Mark, I’m quite disappointed. That really was quite a cheap imitation.

But I disagree, Kitkat, that this isn’t muddy thinking. To use a label as shorthand for that which it doesn’t accurately represent is muddy thinking – it leads to confusion and misunderstanding of terms and position.

If you told that to someone who lived under Stalin’s rule, they would be very inclined to disagree with you.

Personally, I’m fond of “cultural hegemony” to describe what Luke’s talking about. Funnily enough, the very concept of cultural hegemony was developed by Marxists theorists — who aren’t really political Marxists, so it’s not as though there’s any hypocrisy on Luke’s part — but it’s interesting to see how the basic structures of “Marxism” and the term itself have come to be used in so many different and opposing fashions.

Is that it? I believe, Mark, Patriot, Da Whale-Boy, that this is us. ”

But it’s this “cultural socialism” idea that bothers me. Socialism is a specific political and economic theory having to do with labor as commodity, and community ownership of the means of production. And yeah, it hasn’t worked very well, generally speaking. But I think what Luke is actually describing would be totalitarianism, in which the state had control over all aspects of life – cultural, social, economic, etc. Totalitarianism is much more closely associated with Fascism than Socialism.

I don’t like muddy thinking.

Patriot, I know who you are now. And let me just say that I am very, very surprised. I mean, this is totally not your style. If you really thought this was so ridiculous, then what you would have done a year ago or even a semester ago just sat back and laughed at it a little, and then moved on without giving it another thought.

–Luke

PS: To be honest, I hadn’t even thought about you at all for a couple months.

Is that it? I believe, Mark, Patriot, Da Whale-Boy, that this is us.

After all, my hair’s a pretty light color, isn’t it? Wait, maybe Marxists are people with dramatic noses!

I have not said anywhere on this blog that a Marxist is anyone who disagrees with me.

In all seriousness though, I would be interested in this definition too.

Yes. That is my answer.

I’d just appreciate a clarification of terms. You clearly understand the word “Marxist” to mean something other than what I do.

Btw Patriot, this also happened to GL’s response to what you wrote to him, so you should read that if you havent already.

I definitely am in favor of these phones for promoting campus safety in general, it is silly to expect them to be useful for only one type of crime. Can you imagine a campus with green vandalism phone and red alcohol poisoning phones? Silly.

Anyway, Mark has it right, these phones don’t indicate a conspiracy, but a a very well intentioned safety device. As we have discussed there are all sorts of emergency situations that arise on college campuses and especially on our campus, where cell phone coverage is very spotty, these blue boxes provide easy access to emergency services.

I quite agree with that. I think seeing them as part of some grand marxist/feminist conspiracy rather than as a useful safety device for everyone is definitely problematic.

The official purpose of the blue light phones are to protect people, yes. That’s the official statements about them. During my introduction to the school and orientation, when I asked several people about them, I was told they were to help prevent “sexual abuse and violence against women”. My security told me that they installed them to protect “women”. We even have several services where WOMEN can be walked home or to the parking lot by a security guard (there was no mention of man or men on the poster unfortunately). I do believe that every student has the right to be protected, but the people don’t really understand what their main use is for; protection of men and women.

Why? And where did they get this idea? Even the boys thought it was just for rape crimes, even though there were clearly labeled numbers on there for 911 and police.

I don’t think the problem is the phones themselves, but the attitudes and meaning people give them. Much like how the delivery of content can twist the content’s meaning! I’m sorry if I was unclear, and sounded contradictory. Hopefully this will clarify it for you some more.

As for the gaybashing comment, thanks for also clarifying that.

Kara: “As for the blue boxes, you miss the point. They were installed under the guise of “protection.” However, I have not heard of any instance where people needed to be protected, man or woman. So what purpose do they serve otherwise? None, other than to feed paranoia.”

“I don’t see a problem with protecting students either; however, every student here was told that it was meant for sexual crimes against WOMEN and not the general broad defination of crimes for everyone. We’re just asking that everyone is the main priority, not just women in this case.”

These two statements seem contradictory. First you claim that no one needs protection, the logical extension of which position would seem to be that there is no need for campus security guards or locked doors either. Then you claim that everyone needs protection, in which regard I refer you to Patriot’s remark that “Searching, I found that Yale’s phones have quick button for fire, police, and medical assistance.”

So let’s do a quick survey. I Googled “campus blue phones” (without quotes).

Fredonia University: “These phones are for emergency use to contact the University Police.”

University of British Columbia: “CAMPUS BLUE PHONES…Not Just For Emergencies: Safety Concerns, General Assistance, Information, Directions. Push the button once and you will be directly connected to Campus Security.”

Georgetown University: “Emergency telephones, easily identified at night by the bright blue lights located on top, are situated at strategic locations throughout the campus for emergency use. If you need to report a suspicious incident, medical emergency, or request immediate police assistance, simply activate an emergency phone by opening the box. You must then depress the red lever located inside each time you wish to speak. Once depressed, the call is directly linked to a police console that indicates the location of origin. Speak clearly into the microphone while stating the exact nature of the emergency, and a police dispatcher will summon assistance to the location. In the event a caller does not respond or is unable to speak, a campus police officer is immediately dispatched to investigate.”

None of these schools claims the phones are for women only, or sexual assault only. Even Luke says only “I would guess that the installation of these telephones has something to do with the Feminist arm, since I’ve often seen maps of the locations put on posters sponsored by one of its subgroups” (emphasis mine). Patriot says “they express purpose of the phones is to provide contact with campus security in the event of an emergency such as a sexual assault.” Please note the crucial words “such as”, as in “sexual assault is just one type of emergency for which these phones might be used.” Patriot makes the excellent point that most rapes are acquaintance/date rapes, not stranger-dragging-you-into-the-alley rapes.

And Kara, I won’t address your remark about gay-bashing at length, because I don’t want to de-rail the thread. I will simply say that when I said “gay-bashing,” I meant precisely that.

I don’t see a problem with protecting students either; however, every student here was told that it was meant for sexual crimes against WOMEN and not the general broad defination of crimes for everyone. We’re just asking that everyone is the main priority, not just women in this case.

30 out of a 1000 is still high, but luckily it’s not the 1/4 statistic. That really would be scary if it really was 250 per 1000!

“Arrogance is not intelligence, despite what you seem to think.”

You are absolutely right Patriot.. Is that why you made the following arrogant statement?

“Well, I’m glad we have brilliant scientists like you Craig to debunk all this feminist filth.

:rolleyes:”

Nice HYPOCRISY there Patriot..

“Did you know you called my comments “smear” six times, me a Cultural Marxist five times (more if we include all the times you paint me as a communist), and extremist four times? That’s a lot of accusations and yet, for all you claim that I’m trying to stick smear on you, the hate you direct at me won’t stick either.”

Yes I DID call you those things and UNLIKE you I backed them up.

What that means is that I’m calling a spade a spade Patriot and pointing out to you and all others who read this as to WHY that’s so..

This is in direct contrast to you RUNNING AWAY any time I shine a light on your Smears in an attempt to throw other bombs with your SPIN which I’ve carefully listed out in my previous post.

So here’s the deal Patriot..

You come in here trying to take control of SiberiaNow’s arguments with nothing that is logical.. Instead you decide to make foolish statements like this in order to try to paint him as being prejudiced.. Gee that’s a “really new trick” Patriot. I’m sure you would make Jesse Jackson and the other corrupt shakedown artists like him quite proud..

“So what if a black homosexual female were to gain some sort of power in our country. Would that really be a huge tragedy?”

So why Patriot are you implying that prejudice is part of SiberiaNow’s post when it NEVER Was?

So when you decide to engage in an obvious Smear Tactic (and yes I will say it repeatedly because that is what you do) I not only CALL YOU Out on it but I also expose how you are doing it..

Then you decide to try to do the old “Double Speak” on me and TRY to PAINT ME as the one who is smearing..

That’s a little like a Career Criminal with a Rap Sheet a mile long who claims that he was “framed” for his latest parole violation.

Pretty stupid Patriot..

No Actually Very Stupid on your part and anyone who reads your comments can see this..

If you decide to Run Away from a fight that you started then that’s your decision.. but it exposes you for being the Liberal coward that you are.. because you know you can’t win against logical arguments you instead decide to run and throw up a completely unrelated bomb someplace else where you can..

Old Old Old Feminist and Socialist Smear Tactic..

And yes normally American Women on PMS argue that way too.

Real Men who know it’s finally time to show their cards after the betting is done don’t act this way Patriot… they don’t run away from the table after they’ve placed their bets.. If they did like you then they would never be allowed back in as a respectable and credible Man.

So what’s the next distraction (bomb) on your part going to be?

More talk about Rape?

Gay Marriage?

Come on Patriot.. surprise me with something unique.. something I’ve never heard hundreds of times before from other regurgitating Liberals..

Oh let me guess.. maybe..

The “Communist Paranoia of Joe McCarthy” that you say I support?

Well that would be a fine topic to discuss Patriot because you know what?

It proves two very important things that are inherent to Liberals like you..

It proves your IGNORANCE and DENIAL..

And Patriot you really set yourself up for this big time..

50 years after the fact and upon release of once classified Soviet Documents it turns out that Old Joe McCarthy was RIGHT in his accusations of the Communist agenda in the United States..

Want proof? Here it is..

http://www.rense.com/politics6/mc.htm

http://www.spongobongo.com/em/em9820.htm

Liberals like you have a NASTY habit of Ignoring both the TRUTH and Historical FACTS..

It’s because unfortunately for folks like you it doesn’t quite jive with your ideological view of the world. .

You also make the following claim..

“The party whose manifesto you claim I’m furthering has never in recent memory wielded any significant power in this country”

When I called your attention to the 1963 document how many of those items that I highlighted are now being advanced by the Democrats and other liberals who belong to them?

All of them to one degree or another under the banner of bastardized words like “Equality”.

The Communist party doesn’t have to exist here officially.. It’s because it’s agenda has already been adopted by the Dems..

So you can cut the crap about paranoia and conspiracy Patriot.. Because Facts are Facts no matter how inconvenient they seem to you..

In spite of all of this I really have to admit that I got a great laugh out of reading your post..

It’s because I’ve fed you back some of your own medicine Patriot ..

And obviously you don’t lke the way it tastes very much given what you’ve been saying from your last posts..

The key difference in the medicine that I’m handing out is that what I say about you sticks like super glue because it’s justified by your own words..

And all you can do is whine about it and claim how “unfair” it is..

Typical Cut and Run Liberal.. aka Cultural Marxists…

I’m just waiting with anticipation for your next variation of this tactic on your part.. please don’t let me wait too long because then you might disappoint me..

So once again I am quite justified in bidding you farewell in this manner..

I hope you wake up and get a real life..

GL

Patriot! You seem to like this rape issue, so here is some interesting stats from the Bureau of Justice itself. Of course these numbers may be off a bit from people who do not report or such, but of course the decline is a good indicator that things are better for women.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm
In fact, all crimes are now lowering! This is a trend that’s been happening for a long time now, even in uban warfare. Since life has become less stressful there’s less need or desire to commit these acts.

Please continue, it’s very interesting to read both your sides.

So fine, even though the evidence your present is not very strong, asi t comes from a college newspaper, let us say for moment that the study we have been talking about really is flawed, though I’m not totally convinced of that yet. Remember, I have said that I wasn’t attached to this 1 in 4 statistic as it had given me pause, but rather that I sought to point that rape was a definite issue on college campuses. These students conclude a 5-7 percent figure over a lifetime. Other studies such as one conducted by the Center for Disease Control (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm) and the Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svcw.htm) found 14.8% and 10% respectively. Now these are all lifetime numbers so not completely applicable to our talk about college, but we do get some more college facts reading them.

The Justice Bureau also gives us a statistic that 3% of college women may be raped in a given year. 3 in 100 or approximately 1 in 33 every year. I’d still put that in the category of a serious problem. Now the 1 in 4 statistic was meant over the course of a college career so it’s a little different, but I find the Justice Bureau both more credible and more useful overall. Find flaws in that study if you will, but until then it makes the same point for me.

Now, can we talk about the alleged Socialist and Feminist control of our college?

Prove it.”

Luke: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=5259&pid=609

Luke: Now that I see that it’s tied up with one of the studies that you cited, I will DEFINATELY get to this. In fact I’ll get to it tomorrow immediately after classes.

Prove it.

You see that’s the problem. You keep harping on the accuracy of my data but don’t do so by bringing any of your own facts to the table. You prefer to look at the data I brought to the table and say “nuh uh” without any reasoning other than the fact that it doesn’t suit you and so it must be “feminist propaganda”. Yet, I find these statistics recurring again and again, on site after site, whether .edu, .org or anything else, everything I can find seems to agree. That’s pretty good propaganda, especially in such a free space as the internet, which is why it’s not propaganda at all.

Find me other data, if these statistics are is cracked as you seem to think there must be something to be found. Furthermore if you are going to keep harping on this issue of accuracy you should hold your other posters to the same standards.

Anyway all of this is just more dodging of the actual debate issue, which according to the title of this article is “The Socialist and Feminist Arms of My College”. The point of this rape discussion was that I said rape was an issue on college campuses. Whether it’s 1 in 4 women, 1 in 6 women, or even 1 in 20 women that’s still a serious problem. In general I say that the version of our school you are presenting is twisted to suit your own vision of the world a a place inhabited by shadowy figures called “Cultural Marxists” and “Feminists”, terms which seem to mean whatever suits you.

As far as my “behavior”, I don’t think there is anything wrong with this kind of debate, but if that’s not allowed on GL’s blog then that’s too bad. Luckily I don’t have any aspirations to change the minds of random strangers on the internet about huge social issues but just don’t want our school to be seen so negatively when nothing you say actually reflects the state of our campus or America at large. This way GL can say whatever he wants about Russian women, but as long as you bring our school into this discussion I feel that I have to give another on campus viewpoint.

The girls on campus aren’t prostitutes, the campus isn’t some 1984 style affair where thought police run rampant. I don’t see how you can say things like this and expect nobody to challenge them. That’s not bad behavior, it’s just what happens when people say untrue things. In actuality our school is like many other small liberal arts schools, a place where open exchange of ideas is prized highly and learning how to ask questions is just as important as the answers you find. I’m sorry if our school hasn’t been the best of experiences for you, and I wish you all the best for your new life in Siberia, but i can’t let you say things that aren’t true and not challenge them.

Your research is really sloppy. If you would have even taken a short amount of time to see where your sources came from, you wouldn’t have said to Craig:

“First off, I didn’t cite the report you reference, so even if that one may have had some inaccuracies I would press you to find the same problem with all of these studies.”

Because Craig did reference your report after all. Putting a study in a compilation does not magically change it into a different study Patriot, sorry.

–Luke Skywalker

I actually found where your “1994 Warshaw” statistic came from, by the way.

The fact that you haven’t brought any of your own data besides your own anecdotes to the table regarding the perceived evils of Feminism or Cultural Marxism besides your abortion statistic speaks to a weakness in your argument. Considering I’m strongly pro choice that particular fact means little to me. The studies I have cited are already published and have been for years. IF they were flawed some like minded individual would probably have proven it by now. If not, I say the burden to disprove is on you.

Luke: Patriot, this is not how Statistics is done at all. For the (n+1)th time, I cannot even begin to see whether what you are saying is true or not unless I have the contextual information that I asked for. I don’t care if every study in the world has this 25% statistic, I can’t make any sense of that or interpret it or gauge its validity in any way unless I have contextual information such as margin of error, wording of questions, sample sizes, etc. Again, you are the one who came on here with these statistics, now you have to give us supporting information so that they can be analyzed to measure their validity and the validity of the conclusions you claim.
You think this is a high level of suspicion? This is the level of suspicion that every statistician (or statistics student) has toward any study that they are presented with.
Studies must undergo rigerous analysis to gauge the validity of their conclusions. No study is exempt from this, not even the ones that you are bringing here.

Even if I were to search on the internet and bring you 1000 studies that differed in results from yours, it wouldn’t mean a thing unless proper analyses of those studies and your studies were done, and analyses were compared.

I’ll make you a deal Patriot. You go out and bring me the contextual information that I asked for for your studies which say that the percentage of women raped at college is 25%, and I’ll find some studies which give a significantly lower percentage of rapes and get the contextual information for those, and I’ll do the proper analyses on both groups of studies and do a proper comparitive analysis as well.
I’ll also give it to some statisticians that I know so they can do the analyses as well and we’ll compare results.
How does that sound?

–Luke Skywalker

As far as your admission is concerned, I know you visited this school as a prospective student. Often people interview when they do this. I don’t know if you did or not, but with the selective nature of our school I’m sure the school knew more about you than what they could see on paper. If your beliefs changed since then fine, but I find it hard to believe that in those months leading up to college you went from the type of nice little “Cultural Marxist” our college seeks out in your vision of the campus, to the very staunchly right wing Pro Bush Pro Life Pro War person I knew Freshmen year. Perhaps you disguised these beliefs in your application and interview? We can’t prove that one way or the other nor do I think it really matters.

If the school really functioned the way you paint it in your post, even if you had somehow tricked the admissions department why wouldn’t they have just booted you out as soon as they realized who you really were? Surely all those “I hate Steve” (Luke’s freshmen year roommate and good friend of mine) shirts you were wearing around freshmen year and the activism you showed during the election might have tipped them off. The fact is Luke there isn’t any sort of shadowy conspiracy to how our school is run. You are just as welcome as anyone else and not through some fluke of the system, but quite deliberately.

Luke: Patriot, for the nth time, I can’t even begin to discuss proof or a burden of proof until you bring me the data I asked for. You cited the statistics, you want us to accept them and their conclusions as true, now it’s up to you, not me, to produce the relevant information so that I can analyze it along with these statistics to see if they have validity.
Also prominence and/or frequency of a study or statistic, however great, does not automatically imply truth value in the least.

Until you do this, we are going to wave all your claims aside regarding statistics involving frequency of rape on college campuses as unproven.

Patriot: “If our school was truly this Cultural Marxist and Feminist center in the way you mean those labels then people such as Luke and my friend would not be admitted, plain and simple.”

Luke: This statement is totally unfounded. In a previous comment you said similarly:

“If they truly were trying to silence Luke he would never had been admitted since his beliefs were clear from the first day I met him Freshmen year. Though unformed of course the basis was all there.”

Except the college didn’t make the decision to admit me on the first day you met me freshman year, did they? I applied early decision round 1, and I had finished and sent in my application by very early December 2003. Even assuming that you met me in late August 2004, when school first started, that is still at least an 8 1/2 month difference. So even if the admissions committee has some way to infer students’ political and social beliefs based on college applications, it is quite possible that I could have had beliefs in accordance with the party line when I wrote the application, and those beliefs (yes, even also what you call the “unformed basis”) could have changed due to circumstances which occured during that 8 1/2 month period.

On this objection, your claim fails.

–Luke Skywalker

–Luke Skywalker

Secondly, it seems that you have come to side with Patriot also. So do you condemn him yet excuse yourself?

Please see here where Siberianow is begging for help in handling your reason and logical argument, which he clearly finds terrifying.

Sample:

Guys, I got my first bombthrower.

And they are a really bad bombthrower, too.
Now I know I said some really bad things on my site which are probably indefensible, but could some of you please try to defend the parts of my blog that the bombthrower attacked which are defensible? I really need you to help in any way that you can.
I want you all to know that I really really try and have tried to be good in everything that I have done on both this blog and on my blog.
I know I have written wrong things on both blogs, and I am deeply sorry for any wrong thing that I have written. I really am. I would keep writing but I’m getting showered with bombs as we speak. Please send help immediately.

15 minutes later:

Again, Im getting absolutely showered. Please send help. I know that not everything on my blog has been perfect, and a lot of it has been just plain bad. Guys, I’ll admit that I still have a lot to learn in life and I should have made my arguments more rational like you guys. I’ll be good and make my arguments really rational from now on. But please, this bombthrower is throwing bombs at an almost constant rate. Somebody’s gotta do something.

And again, I havent been perfect and I promise to make VAST improvements in the future.
But you guys gotta get me out of this one because this bombthrower goes to my college and may be sending a dozen more bombthrowers over as I speak since Marxism is so popular at my school. My blog may soon be inundated with bombs.

I am relieved to see that the college you two attend still has some students capable of civil debate. Good job, Patriot.

GW

Arrogance is not intelligence, despite what you seem to think. You still seek to attach titles to me which mean only what you want them along with all sorts of qualifiers to my comments. Did you know you called my comments “smear” six times, me a Cultural Marxist five times (more if we include all the times you paint me as a communist), and extremist four times? That’s a lot of accusations and yet, for all you claim that I’m trying to stick smear on you, the hate you direct at me won’t stick either.

In fact, all this expressed outrage speaks to some sort of fear on your part, maybe because I’ve seen through your closed minded view of the world so you have no choice to attack me as some sort of radical lest you actually take what I say seriously.

Anyway, once again let’s take it from the top.

After more CAPITAL LETTERS

And

Dramatic

SPACING.

And a really super clever jab where you accuse me of PMS, thus meaning I’m a woman, which to you must be some sort of an insult. After all, college women are sluts who totally deserve it when they are raped, but I digress.

Eventually we start to get to what you actually have to say. First off you fault me for not bothering to really address all that communist crap you posted before. Somehow the fact that I don’t find outdated information from a party I want nothing to do with means that I’ve metaphorically had my money stolen and blown in vegas. Suddenly I’m a “useful idiot” (yet another label that suits your purposes) and I can’t see things the “right” way like you. Just because I have some Liberal beliefs (ie rights for women and minorities, acceptance of homosexuals, separation of church and state) I’m a full blow red communist!

In fact this communist paranoia sounds very McCarthy, and for someone who is so big on using “History” and “Economics” against me I’m surprised you haven’t realized that. If you point fingers and someone and call them a communist or any other easily identifiable common evil it’s just that much easier to vilify them without discernible reason. I’m not calling for a vast social overhaul of the country, equal ownership of everything all around or anything else like that. I’m not taking part in this supposed Marxist agenda, willingly or unwillingly any more than you are taking part in the agenda of White Supremacists which may coincidentally hold similar beliefs. The party whose manifesto you claim I’m furthering has never in recent memory wielded any significant power in this country, and I find it completely absurd that now, as we move closer and closer to a theocracy (thanks to Dubya) you even think that some shadowy Communist threat still looms on the horizon.

I throw in a bit of sarcasm with my “overlords” comment and you go wild with excitement! Hyperbole is an art you are extremely skilled in, I’m surprised you would latch on to one comment so fervently. Also, my mention of you as perhaps fitting under the fundamentalist Christian belief bandwagon was used as an example of the uselessness of attaching labels, I said so explicitly. It was an “If…Then” statement. If I’m a Marxist because of some ideals I hold, then you just as easily fall into that category. Perhaps you have a virus and just don’t know it.

“Irregardless” Nice word choice there, a simple “Regardless’ would have been fine I’m sure, but that extra prefix really adds to your credibility.

On family rights, I don’t even know what you’re ranting about after a while. You say that Cultural Marxists are destroying the family unit. How am I doing this exactly? Clearly something I believe must be leading to the downfall of society, why don’t you explain that. I already said that I’m very much in support of family, I just believe it can take many forms and it is not for anyone to tell us what form family has to take, Governmental or otherwise. Perhaps that is where your confusion stems from.

So what your brilliant rebuttal based on “History” and “Economics” turns out to be is accusing me of smear and spin, while doing exactly the same thing yourself. You want to take everyone with liberal beliefs and throw them into the box labeled “Marxist” or “Communist”. That would be the same as if I took everyone with conservative beliefs (such as yourself) and threw them in a box labeled “Fascist”. In no way is that an accurate reflection of how things are. Politics and beliefs exist very much on a spectrum, things can’t just be black and white, and just because I am distanced from you on this spectrum doesn’t automatically push me all the way to the opposite side.

Which brings us back to Luke’s accusations against my school. Do we have a liberal environment here? Yes, quite frequently, but it is certainly not uniform and to the exclusion of everything else. There are some departments here which are quite conservative, and that’s fine. One of my best friends is a staunch Republican, and I have no problem with that. As an American he is entitled to his beliefs as much as I am regardless of my differing feelings. If our school was truly this Cultural Marxist and Feminist center in the way you mean those labels then people such as Luke and my friend would not be admitted, plain and simple.

Anyway, please GW, you can call me stupid or ignorant all you want, but all the bombast in the world won’t make it true. Our beliefs differ… greatly. That doesn’t mean however that I and a crazy communist trying to destroy your way of life, and if in fact you see everyone that has ever disagreed with you as some sort of enemy I suggest you seek help.

“the point of this entire discussion is whether or not rape is a problem on college campuses or not. I say it is and you have yet to prove otherwise.”

Luke:

Well you haven’t proven that it is, either. All you are doing is spouting a bunch of numbers with no real backing to them:

You haven’t given me a margin of error for any of the three studies you mentioned.
In the first and third study you haven’t given me a sample size.
You haven’t given me the wordings of the questions asked for any of the three studies you mentioned.
You haven’t given me any information regarding how the questions were asked, ie whether these were telephone surveys, or in-person surveys, etc.

You were the one who came on here claiming that the proportion of rapes that occur on college campuses in the US is worse than the proportion of rapes overall. You put these statistics on here, now it is up to you, not us, to provide us with the appropriate information concerning them so that we can analyze them to see if they hold any truth.

If after looking at all the basic information I still feel that I need to look at even more details about how these studies were conducted I will then hunt down these sources myself and go from there.
But honestly these figures that you are citing are outrageous and it’s obvious from intuition that there is a major flaw in method in all of these studies which is causing their outrageous results. I suspect it is something obvious like the questions were worded in an extremely slanted manner to get the results they wanted, or that the surveys were voluntary response, which is a totally unreliable way to do a serious statistical study.
It’s not worth my time tracking down junk science reports.

In other words:

Give me the margin of error for all three.
Give me the sample size for the first and third.
Give me the exact wording of the questions asked for all three.
Give me the method of collection of data. ie, were these telephone surveys, were these forms that were put in a pile so that whoever wanted to could pick one up, fill it out, and drop it in a box, were these in-person interviews,..?

After you do that, we’ll talk.

–Luke Skywalker

I’m really need to spend time recovering from that blow you just “landed” on me about my writing style..

Or in other words..

Is

That

All

You’ve

Got?

Unfortunately it reminds me of an all too common PMS induced rant..

Ok so let’s get down to “bizness”..

You claim to be an independent thinker and I’m going to challenge you on that.

I have never seen or read anything from a Liberal such as yourself that remotely demonstrates any kind of long term thinking or logic when it comes to doing what’s best for society.

I can make this claim because Liberals and Cultural Marxists like yourself.. and yes I’m still going to call you that and justify it as well… completely IGNORE little things like History and Economics.. and that’s why you are going to LOSE any argument you have with me and the only way you can deal with that is to go into spin, denial, innuendo, and accusation mode..

You just proved this to be true by going into complete DENIAL about the 1963 communist party agenda items that I listed out for you. Agenda items that you claim you are not involved in but in Truth you are because you would be classified by Lenin as a “useful idiot”..

He used that term for a very good reason..

Because it’s true for almost all Liberals.. who are really Socialists in disguise.. (which is really a lighter but still destructive version of Marxism/Communism)..

It’s called BAIT and SWITCH Patriot..

If someone shows you enough propaganda about starving kids in Africa and convince you to join their cause to help raise money to “save them” and then turns around and pocket that money and then blows it all in Vegas..

Then you just got USED BIG TIME..

You fell for the OLDEST Trick in the book..

Someone used your goodwill and general compassion for your fellow man to defraud people and to steal money..

If this person gets caught.. and the “charity” organization gets indicted for fraud.. intentionally or not you are STILL part of it and an active participant in a CRIME. You are dirty and everyone knows it..

When you look back at history many people in the Nazi party swear that they never knew what was going on because all of the crimes of that regime were hidden from them and they were fed their own steady diet of propaganda in the media..

Well guess what.. right or wrong..

They are still dirty..

It doesn’t matter if up till now you never knew what Cultural Marxism was..

Because you still believe and participate in it’s agenda that was clearly stated over 40 years ago..

And that makes you STILL Dirty..

Now do you know why Lenin so cleverly called people like you “useful idiots”?

I prefer to use the term “infected with a cultural virus” myself..

And a virus is a great description of this process.. go in and control the thought processes (or political DNA) of a person (i.e. cell) and then watch the person self destruct with time with that belief system and spread the virus to others.. repeat constantly until the host body (i.e. society) dies..

Don’t believe me Patriot?

Look at your recent history behind the societal collapse of the USSR..

Patriot: “Somehow I am buying into a culturally demanded idea mandated by my Cultural Marxist overlords.”

Patriot, when did I ever use the words.. “Overlords”

Are you trying to paint me with your handy little extremist toolkit again?

Well for your benefit let me tell you why I NEVER implied that there were “Overlords” behind Cultural Marxism. There’s a much simpler reason why it exists and flourishes among people like you..

Cultural Marxism is a very useful set of tools for 3 groups of people..

One – Lenin’s “Useful Idiots” who just want to feel good and join a political bandwagon without exercising any critical thought as to their long term consequences..

Two – Lazy underachievers or whiners who don’t want to get ahead on their own with enough ambition, fortitude and drive.. and instead blame the powers that be for “keeping them down”.

Three – Socialists politicians within any government (aka US Democratic Party) who want to exploit the above to grow their own power base.. “Vote for me and I promise to give you free… (fill in the blank)..

Also Patriot..

First off I never accused you directly of destroying the family unit now did I?

So WHY would you want to try twist what I’m saying to make that accusation?

It’s obvious because YOU are the one trying to throw “extremist” labels and innuendo on others like Siberiannow and myself.. You started doing that from the very beginning of this thread and I’m calling you out on it..

Another CLASSIC way for you to do this is to label my “language” or my intentions of promoting the stability and welfare of families above all else as just a fringe belief of the Religious Right or a Christian Base.. Well I got news for you Patriot.. I’m NOT part of that category… and quite frankly you look like a fool for trying to pin that on me..

This actually is a KEY POINT that gives you away as an extremist..

You are obviously implying that anyone who wishes to protect the traditional bounds of family is a religious zealot with your use of the words “religious right” and “a Christian base automatically makes things Good” (i’m using your words here)..

This is an obvious FALLACY in your thinking..

Traditional and Stable Families are CORE building blocks of Humanity and Society..

IRREGARDLESS of RELIGION..

Yet you are either demonstrating your Complete Ignorance of this by purposely ignoring this fact..

OR

You are simply seeing AGAIN what “extremist” labels you can try to throw at us in order to see what sticks..

Sorry Patriot.. Please try again..

Cause I’m way too smart to fall for such an obvious underhanded smear..

And if I expose you for conducting an underhanded smear which I just did..

Then you just took a few serious drops down the evolutionary ladder as far as credibility and intelligence is concerned..

You may not be directly destroying the “family unit” Patriot..

But you have opted to become part of that machinery with your ignorance and your support of the various Communist Agenda Items that I have listed in my previous post.. One item may not be enough to take down the family.. but a few or all of them combined can certainly do the trick.. and that is what you are a part of..

Patriot: “Mandating what family should consist of is not the place of the government, that is the kind of acceptance of other lifestyles I’m looking for.”

Goodness Patriot I just love the way you try to pin this on me because I’m calling you out as a Cultural Marxist.

Again..This is total spin on your part.. and just another underhanded smear on your part..

PROVE to everyone here that I support the idea that “Government should mandate what a proper family is..”

I DARE YOU TOO..

Go ahead try Patriot..

You OBVIOUSLY think that this is what I’m supporting..

So I’d like to see just EXACTLY how you can prove that..

If you can’t reference anything I’ve said to back this up then guess what..

I just NAILED you AGAIN as a SMEAR MONGER.. aka Cultural Marxist..

I’m a Libertarian by the way.. and this belief system is completely incompatible with the smear that you just tried to throw my way to see if it would stick..

Well it doesn’t.. and not everyone who believes in Family is a bible thumping right winger as is the case in your myopic little view of the political spectrum..

Also Patriot one last thing.. please do yourself a big favor..

Don’t play this game of trying to act civil after the fact.. especially when you were the one who STARTED THIS by trying to smear people with your Cultural Marxist tool kit of names and claims..

So with this in mind.. I’m quite justified in repeating my last parting words to you..

I hope you wake up and get a real life..

GL

On the debunking of the 1988 study, Craig clearly believes the results to be false, but that doesn’t inherently render it invalid or “debunked”. I don’t see what his first point has to do with the results gathered, and I’d like to know where he gets the information for his second source.

Even so, as much as I’ve tried I can’t find any studies that conclude rape isn’t a problem on college campuses, or even ones that yield a number different than 25%. Even if the number was 6.25% of women though, that would indicate a serious risk.

And, as much as you keep trying to derail and focus on minutia, the point of this entire discussion is whether or not rape is a problem on college campuses or not. I say it is and you have yet to prove otherwise.

I’ll do analysis of whichever of thses studies is available to me when I get the time, and that should put an end to the “squabbling”.

And you say “every study”? You gave me three, and another one of them (the 1988 study) that came up with that same result as those three ended up being debunked, as Craig mentioned.

And in statistics, if three fourths of the women in the 1988 study that the study claims were raped were not, then the consequences to that study are greater than just the percentage being lowered from 25% to 6.25%. It means that the whole study is garbage and must be thrown out and redone because its method of acquiring data is too severely flawed.

–Luke Skywalker

I’m sorry you can’t be bothered to go the library and check for these studies which I’m sure could easily be obtained either through one of our databases or interlibrary loan. Though, instead of squabbling back and forth over the validity of a study we have no scientific reason to doubt maybe we should focus instead on our school and the alleged condition of life here. After all, that was the initial topic.

Luke: If you were skeptical of it, then why did you post it and then defend it as true?

Patriot: “I could find no other and so must accept it as something close to the actuality of the situation.”

Luke: Frequency of a result itself does not automatically imply anything, not even that something is close to the reality of the situation.

Frankly, I don’t have access to any of the three studies that you mentioned, and I don’t have the money to pay for this access because I am saving all my money to travel to Siberia this summer.

By “access” what I mean is I need to know the wording of the survey questions, the method of how the respondents were questioned, the specific colleges that were surveyed, the margin of error, and other things like that.
I will need to have these things before I can even begin to decide whether these studies’ conclusions are valid or not.

–Luke Skywalker

Blue boxes. Just because lack anecdotal evidence from our own personal experience means nothing. I’m sure they must have some use when they are present on campuses throughout the country. I hardly think they promote paranoia. I however am not the spokesman for whatever agency has decided to place them so who knows. I just don’t see them as evidence that a conspiracy is in control of the policy of my school.

Rape again? Sexual assault isn’t ok, and by that I mean sexual contact when one participant is unwilling. Not even if the woman is drunk and “asking for it”. It doesn’t take a whole lot of thought to know when a woman is too drunk to understand what is going on. I’m not defending their reckless behavior, but I also don’t think women should have to live in fear either.

Again, to bring things back on topic. The point is that rape is a real occurrence and risk on college campuses, and that blue phones have been a response to this. Whether they have been effective I don’t know. Clearly it is easy for me to say yes they are, and for you to say no they aren’t, but let’s see if we can find some evidence one way or the other. It is worth noting that many of these blue phones are meant for all sorts of emergencies. Searching, I found that Yale’s phones have quick button for fire, police, and medical assistance. So while part of their purpose may be to allow aid in the event of rape, let’s face the fact that most college rape is not of the “stranger pulls you off into scary alley” variety and instead takes place, as we have discussed in a dorm room where at least one participant is very intoxicated.

To conclude. Rape does occur on college campuses, and with a disproportionate frequency. While I must admit I too am skeptical of the 1/4 statistic, I could find no other and so must accept it as something close to the actuality of the situation. While Luke and I are lucky that our campus is generally very safe, for our rather sizable campus 20 phones is not an extraordinary number, especially considering uses besides calling to report a rape. Increasing safety is different from paranoia. I could go on an on about the paranoia rampant in our country today, but I wouldn’t be pointing fingers at a shadowy “feminist” and “cultural marxist” enemy. But that isn’t the point of this discussion.

Secondly, we never said that gays are destroying marriage by simply being gay: It is being promoted while marriage is being slammed. Women say “Why would I want to be trapped in a relationship when I can experiment and have fun!?” I have known many girls like this, and they are the most miserable human beings I have ever met. Why promote something at the expense of the other?

As for the blue boxes, you miss the point. They were installed under the guise of “protection.” However, I have not heard of any instance where people needed to be protected, man or woman. So what purpose do they serve otherwise? None, other than to feed paranoia.

If you disagree, it’s fine. But you must understand that a woman who cannot limit herself, a woman who does not respect herself, will get herself into those situations and harm herself. Men usually do not force themselves on the women in those situations either. A woman does not respond as she normally would, and then wakes up the next morning in some man’s bed because it’s quite common to go along with it. I’ve seen a lot of women begging for this type of attention while drunk. And I will tell you why I oppose these such things; Because women need to realise that they have to put their personal safety first. If you wish to get drunk without restraint, do it around very good friends. But to get drunk around strangers like that, is ridiculous and down right stupidity. It is the same as women who drive and smash into somebody, then blame the other person for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And yes, some men are oppertunists, but where would they be if she was sober and unwilling? They’d be hitting on the drunk girl with no self control.

Also, you say that I am presumptuous to call it flawed when you don’t know the defination of it either. Attempted rape can be anything from advances on her to touching to actual attempted intercourse. The same applies for sexual assault; there is no universal defination, which makes sexual abuse an even harder topic to research or bring opinions too.

First of all.

Meaningless spaces between

Your lines

Serve less to provide emphasis and

Make you sound important,

And more to make your text difficult to read and give it a

Needless

Self

Important

Tone.

Craig, you want “pathetic attempts at shame and ridicule”? Look at how GL feels the need to dismiss my comments by calling them “childish”, “simple”, and calling me “infected” with a “virus”. I’m sorry that I didn’t have time to more fully respond to your comments, I let my distaste rise to the surface. I’ll get to it.

But first I’d like to address GL, without needlessly attacking him personally despite how strongly I disagree with him. Ok, so maybe that little bit at the top was kind of personal, but no more after that I swear.

So, from the top.

Your claims of “Group Think”. Somehow I am buying into a culturally demanded idea mandated by my Cultural Marxist overlords. In fact I have formulated by beliefs through my own reading and careful thought and discussion, much as I hope you have. But if we are going to throw a label of “Group Think” around I would hypothetically accuse you, Luke, Craig, and Kara of subscribing to a set of beliefs also similarly dictated by a higher force.

If I’m speaking this supposed language of Cultural Marxism, you all are speaking the language of the American religious right, extolling the virtues of your own beliefs based on the fact that a Christian base automatically makes things “Good”, that all families must consist of a Mother, Father, and 2.5 kids, and that people that hold different beliefs (Communists, Feminists, Democrats) are a threat and victimize you to improve their own lives at your expense.

“But Patriot!” you cry, “How dare you throw labels at me! What is wrong with being a my strong Christian beliefs, it’s people like you that are destroying our country and ruining the lives of regular old heterosexual white males like me!”

I’m using this as an example. Throwing me under some label of Cultural Marxist is nice, because it puts me in a box and means you can throw general attacks at me such as use of “Classic Marxist Tactics”, and using a “childish ploy to try to silence people”. I can throw you in a box and throw general attacks at you, but again, it’s meaningless.

As far as the American Communist Party agenda, first of all, that’s from 1963, well before I was born. Again, you’re trying to throw me in a box with some imagined enemy so you can level attacks at me and say “look at these communists, they are crazy! By extension you must be crazy too!” I could go and take sections from Nazi speeches and level similar accusations at you, but again, it’s a logical fallacy to do so and it’s counter productive to any sort of reasonable discussion.

I’m not a communist, Marxist or whatever else pleases you to think I am. Actually I’ve made a conscious choice to remain independent in my politics, voting for my beliefs rather than party lines, beliefs that I do seek to try and challenge and explore, partially through discussion like this. However, I’m just not seeing how your comments line up to anything more than personal attacks, accusations that I’m brainwashed, and attaching labels that mean whatever you please.

Which brings us to your claim that I’m trying to destroy the family unit. I’m confused as to where you are getting that from. I love my own family very much and fully intend to marry and have children of my own some day. However I don’t see how things such as gay marriage work to destroy this idea of the “family unit”. Not all families are the same, some consist of a single mom working hard to support three kids, some are happy nuclear families like the one I grew up in, some people have two moms and lead perfectly happy normal lives. Mandating what family should consist of is not the place of the government, that is the kind of acceptance of other lifestyles I’m looking for.

Is religion often a good guideline for a living a good life? Perhaps. I’m Jewish personally and consider my Rabbi a trusted person that I could turn to, but religion, like anything else can be used in the name of harming others. Look at Jihads and Crusades, needless killing for some imagined Godly dictate. I have no issues with religion, only those who twist it to be something it was never intended to be.

I do have a real life GL, and I’m quite happy with it. It is easy to point internet fingers and call people brainwashed, but prove to me, explain to me what is wrong with my beliefs and maybe I will understand. As it is though all you have done is accuse me of “Group Think” and left it at that, and I hardly see how that’s productive at all.

Now, to respond to Kara.

Again, back to the topic of blue phones. Fine, our campuses are safe(ish) places for women. I’m glad. I think think the availability of access to emergency services in the case of any emergency is a good thing. I don’t really find a simple phone box to be an eyesore.

However, I heartily disagree with your claim that a woman who gets to drunk to say no has raped herself. While intoxication to the point of stupidity is no doubt foolish, I don’t think it in any way makes it acceptable for a male to force himself on a woman, or vice versa. Forced sexual contact is inexcusable, regardless of the circumstances, and can’t see how you would even try to defend it.

Do some women cry “rape”? Likely. Is that ok? No. But often rape cases are difficult to prove unless action is taken immediately, so to actually have anything done about a real or imagined rape can be a difficult process, making it no easy task to prove rape when none actually occurred. No doubt a woman puts herself in danger when the compromises her own ability to resist advances, but men should be equally responsible in recognizing such states.

As to speculation about attempted rape. I would have to refer to the studies to be sure, but I take it to mean that the victim escaped before the act was able to be completed or that something stopped forced intercourse from actually occurring. I do believe it presumptuous to call it flawed though just because you aren’t sure what it means.

Craig. Sorry to have dismissed you so quickly before, let me give you the full response you desire.

First off, I didn’t cite the report you reference, so even if that one may have had some inaccuracies I would press you to find the same problem with all of these studies. Again, I advocate personal responsibility, but I do not excuse people that force themselves on others regardless of inhibited states. That’s like saying that a man who slipped a woman roofies is not to blame because she was completely limp and unable to resist. Sure, the woman made the conscious decision to consume the alcohol, and perhaps excessive amounts, but does that mean she somehow “deserves” to be raped???

Also, the initial point of all this rape discussion was to prove that rape actually was an issue on college campuses since Luke believed it was not, even 25 percent of 25 percent is 6.25 percent, that’s a not insignificant percentage of women.

I never claimed any of the rest of the stuff you go on to say, so it’s not better than some straw man attack.

To conclude. The initial point of my posting was to challenge Luke’s assertion that our college is run by an conspiracy of Feminists and Marxists. Our college is run by people trying to create a community. One which, perhaps surprising, people as diverse as myself and Luke can live and engage in debate. If they truly were trying to silence Luke he would never had been admitted since his beliefs were clear from the first day I met him Freshmen year. Though unformed of course the basis was all there. Anyway I hope I have cleared some things up and would welcome more civil discussion as devoid from personal attacks as possible.

Patriot: (to the marxist/feminist state)
“Well, I’m glad we have brilliant scientists like you Craig to debunk all this feminist filth.
:rolleyes:”

Exhibit A, Luke. Exhibit A. Right out of the handbook. “When presented with facts that you can’t dispute, turn instead to pathetic attempts at shame and ridicule. That’ll put ‘em in their place! Oh, yeah! High five! I’m so clever.”

I feel like I’ve been transported back to the third grade.

Siberianow’s post on Cultural Marxism in your university is well justified and supported with the manner of your comments.

You are demonstrating quite clearly with your language and accusations that you are a Cultural Marxist and that mindless “Group Think” is alive and well even in a small middest university through individuals like you.

How you ask?

Simple..

It’s because people like you use a very simple childish ploy to try to silence people.

If you don’t agree with anything they say..

Then the very first thing you TRY to do is to somehow associate them as being one of the following..

Homophobic

Racists

Chauvinists.

Abuser

and More..

This is something that you are CLEARLY doing in your comments. Because in no way in any of Siberianow’s posts did he support any of the following “labels” above..

You childishly try to “scare” people who disagree with you by throwing these labels on them and seeing if it sticks..

This is a CLASSIC Marxist tactic..

In Russia and France you were called a Beuguoise’ (sp?)

In China and Cuba you were called a Counter Revolutionary..

You are proving yourself to be no different from the fools who obediently followed Stalin, Mao in Russia and China..

Both of these mass killers knew exactly how to manipulate the masses using the same strategies that you have bought into and pasted on to your own identity.

And Patriot.. that’s all you are proving yourself to be right now.. just another gullible and manipulated pawn within these “masses”..

Don’t believe me?

Read the Official American Communist Party Agenda from 1963

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

here are some key ones that apply to this discussion and to you..

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Again Communism/Marxism failed as an economic enemy.. but it’s gaining tremendous strength as a Cultural Adversary in order to achieve it’s goals of weakening and ultimately destroying the traditional foundations of Western Society.

Which are all primarily based on the family unit as being the central core. Destroy the family and you’ve easily destroyed society.. and big government comes in and enslaves the rest just like communism..

And if you think this is just some mindless talk you are wrong..

Because this evil game plan is as old as history.. time and time again you will see forms of this killing off different civilizations and we in the US are not immune to this at all.

And unfortunately Patriot.. you are infected with this “virus”.. and now you find yourself with an overwhelming urge to go out and to infect others…

However you spin your position Patriot.. you are only supporting one of the above agenda items..

I’d strongly recommend that you take a hard look at yourself.. and see if this is the “badge ” that you wish to be identified with for the rest of your life..

Or in other words..

I hope you wake up and get a real life..

GL

:rolleyes:

Or the claim that domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects, supposedly attributed to the March of Dimes foundation. When someone actually bothered to call the March of Dimes to check this “fact” (after it had been repeated widely in major newspapers), it was found that they had never said anything of the sort, and the claim was absurd.

But wymmyn on these blogs continue to propagate this crap, because they don’t care whether it’s true or not, as long as it supports their hateful ideology.

#1 They asked women bizarre questions like “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” When a man gave/b> you alcohol or drugs?? So women/girls aren’t responsible for the consequences of their decisions and judgment (or lack thereof)?

#2 Only 1/4 of the women that the study concluded had been raped actually believed they had been raped! Another example of feminists’ comtempt and condescension towards the women they purport to be advocating for.

My school here in Canada also has alot of of those Blue Phones in case of rape or assault. However, I have not heard once since I was here about any rapists on campus. Infact, I could walk around in my underwear at 3am and though I’d get some raised eyebrows from the few students walking around, I’d be completely safe. Those telephones aren’t useful for anyone, especially since they installed so many of them.

Also, your comment “Alcohol and hormones are often a dangerous combination” on rape is extremely true. For both men AND women. A woman who goes to a party and conciously decides to become intoxicated to the point where she cannot consent to sex is the same as if she raped herself. The problem is she then blames the man for her faults in the situation. There is a saying from the middle east, “If a stray cat eats uncovered meat, is it the cat’s or the meat’s fault?”. Yes, it may hurt the woman or man that was “raped”, but they also carry some blame for allowing themselves to get into such a compromised position. And yes, I have gotten drunk before and taken advantage of, so please don’t believe I’m just making this up

Something tells me that this “one in four” statistic is completely bogus.

But that’s for statistical analysis to decide.

–Luke Skywalker

The one statistic I repeatedly see cited is that “One out of four women will be sexually assaulted on a college campus”. I found several studies supporting this claim One such study was conducted by the National Center for Victims of Crime (www.ncvc.org). This center deals with all sorts of crime, but to prove its not an isolated study I’ll give you more info. I also found that, “In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)”. Need more info? According to other researchers “One out of every four college women have experienced rape or attempted rape. (Miller, Trivedi, Frenske, 1996)”.

All this information gleaned from some quick google searching and checking to make sure that the studies weren’t fabricated. These are my “studies or series of studies”. Now what do I think? Well clearly rape is a real problem on America’s college campuses, I think that is clear from the data. While I freely admit that such assaults are less frequent on our own campus the student handbook does list the instance of these infractions. Even more worrisome is that many assaults go unreported.

I have given you three studies Luke, they can’t all be fabricated “feminist drool” as you love to say when dismissing arguements for no discernable reason. Revealing one’s online identity is nothing compared to rape, and so who can blame our school for taking measures to prevent such a serious crime when the data shows it is a serious concern on college campuses.

Luke: No Patriot. You came onto this website whining about “college rape”. Now it’s up to you to prove to me that this is an actual problem rather than just a figment of the feminist imagination.

Show me a study or series of studies.
Show me your analysis.
Show me how it leads to the conclusion that you claim.

And I’m not putting words in your mouth as you love to claim so much. You repeatedly talk about how the white heterosexual male is forced to suffer, implying that equality means a loss on their part, which it really doesn’t.

Luke: It’s not research at all unless you give me the name of a specific study (or series of studies) and give me analysis as to how that study(ies) proves that rape is more common on college campuses than anyplace else. Research involves analysis. Not just going onto google and noting that there exist studies on a particular topic.

Patriot: “Regarding discrimination: So as I understand you don’t believe that equality between genders and ethnicities should be promoted and instead white heterosexual males shall rule over all others?”

Luke: Do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything even close to that. I never mentioned anyone ruling over anyone else, or even the concept of rulership. Like I said, please give me facts, not feminist drool.

Patriot: “I’m not saying that white heterosexual males should suffer, but I don’t see why they should be granted privledge over anyone else.”

Luke: When did I ever mention special privledge for white heterosexual males? Again you are fabricating things that I never said.

Patriot: “So what if a black homosexual female were to gain some sort of power in our country.”

Luke: It would depend upon who she was. Condoleeza Rice is one of the most talented and qualified Secretaries of State I have ever seen, and she fits two out of the three categories you mentioned.

Patriot: “I think the promotion of a gender and race blind view of the world is a good thing

Luke: My response to this would depend largely upon your definition of “gender and race blind view”.

Patriot: “and that xenophobia and sexism have no place in the future of our country.”

Luke: This sounds all nice and cheery on paper, but in reality socialists like you use statements like this as an excuse to turn xenophobia and sexism into “thoughtcrimes” and call for increasing government control to crack down on alleged “thought criminals”.

Regarding discrimination: So as I understand you don’t believe that equality between genders and ethnicities should be promoted and instead white heterosexual males shall rule over all others? I’m not saying that white heterosexual males should suffer, but I don’t see why they should be granted privledge over anyone else. So what if a black homosexual female were to gain some sort of power in our country. Would that really be a huge tragedy? I think the promotion of a gender and race blind view of the world is a good thing, and that xenophobia and sexism have no place in the future of our country.

My issue with this is that I don’t find this to be true at all. And that by stating things in this manner you seem to be villifying those that would welcome different lifestyles. I am sorry if you were confused by this.”

Luke: It most certainly is true. What do you call all the smear speeches that they have during freshman orientation. Think about this: who in this society pays the price of all these anti-discrimination programs: The white heterosexual male. Let me let you in on something: do you think these Marxists care about individual people or preventing individual instances of discrimination? Hardly. These Marxists are interested in the big picture. They want to control the hearts and minds of the next generation, so they are spending a great amount of money and effort in controlling the ideologies of colleges and universities. Part of doing that is placing students in an environment in which they can disallow free thought under the charge that it is “discriminatory”. Like I said before, the group that recieves the blunt of this attack is white heterosexual males.

–Luke Skywalker

Luke: Please give me some real statistics for this claim instead of feminist drool. Is it any more a threat on campuses than it is anywhere else? Clearly not.

On the phones: Yes, they express purpose of the phones is to provide contact with campus security in the event of an emergency such as a sexual assault. Rape is a real threat on college campuses and while you may not have to worry about someone forcing you into an act you have no interest in participating in, the placement of these phones is meant to provide help in the case of an emergency. Blue light phones are common on campuses throughout the country and provide needed access to help.

On labels: What I mean to say, is that I don’t think these labels are accurate of our college administration at all. Though the school does promote freedom of expression I don’t see it as overtly Feminist or Marxist in the ways you mean. I wanted to know what specific grievences you had with the college.

On Different Lifestyles: You say

“What I mean is a cultural socialist arm which attempts to brainwash students into seeing the white heterosexual Christian male as an ‘oppressor’, and people of other races, ethnicities, and religions as ‘victims of the oppressor’”

My issue with this is that I don’t find this to be true at all. And that by stating things in this manner you seem to be villifying those that would welcome different lifestyles. I am sorry if you were confused by this.

On Feminism: I would love to hear what you have to say. I welcome GL’s input on this as well. Extreme feminism, like any other extreme can have its problems, but I think that the desire for equality in the sexes is a genuinely admirable cause.

“Blue light phones to prevent rape do not spell 1984, then mean that your administration cares about the well being of its students.”

Wait a minute..you are openly admitting that the rationale behind those suckers is to prevent rape?? You just made my job about 10 times easier, thanks. You see folks, this just goes to show you how the feminists try to create the illusion that the unseen rapist is everywhere, and uses this to justify more and more Big Brother style measures.

“It is all too easy to throw labels such as Marxist or Feminist, your underlying arguements seem weak at best and seem to speak to some other motive on your part for disliking your administration, whatever that might be.”

I’m a mathematician, not a linguist. Also I am much younger than GL, Hero, Taras, and Craig, who make really solid arguments because they have had so much life experience. As Taras said once (and I can’t remember if this is the exact quote) “GL and I have been around the block before”.

“Acceptance of differing lifestyles does not require intolerance. Just because your school encourages acceptance of non whites and homosexuals does not mean there is a marxist conspiracy.”

Wait..when did I ever say anything about different lifestyles? Or that the acceptance of non whites and homosexuals was the reason why I thought that there was a conspiracy. I don’t ever remember saying that. Please get your facts straight.

“You treat feminism as if it is a boogey monster out to get you, and yet it is impossible to deny the benefits that have come to our society through providing women equality. Feminism as a desire for equality between the genders is an admirable cause which I hope you can recognize.”

The best response against this argument would probably come from GL. He has countered many arguments like this before and seems to get more passionate with every time. Nothing I could write here against this could be as good as what he could say back to it.

Marxism as well seems to be a demon to you. While I am by no means a socialist, I severely doubt some sort of cold war red conspiracy is in charge of your college, forcing them to hate an imagined heterosexual white oppressor. Acceptance of differing lifestyles does not require intolerance. Just because your school encourages acceptance of non whites and homosexuals does not mean there is a marxist conspiracy.

I severely doubt what you have posted. Blue light phones to prevent rape do not spell 1984, then mean that your administration cares about the well being of its students. It is all too easy to throw labels such as Marxist or Feminist, but your underlying arguements seem weak at best and seem to speak to some other motive on your part for disliking your administration, whatever that might be.

I’m sorry Ceiver, but “free speech” in this country is a lie unless you have the money to afford a top-notch lawyer. Just look at what happened to Editor Edison, whose site got taken off the internet twice because what he said was against the government. And like he said, it would have been taken off a whole lot earlier if he didn’t have the best lawyers money could buy.

……….. Ceiver you are totally missing the point. I’m all for emergency phones, but 10 phones would have made do for that purpose on our tiny campus. Instead, we have over 20.

Think back to the situation on GL’s blog recently where blade said ”
Try saying hi to “hot” American woman or if you try to be social, she will quickly try to get away or call the cops.”
and then Aussie Kim said in response to that “Well there are a lot of lunatics out there. How does she know you’re not one of them?” I believe that this is the rationale behind having so many phones..to create an atmosphere in which you feel like any of your fellow students or the locals could be one of the shadowy “lunatics out there” and are not to be trusted.

I am a father, and if my daughter were on that campus I would want 40 phones for her emergency.