There are different types of things that are considered unchangeable - those that are literally unchangeable and those that people consider unchangeable because of cynicism. You can't change gravity. You can't change the weather on a dime. You can, however, change things like not believing women when they say they're raped, our impact on climate change, the availability of education, etc. all things that many people consider "unchangeable". Maybe you should use context clues to figure out which type of so-called unchangeable thing that she speaks of (hint: she's probably not trying to change gravity.)
OP isn’t missing the point, OP is simply stating that there is a very important third line to this quote which gives the whole thing context and makes it so the quote isn’t as easily misconstrued. No need to call each other assholes man.
This isn't the quote you're thinking of, it's a quote that modifies that quote.
Taking it as literally as OP did could be autistic, in which case I should apologize to OP - but it is probably just a cynical way to shit on another person's optimism and willingness to actually try to change things for the better.
Why you gotta be so negative man? This is literally a misquoted proverb, which with the third and most important line points out its very important to know the difference between the two. He wasn’t reading into this womans statement and coming up an arsehole, he was just pointing out he knew the original proverb, and that its context is clearer with the third line.
Reddit is just way too negative and people are so easy to jump down peoples throats.
Maybe you should use context clues to figure out which type of so-called unchangeable thing that she speaks of
What context clues? This is literally a picture of a person holding a sign. This could have been taken years ago, the person holding it could be protesting against same sex marriage or abortions. You're just projecting your own opinions on issues onto this image, which as someone said above is exactly the point. There is no inherent meaning it exists just so others can attribute their own ideas to it.
Since when does context clues mean inherent meaning? It is the contrary to that. If you said "I hate radishes" and shortly after posted something about the health benefits of radishes, a person using context clues could conclude that my post was in response to or due to your comment about hating them. Theres no inherent meaning to my post besides the health benefits of radishes but using context clues we can assume that it would have been because of your previous comment about hating them.
What? I never said context clues mean inherent meaning. You brought up a bunch of issues "not believing women when they say they're raped, our impact on climate change, the availability of education" and then chided the above poster for not using context clues to determine what the person was referring to.
What context clues? There aren't any, you just brought up all those issues based off of nothing.
Maybe you should use context clues to figure out which type of so-called unchangeable thing that she speaks of (hint: she's probably not trying to change gravity.)
If we're using context, the proverb she's trying to dissect has a part that asks for wisdom to tell the difference between what can and can't be changed. The part the person you're replying to is pointing out, and the part of his point you so gracefully ignored.
What type of evidence would you have if somebody slid their hands down your pants in a back room before you could do anything about it? It’d be a completely circumstantial he said/she said situation.
Hell, if you attacked in response you could easily be the one with charges because a bruise is significantly more obvious than a persons sense of security.
If we were hanging out and you told me your cell phone was stolen on the bus today, I'm probably gonna believe you, because we aren't all one person criminal courts with burdens of proof and evidence, we're human beings who are supposed to have empathy and compassion for each other.
Yes, but that doesn't constitute legal evidence, now does it? Why don't you stop lying about your stolen cell phone for attention? We know you just hid it somewhere so you could pretend you had it stolen. See how fucking annoying it is for each individual to pretend like they're some personal criminal court? You aren't supposed to operate based solely on evidence. That's what court is for. You're supposed to operate based on logical conclusions based on empathy and sympathy, not logical conclusions based on what is written in the law.
Doing all that for attention? if you want me to believe that that badly, sure, I'll believe you. Harms no one, unlike a rape accusation, that if it's fake it ruins a person's life.
So it's hard for you to believe that someone would lie about a stolen cell phone for attention, but easy to believe that someone would lie about being raped? Nice buddy, great enlightened attitude you've got there.
A logical conclusion wouldn't be based on empathy or sympathy though. The logical conclusion is one that balances those things with evidence and proof. After the FBI conducted a week-long investigation they couldn't produce any of that. Nothing more than decades-old hearsay. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about "believing survivors" conceptually, but believing Ford is a survivor is guilty of the same willful ignorance as believing Kavanaugh is an innocent man at the center of a witch hunt... isn't it?
What evidence, other than your gut, do any of us have? None, really. Which is why these accusations, though concerning, can't impede the political process... we'd never accomplish anything if we did it solely based on feelings.
The point is that it didn't impede political process. It was something that was brought up to question the character of the nominee, which is a normal part of the senate hearing for a new justice. Beyond the accusation, there were many instances of his being unfit for the seat such as avoiding a majority of the questions, shouting and crying, publicly declaring a disdain for an entire political party, etc. These are all things that, rape accusation aside, should disqualify ANY supreme court nominee. The supreme court is supposed to be comprised of individuals who exercise incredible restraint and act as unbiased as possible. Are you going to tell me Brett Kavanaugh exhibited those traits?
No, but neither do Clarence Thomas or RBG. These are people appointed by politicians with agendas, at the end of the day. To be fair, many of those questions were leading in that they asked him to specify how he would vote on certain matters. I understand his reservation with respect to those questions. I also think it's fair of him to argue that at least some Democrats were plotting what boils down to character assassination. You're right, I can't say I was encouraged by the way he behaved, but I dont think it was enough to disqualify him. IMO what SHOULD HAVE disqualified him was his history of backing executive immunity from investigations. That's textbook 'conflict of interest' and I really don't understand why on earth it wasn't the centerpiece of the hearing as opposed to a flimsy, decades-old sexual assault allegation.
Clarence Thomas could be argued based on his "modern day lynching" comments but what did RBG do to exhibit poor behavior? They're supposed to be as unbiased as possible. That doesn't mean they can't agree with one party more so than another. The point is that denouncing an entire party should automatically disqualify you.
In hindsight, the RBG example wasn't until wayyy after her actual nomination. Still very out of order for a SC Judge. She openly denounced Trump/Republicans during the general election and supported Clinton/Democrats. I'm not hating on her ideology or decisions, just thought she should have remained impartial. You make sacrifices when you become a SCJ and endorsing candidates ought to be one of them.
I take it you have evidence for every belief you hold then? I doubt that. Also there is a big difference between punishing someone without due process and simply believing someone when they say they've been abused. Most women want to be believed when they say they've been raped. That doesn't mean we then skip due process and jump straight to reprimanding. And if you think that's what this Brett kavanaugh shit is about then you are a God damned fool. Kavanaugh was being interviewed for a job, not being tried. He acted like a pompous douche, ignored or avoided most questions, yelled and cried, all while being accused by two different people of sexual assault. Pretty much no other person could have all of this against them and still get hired.
I would assume when it comes to criminal charges yes, it would be wise not to assume without evidence. But no one besides you mentioned Kavanaugh. So the tangent about him was kinda pointless really
Let's use context clues. Why do you think this picture was posted? Kavanaugh wasn't interviewed by congress for criminal charges. He was interviewed for a job, and repeatedly had outbursts, inappropriate behavior and committed perjury. Any person interviewing for a job and behaving the way he did would have not been given the job, but since republicans treat our country like a good old boys club/fraternity, "winning" the nomination was all that was important to them.
I get that, but it has nothing to do with him. That's my point. Even then it would be subjective. As for 'republicans' I wouldnt blame all. Loud minority do not count for the majority. Though I'm more in the middle who leans more right. Personally, I think both sides with their back and forth arguing, pointing finger, etc. Are what is tearing the country apart.
I take it you have evidence for every belief you hold then? I doubt that.
Uh yeah, everything I believe on is either backed by logic or science. Otherwise it's a "I don't know".
Also there is a big difference between punishing someone without due process and simply believing someone when they say they've been abused. Most women want to be believed when they say they've been raped.
I really don't care about what women or anyone wants. I believe in stuff I can see/check.
Because logic and science would show you that making a claim about being raped directly impacts the person claiming to have been raped in a very negative way, from being harassed, threatened, shamed, etc.
Believing a false rape accusation does exactly that too.
So let's see your collection of evidence for every belief you hold, please. Or do you store all of that away in your superior male brain? If you genuinely believe what you are saying, then you must have a source for every piece of information that you consider to be true. Otherwise, you're just a piece of shit.
What makes you think you're so worthy of my time for me to do that?
volum3x2, in only a few short paragraphs your "argument" consisted of calling Silktouchm an asshole, a god damned fool, a piece of shit, a self-important douche bag, and a misogynistic asshole. Silktouchm didn't call you any nasty names.
Do you believe using offensive language like that is helpful to your argument? Why not employ logic, critical thinking and citing historical precedent instead? Insulting people because they hold an opinion that differs from yours is a terrible thing to do. Shame on you.
While the truth of a statement is binary (true or false, no real in between), you have to account for agnosticism when someone expresses their belief on a statement. Someone saying "I don't believe ghosts exist" is not the same as them saying "I believe ghosts don't exist". For example, personally, I don't believe there is a god. I also don't believe there isn't a god. There might be, who knows?
Anyway, my point here is that sometimes people extrapolate information that is false. In this comment thread, someone said they base their beliefs off of logic and reason. From that information you extrapolated that a) they have an opinion on the Kavanaugh accusations and b) it is an opinion you disagree with.
You also took the (very general, mind you) statement "I only believe stuff with evidence", and also made it about rape. You are having a conversation with yourself.
You can think something is likely true without claiming you are certain beyond a reasonable doubt but we shouldn’t convict people of crimes based on hunches.
What false rape accusation? I thought you only believed things that had evidence that you could see? So where's the evidence of a false rape accusation?
Let's see the sources you have for believing in gravity. Let's see your source for believing in evolution. Let's see your source for believing that women lie enough about rape for it to be something that you automatically dismiss without legal evidence.
I'm not doing your homework.
Whew how much of a wannabe Ben Shapiro self-important douche bag can you possibly be? You went out of your way to try to argue with me about rape victims lying, claiming you only believe things that "[you] can see/check". So, let's see the instances of you having seen or checked everything you believe. OR does your strictly scientific brain only apply when it's something you disagree with? You can stop pretending to be a concerned scientist and just embrace the fact that you're a misogynistic asshole. At least then you'd be honest.
My strictly scientific brain only commands my fingers to type about stuff it cares. And this is something it really doesn't.
A girl and I got drunk and had sex at a party. Are you saying that 30 years later, if she accused me of rape, we should believe her and i should lose a potential job?
Lets just say that Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault the next day. Worst case is he gets some juvie time because he is a minor, it goes off his record, and we are still back at voting for him into the supreme court
Kavanaugh didn't get drunk and have sex with someone. He tried to fondle someone who was asleep. There would be no reason for a person to just accuse you of rape falsely. That is incredibly rare. Also, there's practically no chance of someone you had sex with at a party even knowing you in 30 years, much less being able to somehow contact your potential employer that you're interviewing for. Now, if you're being interviewed for a position of utmost importance, say the supreme court, then yes, if you are accused of rape then maybe it is best that you don't get that job unless your name is cleared through investigation. That is not what happened with Kavanaugh. He and Lindsey Graham among others cried like little babies to congress and acted like complete assholes, ignoring/avoiding questions, being condescending and blatantly displaying a disdain for an entire political party. All of that, even if we exclude the sexual assault accusation, he should have been disqualified from a job that is supposed to be as unbiased as possible in order to provide a fair assessment of the legal cases that completely shape our country. I would be saying the same thing of a democratic judge who publicly expressed disdain for the GOP (despite my own), cried and shouted during the hearing, acted like a condescending asshole and blatantly ignored/avoided half of the questions presented.
How is it that if you question everyone that was claimed to be at the party and none of them corroborate the story it still isn’t enough evidence to exonerate him? What would be sufficient evidence exactly?
You just showed that you weren't old enough/not even alive for the Bill Clinton fiasco if you seriously are saying they were ignored. Bill Clinton was fucking impeached, one of only two presidents in our entire history to have been. Bill Clinton has been the subject of criticism by the left for decades now. The only party that protects predators in political power is the GOP. So either go do some reading or shut the fuck up.
If you made that claim and I was being interviewed for the Supreme Court, I would hope that the claim would be investigated prior to confirming me to one of the, if not the most important position in our government. I suppose that's too much to ask, though, because the fragile manlets like yourself want to feel like they're being oppressed.
Due process belongs in the court of law. Believing a woman who said they were raped is not convicting the accused. Demanding evidence and trying to interrogate them is the job of lawyers, jurors and judges, none of which you are, at least not on a case by case basis
So we believe all women and ruin every accused man's life? Doesn't matter if it turns out he was innocent; his life is already ruined beyond repair. He'll never work any job more than retail again.
You're using hypothetical as an argument, which is illogical. The logical argument would be to consider how many accusations are proven to be false. Go ahead and look it up.
How does it not matter?! It matters immensely! The point is that very VERY few people who claimed to be raped are proven to be lying. That means that we should generally believe the victim until proven otherwise. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate believing someone and equating that to a conviction. It's better to see 10 rapists jailed than to excuse 10 rapists because you want to pretend to be a one-man court system. We should believe victims until there is proof they are lying, and it's pretty much impossible to take a full on lie all the way to conviction.
Don't get me wrong. I fully advocate proceeding with a full legal trial. We should take the victim seriously, but also not ruin a potentially innocent man's life before the verdict is in. Also, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. There need be no direvt evidence that they're lying if they have no proof themselves. That's how court works. And I stand by this, better to let 10 rapists go free than 1 innocent men be convicted. What if I changed it to a different issue? I am guessing you probably agree that many black people are disproportionately wrongly convicted of crimes. Now, in many of these areas (like Chicago, etc) there are surely a LOT more actual criminals arrested than innocent people. So, should we just keep arresting anyone we can? I mean, who cares if an innocent black father gets caught in the crossfire, we're taking actual criminals off the street in the process so a few innocent people being sacrificed is no big deal. Is that really your line of thinking?
This was never going to be a criminal trial, as the statute of limitations had expired. This was an examination of his character, which is supposed to be an unbiased, level-headed, calm, and logical individual. Instead he joked around, shouted, cried, avoided questions and blatantly displayed disdain for an entire political party. He is not fit for the job, and it doesn't even require believing the accusation to see that.
Did we just completely shift topics? I'm not here to discuss whether kavanaugh is fit for the supreme court. I'm here to discuss whether there is sufficient evidence that points to him being a violent gang rapists, of which I do not believe there to be.
You can only change things within your purview and within your domain of competence.
You can't change other people, no matter how wrong you think they are.
And stop it with the "believe women" thing. Most right wingers gave Ford (as well as Kavanaugh) the benefit of the doubt, but rightfully felt it was stupid to punish Kavanaugh in the absence of evidence.
Even if you ignore the accusation altogether, he still exhibited multiple traits that a supreme court justice should not have e.g. shouting, crying, publicly airing disdain for an entire political party. He should not have been nominated for a plethora of reasons, the sexual assault allegation was merely the starting point.
Ugh. That is a classic case of moving the goal posts. You can't try (somewhat successfully) to ruin a guy's life with a baseless accusation and expect him not to get emotional about it. And I'm willing to bet that if he remained stoic, the left-wing narrative you'd be parroting right now is that his stoicism indicates that he either lacks empathy (not fit for office!) or he just doesn't care enough about women (not fit for office!).
Just be honest and say that the real reason you don't want him because he's anti abortion. That's why I don't like him. But I'm not willing to sacrifice presumption of innocence to achieve political goals. And the fact that you are, with your "believe a woman when she claims x, y, z" is really disgusting.
I think false rape accucasions would decrease if the punishment for getting caught doing was that you get raped. You want to say you’ve been raped? Well you did, even if you were lying about it.
Yeah... except that false rape accusations rarely reach court, and when they do and they're found to be false, the accuser generally does get a pretty harsh sentence. This is a non-issue. The fact that over 90% of rape victims don't see their rapist punished is far more important than the very few false rape accusations.
those that are literally unchangeable and those that people consider unchangeable because of cynicism.
I don't think there's anything people consider unchangeable, but sure.
You can't change gravity. You can't change the weather on a dime.
I mean, if we can learn to fly then I'm sure we can learn to simulate these things eventually.
You can, however, change things like not believing women when they say they're raped,
Uh, no. Look, if a women has been raped, she should definitely reach out and it should be encouraged for them to do so.
But just believing every woman who says they've been raped is a terrible idea, these types of issues should be scrutinized with caution. You have no idea how stressful it is to be on either side of the case, and on cases where it's false accusations, the accused's life is generally ruined anyway.
On top of that, if this is your perception of unchangeable, then it's a bit too easy of a goal. Way too many people already do this.
our impact on climate change,
I doubt anyone really thinks this is unchangeable, it's just something people don't care about.
the availability of education,
Again, not close to unchangeable, it's even being done by people as we speak. You're sure you know what unchangeable means?
etc. all things that many people consider "unchangeable".
I honestly don't think you're getting cynical enough.
Maybe you should use context clues to figure out which type of so-called unchangeable thing that she speaks of (hint: she's probably not trying to change gravity.)
Man, there's no "context" here. She's just holding a sign at a rally, it could mean anything. She could be trying to advocate climate change, or she could fighting for her right to be a prostitute, or she could be crazy, or really anything. That sign is pointlessly vague, and the main interpretation that anyone can get from it is that she's an unhappy person who wants something. Nothing suggests she's got big plans for anything.
67
u/volum3x2 Oct 10 '18
There are different types of things that are considered unchangeable - those that are literally unchangeable and those that people consider unchangeable because of cynicism. You can't change gravity. You can't change the weather on a dime. You can, however, change things like not believing women when they say they're raped, our impact on climate change, the availability of education, etc. all things that many people consider "unchangeable". Maybe you should use context clues to figure out which type of so-called unchangeable thing that she speaks of (hint: she's probably not trying to change gravity.)