Student Banned from Areas of Campus for Resembling Classmate’s Rapist

a reply to: Domo1

I was a victim to this kind of thing when I went to college, as well. There was a feminist faction that didn't like my music and threatened / beat up my female friends. When someone snuck into the girl's bathroom in a dormitory, they immediately assumed it was me and went to campus safety... of course, it wasn't me at all but a local.

I had countless other experiences like this at my college. Luckily I made friends in the right places (like campus safety and residence life) and was able to defend myself.

But this story is par for the course, the guy probably makes the girl "uncomfortable" and that is enough for the college to somehow get a restraining order - which kept him from being able to attend some of his classes and forced him out of his dormitory.

The thing is, he did nothing. But no one cares about that because all of the feminists are worried about the rape victim's "feelings." They don't care about ruining the life of a man.

My negative experiences with feminists actually set me back quite a bit mentally and I had to leave college early after being bullied by them for years...

before I left, I was living off campus and pretty shaken up by the whole thing. I'm still affected to this day because it was a very traumatic experience on many levels, they were vile and the harassment lasted for four plus years. It has affected my self-esteem and career choices very negatively. I had to get EMDR light therapy to help recover from the experience.

originally posted by: angrypsycho1977
Also, since the school is not mentioned in the original paper, I wonder if it has anything to do with this other story coming out of Oregon. L ink

The University of Oregon wouldn't be described as a "liberal arts school" and this story doesn't match the incident described.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: 8675309jenny

No, just my observation of what the prevailing values seem to be.

I ended up searching some of the phrases in your post, cause I felt like I had read them before, and it turns out Trotsky had said some very similar thing and actually meant them seriously.... Yes really. It's incredible some of these Marxist nutjobs really believed in this stuff huh??

You might be very interested in reading about the 'Frankfurt school"

a reply to: 8675309jenny

It does not surprise me in the least.

I am still astounded by how such a supposedly socially superior clique can be so antihuman.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DelMarvel

Based on my own experience, once you've been put in a situation where a man has attacked you, it's very easy for all men to start being suspect in your eyes. It was one of the most painful things in my life to realize that I had a fear of my own father and grandfathers that was completely irrational because of one incident. But I also discovered that the only way to get past that is to confront it and push past it. Your emotional, irrational mind has to be put on a leash by your rational mind or else you risk it taking control to it.

Sometimes what we fear is true (gulp!). But ya, fear can control us if we don't let our rational mind speak on an equal level.

The litmus test seems to be "Do I KNOW?" Does she KNOW the other man wants to rape her? If not, it's just a fear. If society has to bow to every fear every person has then we'll all have to stay home. Imagine how social our world will be if everybody has to stay home, only goomg out in tanks with police on every block and scanners more common than people.

That quote someone referenced above which reads "One person's right is where another's ends." - I think it applies more to when we sacrifice too much freedom for security. I do think there's always some amount of freedom lost, that's why they say freeedom is not free.

a reply to: jonnywhite

That quote someone referenced above which reads "One person's right is where another's ends." - I think it applies more to when we sacrifice too much freedom for security. I do think there's always some amount of freedom lost, that's why they say freeedom is not free.

"Freedom is not free" is really attributable to Jefferson, however paraphrased.

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance” -Thomas Jefferson

It is not to indicate that freedom must be sacrificed at all. It is to indicate that there is always someone or some group which desires to take it from you and you must be forever on guard against it.

a reply to: greencmp
The very fact I have to set aside some of my income to support law enforcement means I have to lose some freedom - namely, the freedom to spend that money on something else. If I don't give that money to law enforcement then I'll have to learn another way to deal with crime. "Vigilance" is just another word for being responsible, often bringing along with it a high cost, which necessarily means freedom isn't free.

On the subject of trading freedom for security, I'll give an example. The drivers license! Why don't we start allowing 10 year olds to acquire a drivers license? Probably because our society thinks 10 years aren't enough. For the 10 year old, that's got to bite. Feels a bit like loss of freedom, hmm, especially at 14 or 15. Maybe in the future society will concur 10 years is enough or teenagers aren't stupid - there's no way to be perfect.

What about firearms? Should we just start handing them out to anyone?

Does hte concept we lose some freedoms for everyday things like the right to drive (at 16 or 18, not 10) or the right to not be molested or stolen from by our neighbors make you feel funny? Why? Maybe because the only context you ever gave it were freedoms you currently enjoy which were threatened. What about the people in the past who enjoyed freedoms which they could not today? They're dead, so they can't protest.

The concept I'm getting across is almost every right or law on the record involves some loss of freedom. There's no such thing as "free" in this world, not even the air we breath. But there IS such a thing as going too far or not going far enough. Finding that balance is not easy.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: greencmp
The very fact I have to set aside some of my income to support law enforcement means I have to lose some freedom - namely, the freedom to spend that money on something else. If I don't give that money to law enforcement then I'll have to learn another way to deal with crime. "Vigilance" is just another word for being responsible, often bringing along with it a high cost, which necessarily means freedom isn't free.

On the subject of trading freedom for security, I'll give an example. The drivers license! Why don't we start allowing 10 year olds to acquire a drivers license? Probably because our society thinks 10 years aren't enough. For the 10 year old, that's got to bite. Feels a bit like loss of freedom, hmm, especially at 14 or 15. Maybe in the future society will concur 10 years is enough or teenagers aren't stupid - there's no way to be perfect.

What about firearms? Should we just start handing them out to anyone?

Does hte concept we lose some freedoms for everyday things like the right to drive (at 16 or 18, not 10) or the right to not be molested or stolen from by our neighbors make you feel funny? Why? Maybe because the only context you ever gave it were freedoms you currently enjoy which were threatened. What about the people in the past who enjoyed freedoms which they could not today? They're dead, so they can't protest.

The concept I'm getting across is almost every right or law on the record involves some loss of freedom. There's no such thing as "free" in this world, not even the air we breath. But there IS such a thing as going too far or not going far enough. Finding that balance is not easy.

In most cases, merely affirming common sense is enough to rectify interventionist policies.

For instance:

Defend yourself against aggression. Problem solved.

National concealed firearm permits. Problem solved.

Cars are a grey area for even me so, I'll argue that another time because it relates to private aircraft.