ronthenekred

It's the "if i'm not free to fiddle with kids" then my freedoms are limited logic. -Pure Smiffy -

:hihi:

Human rights for all is a worthy cause regardless of bias IMO, it's that that defines us as civilized, regardless of others that don't conform . Homophobia and racism today exudes the same mentality that the do-gooders were fighting yesteryear. Thankfully Liberalism is the reason you're not doing 18hrs a day dahn pit for tuppence a week.

Is he Welsh?

The majority once thought homosexuality, womens rights, darkies, sexism, racism was just dandy and acceptable, then what happens, the minority do-gooders came along and shoved their patronizing self opinionated rock the boat noses in it. Without them we'd still have the Black n White Minstrels on a Sunday.

It wouldn't get me on a bus if she was free.

As a term, 'do-gooder' is a negative, not a positive. What did a Quaker teacher, a Methodist preacher, a former slave, a former slaver, a ship's doctor, a businessman, an African composer, a Baron, a scholar, an outspoken widow, a lawyer and a wealthy politician have in common? 'Do-gooders'?

Unless on special occasions I don't think I've heard bells ringing in a long while, other than my local church in Ranmoor, which would probably take a miracle to stop. ---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 11:24 ---------- Wailing 5 times a day I would say it is different.

Guilty as charged. It's a fair cop.

Could be wrong but I doubt it. She exudes confidence and intelligence, and naturally attractive with a voice that melts.

Period, style?

Minus a couple, yes, without any equivocation. Some Labour ministers resigned their posts I believe.

Much appreciated.

After downloading my pics they for some reason now come up as publisher files and the pic wont open in publisher, not that I want it to anyway. Any advice?

Equal to who? Be clear will ya.

Yeah but that's all to do with reading..can't be doing with that stuff.

Yes, you've just made it one.

Obviously I wasn't clear, I apologize. Showing a pic of a comatose or smeared lipstick woman actor treats adults like children. With the amount of real harm and death available online we've become desensitized to film and media. Just from a visual perspective I don't see the point, regardless of the message. Tell me olive. If I told you alcohol put you in harms way and was bad for your health through a poster campaign, would you heed the poster drone like because it fits snugly with ingrained fears, seriously question the poster and it's credibility, or ignore the poster simply because you already think the campaign is credible? Using past experience isn't a credible source, it's just an individual experience. Being drunk and attacked by a Ginger haired man isn't evidence that all Ginger haired men will attack, let alone you being attacked because you were drunk. Simply being a woman regardless of your deamenour is pretty credible though. Sadly we seem to live within rape culture which advises teaches 'Don't get raped" rather than 'Don't rape', which does imply victim responsibility which amounts to a message of guilt.

You only fall prey to complacency only if you are aware of you're complacency, not being aware isn't a crime. I doubt most are aware prior to going out to enjoy themselves with the many hurdles life could throw at them..we'd all end up like smithy, paranoid, which would make going out a hoot. The result being that entire business empires initially give poor advice to their advantage then come around for a second helping from further poor advantagious advice from the same said but different business empire advising you to hop on their roller coaster. It's just a selling racket, not good advice. If it was good 'there would be a lot less debt, a lot less repossessions, a lot less regret, a lot less misery'. 'He' being Cyclone, 'her' being Olive or your partner. No it wasn't metaphorical, more like philosophical. When you offer a hand of help you've made a judgement call based on your own capabilities. When the offer is instinctive it's invariably based on mutual understanding which is different to assuming something judgmentally especially if you don't know the individual. Why would large business empires imply that size 10 photoshopped woman is the perfect specimen? Unless it's seen as excellent advice to follow and is followed. Some advice is very poor especially if it's deemed interfering with peoples individual choices directly or indirectly. How they perceive that message is at their discretion, not mine or yours whether for the right or wrong reasons. I would think mainly because those posters don't center around a specific demographic with women being highlighted. I would seriously like to see evidence that drinking by women is directly linked generally as the cause of rape, not evidence that drink was a factor when it took place. Like you I'm ready to take on board but a tie-in has to be made to justify the highlight. To make it easier we'll ignore all the other rape demographics and concentrate on women in bars drinking to excess that have been raped, if it helps. Neither, I for one haven't professed implicitness, I just can't find anything that overwhelmingly substantiates the claim. I have no reason or agenda to refute should it be so. You could say Charlie Hebbdo posted good advice on the evils of Islam, some Muslims didn't take kindly to that. Glass half full/empty? I don't see any of our "poster blamers" shooting up the town...on the contrary, they're doing exactly what is right, debating an issue. Victim blaming is an issue, a very serious one for the victims, of all people you should understand that better than most.

Thing is, I only ever see these posters is when someone googles me them. Plenty of KFC and discount laminate offers but no posters of people sprawled in the gutter, or Gov campaign posters warning men not to over indulge for fear of becoming rapists, which in some cases is used as a tool used for defense. As I said, or I should have implied, I'm not aware of the campaigns other than what's been googled. Maybe these posters are advertised specifically in pubs/clubs etc. My reply was in direct response to the following only. Children by default need protecting and advising. Adults don't in the same way, unless you wish me to ring a doorbell every night advising to unplug the telly, stump out a fag and wear a condom before the missus gets jumped on. Not that I would, honest...that would be patronising, rude and downright annoying. My honest guess would be he wouldn't simply because he would see her equally up to the task and as capable as himself, although that is a calculated guess. Would you offer your hand to a fit 'bloke'...be honest? But if you didn't offer your hand simply on the basis she is as equal and up to the challenge as you are, why would you offer? Prejudice, Manners? Chauvinism? Spontaneous reaction? Even disability is difficult to justify if they're determined. The reason I ask is because you seemed to have answered the same question twice differently based on gender. Many years ago I did this once, boy do I regret that, bit short on wisdom if not tact I was then if I'm honest, although I honestly meant no disrespect I do now understand her reasoning Personally I'm a great believer in my own destiny. If I get it wrong I can self flagellate without the 'help' of others eager to get stuck in by pointing at me which I'm quite capable of myself..and there really is a frighteningly lot of that about, mainstream. When you drink you take responsibility for the individualistic result it has on yourself, no way should it be implied that drinking could result in something you personally have no control over, especially the actions of others, which is a predator issue not an alcohol one. Being drunk by default inhibits us from rationale, "One more" can't be defined simply because you're likely to be pi55ed anyway.. The only way to be sure is not to drink, that's if drink is the problem, which I'm not convinced it is, as of yet. Waffle over. ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 22:55 ---------- I agree, I think that's a result of gender awareness and mutual respect. ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 23:05 ---------- How can you prove a rape has been avoided? By definition if it's been avoided it hasn't happened. It's like saying I have a burglar alarm and that's proof that I haven't been burgled.

You would have to quantify that with statistics as well as to the drinking habits of rapists. Maybe we could advise men not to drink for fear of them becoming predators as opposed to women becoming victims. "Emily Yoffe stoked controversy earlier this month by writing that young women should avoid getting drunk, since it’s been proven that drinking is “closely associated” with sexual assault, the dialogue about alcohol and rape has been re-opened. This entire conversation is predicated upon the assumption that the presence of alcohol increases the likelihood of rape, so we need to encourage college students to drink less. Yoffe played into a decades-long tradition of framing that discussion specifically around women, a method of victim-blaming that feeds into rape culture. But even when the discussion is properly framed around the perpetrators rather than the victims, how strong is the correlation in question? Will getting kids to drink less actually get them to rape less? Toward the end of the USA Today article about alcohol’s function as a date rape drug, one of the experts who agreed to be quoted in the story noted, “People don’t get raped because they have been drinking, because they are passed out or because they are drunk. People get raped because there is a perpetrator there — someone who wants to take advantage of them.” That gets to the heart of the complex issue: Even though alcohol is associated with sexual assault, it’s not actually a direct association. Getting intoxicated only leads to rape when there’s someone present to commit that rape. When you remove rapists from the equation, the risks of getting drunk — which, of course, do involve serious public health consequences — don’t include getting raped. A 2001 research project into sexual assault and alcohol commissioned by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism puts it this way: “Although alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur, this phenomenon does not prove that alcohol use causes sexual assault.” In some cases, the researchers pointed out, it may actually be the other way around. The desire to commit a sexual assault may actually encourage alcohol consumption, as some men may drink before assaulting a woman in order to help justify their behavior. National statistics dispel the direct correlation between alcohol and rape, too. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey has found that the number of Americans who say they’ve been raped — regardless of whether they reported that crime to the authorities — has been declining since 1979. During that same time period, binge drinking has been steadily rising. As Slate’s Amanda Hess points out, that suggests something else besides alcohol consumption is actually factoring into the nation’s sexual assault rate. Indeed, research has found that intimate partner violence declines not as people drink less, but as society moves toward gender equality".

The information would be misleading. Lone drinking women are just one demographic. Rapists don't conform to a single demographic. If that was the case most rape could be eradicated by making it illegal for women to consume alcohol.

Or allow others to make their own innocent choices without risk of being held accountable if someone abuses you because of illegal choices made by others.

For what it's worth I'll give it a shot.. Risk assessment is based on knowledge and maturity. Children by definition are at risk or vulnerable simply because of their immaturity. By advising adults you are making the presumption some adults are children or childlike. The result of that presumption is either patronizing or simply seen as ' good advice'. Adults are not guardian's of adults, we certainly are of our children though..until they reach a certain maturity or age that is. They then become guardian's of themselves. The vast majority of adults understand risk or threat whether they are attacked or not, children don't. There are no campaigns focusing on children on how to avoid predators. There are no campaigns on how to avoid being abused by your 'loved' ones in the home. Why? Because it attacks the ethos of the 'family'. As guardians we guide our children to a cut-off point, or do we continually tell them to look left and right well into adulthood simply because other adults also get knocked down? The only thing that addressed or highlighted the issue with children was Ester Rantzen's campaign for children to phone in if that child was being abused, which only addressed the after effects and not the cause, the abuser. Advising children an advising grown adults are not comparable IMO. Question: If you and your partner climb a steep hill and you are ahead finding it a little tricky, do you reach back with your hand outstretched offering help? If yes why? If no, why not?

I look forward to bon firenight but living for it is a bit OTT. Views on life? Happy to have been given the opportunity but not to happy at it passing. It's far too short.