. It's not even supposed to be in this thread at all. (Heh, that's what I get for posting with 3 browser tabs open and me running out the door...)

 

Sorry about that. Carry on...

[Dave]

They were victims of assault and vandalism Dave, did you not watch the video? Do you not consider having rocks thrown at you and your property a crime?

As I have said before, it was their stated goal to get assaulted. If is is something you want, how can you be a victim? It's like saying the winners of a ball game are victims.

 

In no way am I defending the actions of either side. I apologize for thinking that people are mind readers and I did not state that earlier. Both sides are equally wrong in this case.

 

But the neat thing about it all is that you don't have to agree with me. I just believe, and it's my personal opinion not a law, that both sides acted like idiots. Maybe I'm just too much "old school" and believe it is wrong to intentionally insult people like they did and intentionally try to pick a fight with someone.

[Dave]

How can they be victims if getting attacked was their goal? They stated quite clearly it was the goal of the task to get their buddy killed. Several times this was stated.

 

If I walk outside, knowingly wearing a sign that says 'kick me', and someone kicks me, how does that make me a victim? That's a far cry from the example of a woman dressing in a suggestive manner, whose goal is ostensibly to attract a person's wanted attention.

 

So here's the devil in the detail, and why calling this stunt asinine isn't tantamount to blaming the victim:

 

Provocatively dressed woman: Does not wish to invite an attack.

Top Gear guys: Intentionally set out to provoke an attack.

It's no surprise that I agree with that. The woman wanted to get attention, not raped. It's the intent that's important.

 

Also, another thing to think about..... that video was most likely edited and we didn't see all of it. How many gas stations did they go to where nothing happened? Twenty? Thirty? What about the actors? They wanted you to believe they were in danger... but were they really? How do we know that the whole thing wasn't staged? I'm sure if they didn't get the response they wanted they'd make it up.

[Dave]

Greetings, Dave. I hope you find the weather in your area of work and residence to be enjoyable.

 

It's snowing.

 

big skip.

 

5. So you don't blame rape victims. Good. You shouldn't. But you're still blaming THESE victims

 

They were not victims.

Sorry, let me explain that "big skip"... I just didn't want to rehash old off topic stuff that wasn't going anywhere. Nothing personal was intended.

[Japedo]

How can they be victims if getting attacked was their goal? They stated quite clearly it was the goal of the task to get their buddy killed. Several times this was stated.

 

If I walk outside, knowingly wearing a sign that says 'kick me', and someone kicks me, how does that make me a victim? That's a far cry from the example of a woman dressing in a suggestive manner, whose goal is ostensibly to attract a person's wanted attention.

 

So here's the devil in the detail, and why calling this stunt asinine isn't tantamount to blaming the victim:

 

Provocatively dressed woman: Does not wish to invite an attack.

Top Gear guys: Intentionally set out to provoke an attack.

 

The difference here is culpability. In the example of the raped woman, she didn't spend the whole evening preparing herself as she snickered to herself "Oh, this is going to get me killed!" Her only goal is to make herself attractive as she sees fit and hope the boys can be gentlemen about it. Thus if she gets attacked, she is the victim of that attack and not to be blamed.

The Top Gear guys, on the other hand, can only be described as successful in their attempt to draw the ire and gunfire of the hicksville residents. Hence, they are to be blamed or congratulated based your opinion of the original premise of the stunt: to incite an attack.

 

 

There is no difference at all here. If a women dressed revealingly with the intent to 'catch' a man on a night going out with her friends, one can assume from your point of view (with the rock throwing issue) that she 'asked for it if she were to get attacked'. Lawyers put the victim on trial all the time with the point of view you've laid out here. It's still illegal to rape just as it's still illegal to assault people who piss you off with what they have to say. They can stand on the street corner and say Jesus Christ suxs ass and by law it doesn't warrant being assaulted. The hillbillies have zero self control, they can look and be pissed but once they act on it and harm someone or their property it falls in the category of a crime. The victims here broke no law. Being offensive isn't against the law, ask Howard Stern.

 

Do you think anyone having a bumper sticker on their car warrants an assault? What about ones that make fun of Christ or religion? This 'stunt' makes Americans look like uneducated hillbilly losers. These people didn't even have something that offensive on their car in my opinion. I see tons of Bush stickers does that give me the right to throw rocks at peoples car because I can't stand the man? Do you think this would hold up in a court of law even though the drivers are located in "liberal New England"? No it wouldn't. People say the Red sox sux all the time. People do it in Fenway with their Yankee Gear on, do you think it would be legal for all of us fans to beat the shit out of them just because they are on our turff? Think about what you're saying here. There's tons of instances were people can be viewed as 'asking for it". It doesn't make it right or legal. People need to exercise more self control.

 

In this country you're allowed to have freedom of speech. Nothing these guys said warranted an assault, sticks and stones and all of that. Painting your car with Hillary for president? WTF? saying NASCAR's Suxs and so does Country music (I personally agree with these two) doesn't warrant having your property and yourself assaulted. No matter the intent. If they wanted to get killed and ended up being killed do you think the murderers should get a free pass because that was the intent? The wheels of justices aren't that lame yet thanks the gawds.

[Japedo]

As I have said before, it was their stated goal to get assaulted. If is is something you want, how can you be a victim? It's like saying the winners of a ball game are victims.

 

In no way am I defending the actions of either side. I apologize for thinking that people are mind readers and I did not state that earlier. Both sides are equally wrong in this case.

 

But the neat thing about it all is that you don't have to agree with me. I just believe, and it's my personal opinion not a law, that both sides acted like idiots. Maybe I'm just too much "old school" and believe it is wrong to intentionally insult people like they did and intentionally try to pick a fight with someone.

 

They are not equally wrong. One group say's something (that's not even offensive IMO) These are mere printed out words on their own cars. There is no damage done to any party with these words. The other group assaulted the word Sayers because they didn't care for what they were advertising. How did the hillbillies know the intent anyways? The simple fact is there isn't anyway to know, and would be argued from that point. Do you believe people who publicly verbally crap on Christ deserve death? Wouldn't they be 'asking for it' beings though this is a Christian country?

 

If they wanted to really insult them they could have printed, Hey if you divorce your wife is she still considered your sister? or something along those lines, it still doesn't warrant being assaulted.

 

Aren't you all about personal responsibility? Has that card been played so much you chose to stick your head in the sand when responsibility should be taken? My above post goes for you as well. There is no law saying you have the right not to be offended and can kick anyone's ass who does such.

 

The Intent is moot, just as the intent of a skimpy dressed women is moot if she gets raped. I'm going to ask you all the same questions that are laid out in my previous comment.

[Vigile]

The bottom line here is that the Top Gear guys had a hypothesis about how the rednecks would react and their hypothesis was proven correct. It was a silly stunt, and one I found particularly funny, but I like stupid humor... In any case, blame the Top Gear guys if you must, but the rednecks as a group were the ones who lost here. Try the same stunt in Boston with "support W"; "Queers go to hell"; etc... and you might get a few fingers, but it's doubtful you will get rocks and worse. Try this in Boise Idaho where I grew up (red state) and you will get only laughs and a few head shakes. The rednecks in that video have serious anger management issues and probably really tiny penises. Top Gear guys were wrong only in that they knowingly provoked a group that they suspected and were proven correct were off balanced. To be balanced the response should have not been stronger than the provocation.

 

Disclaimer, I made many generalizations here and know that not everyone in Alabama is a redneck and that not all rednecks behave the way those in the video do.

[HuaiDan]

There is no difference at all here. If a women dressed revealingly with the intent to 'catch' a man on a night going out with her friends, one can assume from your point of view (with the rock throwing issue) that she 'asked for it if she were to get attacked'.

 

 

Your words, not mine. Here I go through all the trouble to make the distinctions between the two cases, and right from the get go you start putting words in my mouth ("one can assume from your point of view", most assuredly that is NOT my point of view) and make the waters all muddy again.

[Dave]

There is no difference at all here. If a women dressed revealingly with the intent to 'catch' a man on a night going out with her friends, one can assume from your point of view (with the rock throwing issue) that she 'asked for it if she were to get attacked'. .....

 

There is a huge difference - intent. No woman intends to get raped. The guys in that video intended to cause trouble.

 

In this country you're allowed to have freedom of speech. Nothing these guys said warranted an assault, sticks and stones and all of that.....

 

No one here has ever claimed, or even hinted at, those hicks were right in throwing stones or anything else. That's just not an issue. The thing is the crew or whatever they call themselves is not innocent in that their intent, as they said so themselves, was to get attacked.

[Dave]

They are not equally wrong.

 

Then we'll just have to disagree on this one. Their intent made all the difference.

[Dave]

....The rednecks in that video have serious anger management issues and probably really tiny penises.

 

Of course they were wrong and there is no excuse for that kind of behavior.

 

Top Gear guys were wrong only in that they knowingly provoked a group that they suspected and were proven correct were off balanced. To be balanced the response should have not been stronger than the provocation.

 

That's all I'm trying to say, the Top Gear guys are not innocent bystanders.... but I also have to wonder if the whole thing was staged.

 

Disclaimer, I made many generalizations here and know that not everyone in Alabama is a redneck and that not all rednecks behave the way those in the video do.

 

That is what makes me wonder about the veracity of the video. They probably had to hunt around to find those guys.

[Japedo]

Your words, not mine. Here I go through all the trouble to make the distinctions between the two cases, and right from the get go you start putting words in my mouth ("one can assume from your point of view", most assuredly that is NOT my point of view) and make the waters all muddy again.

 

 

NO I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

 

I read and understand your point of view as this.

 

British TV guys are 'asking' for a reaction to test the Deep south. They put some everyday terminology on their cars and ride around for shits and giggles. Maybe they get mooned, maybe they get some good TV drama of someone cursing them out or win them over to christ. Because the Guys are in fact assaulted you believe it to be their fault, as if they were asking for it by saying NASCAR suxs on their car. The film crew that was filming and the drivers themselves were victims of a crime. The hillbillies and their supporters are saying there is no crime here because the TV crew were asking for it.

 

 

My question in bringing up the rape victim was to parallel the 'asking for it'. Where do you draw the line? If a girl is PERCEIVED as asking for it, does that make her any less a victim of rape? Of course it doesn't. Just as the Hillbillies PERCEIVED something that challenged their 'pride' as a justification to assault. A rapist doesn't have "rights" to violate someone because of how they perceive them. Just as the Hillbillies have no "rights" to violate someone just because of how they perceive them. See?

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how you don't blame the 'victim' in one case but you have no problem blaming the 'victim' in the other that's all.

[Japedo]

There is a huge difference - intent. No woman intends to get raped. The guys in that video intended to cause trouble.

 

 

< sigh > Okay Dave, I'll argue it from the Intent point of view then.

 

Did the Hillbillies know their INTENT Dave? What proof do you have that they did. *IF* the TV' crew's intent was to be killed does that give the killers a free pass? Words are words, they are generic words at that. Do you know the INTENT of every driver who has a bumper sticker or an odd looking car? Are you allowed to assault someone on a perceived intent when they have not threatened you in any way shape or form? Is the driver of that Car, if attacked, responsible for his attack because of how the attackers perceive him? If I have a Remove W sticker from my car does a Card carrying member of the RNC get to toss rocks at me because My sticker (Or symbols) Pissed him off? This is how your arguing it.

 

No one here has ever claimed, or even hinted at, those hicks were right in throwing stones or anything else. That's just not an issue. The thing is the crew or whatever they call themselves is not innocent in that their intent, as they said so themselves, was to get attacked.

 

 

What crime did the TV Crew commit to warrant the assault (Crime) they received? The assaulters had no idea the discussions that went on during the decoration of the cars, as the first time they even saw the cars or the men in them was when they pulled into the gas station. The Assaulters had NO IDEA what the TV crews Intent was, which may I add makes your intent argument moot. (not that it had legs anyway. )