C
chevalier
Guest
I certainly hope that you don’t believe that teenage daughters should be allowed to wear whatever they want and supported in that decision without being offered parental guidance, including parental prohibition where needed. Especially if they say they like it because it’s sexy. And no, putting all the blame on men and telling the girl than in ideal world she could wear whatever she wanted wouldn’t be proper parental action. Proper education of children by parents cannot omit proper use of human sexuality (this includes ordering our desire to be desired).
I value your opinion and it’s a good thing you will just say it instead of harbouring some kind of resentment but no, I’m not on some kind of debate war.
No, of course not. I think I have disagreed with everybody at this point. And please note that you, Severus and I have written most of the posts in this thread. But if you suggest I should give Nate a harder time, I will look into it.
No, of course not, but you are way overinterpreting whatever I say. I fail to see how and where I may have given you basis for such far leaps. Those leaps are making discussion rather hard.
Of course not. But we were not talking about a national park or a grizzly bear or anything like that. In terms of proper logic, we should not presume exceptions and very unusual situations. In fact, the leap from a dead body and a rifle to a national park situation was rather fanciful in itself. What is also important is that neither the prosecutor nor the jury will split hairs too much in imagining any story that would have the defendant not intending whatever he did. Sure, they will examine the weapon, they might ask what exactly he was firing it, they might even require him to undergo a psych evaluation, depending on the jurisdiction he might be able to take polygraph, pass it and enjoy whatever credibility it had. But when you see someone do something, you aren’t way off in presuming, as a working presumption, that he intended what he did.
In the case of the woman, perhaps she’s clueless about the effect. Perhaps she thinks she’s just pretty and attractive but not on the raunchy side. Perhaps she doesn’t think at all. But it doesn’t really get much fancier than this and we’ve got to take realism into consideration. After all, we aren’t putting someone in the gas chamber in a criminal trial, we’re building a working presumption based on legitimate (name removed by moderator)ut. If you wear the current police uniform and trying to direct traffic, nobody will wonder if you aren’t an actor, an experimenting researcher or an impostor. Catch my drift?
