Somebody had to do it...

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:47 pm

Pardon to anyone responding to the message that used to be here - rereading and attempting to tag it properly suggested to me that it would be a good idea to just delete it.

I will attempt to address my points more concisely in a future post. Maybe today or tomorrow.

And I see that I screwed up and it's not only still up there, but been addressed already. My apologies once again. I will now delete it, but not the reply to Aris that arose from it - as there was a request for a reply in there.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shatteredtower on 2002-04-02 15:45 ]</font>

Aris Katsaris · Post by **Aris Katsaris** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 3:01 pm

You know, I'm getting tired of this and of this debate. I'm not that much interested in explaining why Tim's "sexual harassment" of Will is not as bad as Stu putting an hand on unwanting Jackie's breast.

This is my very last post in this thread therefore.

If you can't tell a person why, you don't do a bit of good telling him what.

"Cause I don't like it" is reason enough for non-rapists.

And they would have gotten a trial, with an opportunity to speak in their own defense. Are you saying that he's worse than a mass murderer?

He could speak all he want. He could have apologized to Jackie and Guth. He can *still* speak. Nobody's sending him to jail.

Racists are also 'ignorant'. So what?
Pardon me, but do you realize how ignornant that statement makes you sound?

No. Though I won't respond back, please enlighten me about how the ignorance of racists is different to Stu's ignorance.

Sure. And I've heard that the Earth is flat by a friend who remains convinced of it. I remain ignorant, in his opinion, because I don't see it.

Oh, we are having again the whole "subjectivity of facts" discussion, aren't we? Well, let me tell you that in this matter *he's* the ignorant one, you are not, and this is not a matter of "opinion": The Earth *isn't* flat.

Any more than Guth thinks Stu minded being talked down to by his cousin, and treated like a non-identity? Care to tell me which of these two ignorant men started the whole thing?

The one who started the insults was the one who called the other one "pencilneck" when they first met. Stu.

The one who started the violence was the one who pushed violently the other. Stu.

Either way Stu started it.

Was he wrong? Sure - no question of that. But I notice that nothing was done about it until now, and I don't see any reason Stu would have to know better.

If Stu could rape without fear of being caught, are you so sure he wouldn't do it?

In what way can you explain to someone that when young women say "no" you must abide by their choice?

Yes, they are idiots...
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You are calling my friends idiots for being, in my opinion, wrong? I ask you to reconsider that statement.

In this matter I believe they are being idiots, in *my* opinion, not in *yours*. I don't know them enough to judge them on their entire personality, I judged them on this matter alone, and their lack of logic as you described it.

Once again, you might want to reconsider that statement. At 20, I was not the man I was at 16, thank goodness. At 25, I was no longer the man I was a 20, for reasons both good and bad. At 35, I am a very different person than any of those people.

Yeah, the question is *how* different. If you were as bad a jerk as Stu at 20, I admit I have serious doubts about whether I'd want to be your friend now.

He did not put Jackie in harm's way - and he was not the one who failed to follow that up properly.

LOL!! It's lovely how you want to have your cake and eat it too. Shanna sent a letter which unknowing to her caused Jackie to be endangered by *Stu* - but you are calling Shanna's part in this worse than Stu's. A lovely contradiction! The indirect cause worse than the direct one!

So long and thanks for all the fish. I'm outta this discussion.

SteveB · Post by **SteveB** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 3:20 pm

On 2002-04-02 15:01, Aris Katsaris wrote:
Shanna sent a letter which unknowing to her caused Jackie to be endangered by *Stu*

I wasn't going to bother to reply to any of her last message, and I won't bother to reply to her comments about my grandfather, since Alis said she was out of the discussion, but I just couldn't let that statement go by.

Shanna is experienced, older and fancies herself a realist. She might not have known it would have been Stu, but if being pawed at is "endangered," I think Shanna had to have known there was a good chance Jackie would run into trouble at a frat party.

Shanna sent that letter because she didn't care what happened to Jackie, as long as she could get her away from Will. Legally, the term for that kind of action, if it had actually led to Jackie being raped or killed, is called "depraved indifference."

Steve Bolhafner

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 3:36 pm

And yet, I'm back. Screwed up, tried to fix it, may as well finish this part.

I'll skip the Guth-Stu debate for now - you are correct about the scenes we saw, but it is very much a "Did not!"/"Did too!" argument.

On 2002-04-02 15:01, Aris Katsaris wrote:

If you can't tell a person why, you don't do a bit of good telling him what.
"Cause I don't like it" is reason enough for non-rapists.

See, I agree with that. But that's not the explanation given. The one intended, I'm sure. But I'm pretty sure that what you saw there was sexual harrassment, not rape, and I do believe that there is a big difference between the two crimes.

He could speak all he want. He could have apologized to Jackie and Guth. He can *still* speak. Nobody's sending him to jail.

So in other words, you really don't care about his side of the story. He has to guess what he's done wrong, not be shown. I have a problem with that kind of logic. But I don't believe he owes an apology to Guth here.

Racists are also 'ignorant'. So what?
Pardon me, but do you realize how ignorant that statement makes you sound?
No. Though I won't respond back, please enlighten me about how the ignorance of racists is different to Stu's ignorance.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about the "So what?" follow-up. That does not contribute to your argument.

Oh, we are having again the whole "subjectivity of facts" discussion, aren't we?

No, we are having a discussion of what you have to do to demonstrate a point. Sarcasm isn't it.

If Stu could rape without fear of being caught, are you so sure he wouldn't do it?

That's a specious argument - I could apply it no less validly to any character in the series. Even Will - who hates mind control.

In what way can you explain to someone that when young women say "no" you must abide by their choice?

That was a good start.

I don't know them enough to judge them on their entire personality, I judged them on this matter alone, and their lack of logic as you described it.

"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

And can be used to argue their point just as well as mine. Life isn't mathematical.

Yeah, the question is *how* different. If you were as bad a jerk as Stu at 20, I admit I have serious doubts about whether I'd want to be your friend now.

Fair enough. But you've effectively argued for Kath's worthlessness as a human being.

He did not put Jackie in harm's way - and he was not the one who failed to follow that up properly.
LOL!! It's lovely how you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not sure that was called for, but you make a good point about Shanna's crime being less than Stu's, and I accept that. I notice that you didn't touch the others, nor concede them, however.

Sorry to upset you, but not to disagree with you.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shatteredtower on 2002-04-02 15:41 ]</font>

Aris Katsaris · Post by **Aris Katsaris** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 3:43 pm

since Alis said she was out of the discussion, but I just couldn't let that statement go by.

"Aris". Short for Aristotelis, anglicized into Aristotle. Male.

I'm still out of the discussion.

SteveB · Post by **SteveB** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 3:58 pm

On 2002-04-02 15:43, Aris Katsaris wrote:
since Alis said she was out of the discussion, but I just couldn't let that statement go by.
"Aris". Short for Aristotelis, anglicized into Aristotle. Male.

I'm still out of the discussion.

Oops. Sorry about that. I misread your name the very first time, and have been assuming you were female this whole time. Interesting. . .

I was mentally forgiving your over-reaction to the frat party scene, assuming you had had a traumatic experience in your past (date-rape or something similar), but as that's unlikely, I'll point out that if Jackie can't handle a fellow freshman at a frat rush party putting his hand on her breast without Will barging in to rescue her, she's going to have real problems in life.

And, no, telling a guy who's putting your hand on your breast "don't do that" is not the same as telling him that he's being obnoxious and he needs to change his pattern of behavior if he wants to make friends. One is situational, and besides, he's been brought up to ignore it: "Girls say no but they mean yes."

I know what you're thinking, "Oh, so he'll think rape is OK, too, right?" No. Guys who are brought up to believe that don't necessarily also think it's OK to rape a woman. They basically think that a polite "no" is a "not right now, but try again later," and it takes a strong and forceful "No!" to get through to them, but they're not rapists.

(Well, some of them are, but that's not the point, I'm trying to explain to someone who's obviously never known a basically decent person who acted like Stu how someone like that thinks. I don't know that Stu is a basically decent person, but he might be. I really have known basically decent people, people most of the people who voted that the club was right in ousting Stu would get along with now, who at 20 were very much like Stu.)

This turned out to be something much longer than apologizing for thinking you were female, but oh well. . .

Steve Bolhafner

Raiden2 · Post by **Raiden2** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 5:00 pm

OK, to summarize MY opinion on all of this:

First my vote; Stu stays. It seems like he's honestly confused as to WHY everyone is mad at him. I know people who lack that degree of social grace, and for that matter I personally have been known to have totally alien outlooks on certain situations.

Moving right along.... I know someone who triggers the same response Rikk is having to Stu in ME on a fairly regular basis. Usually on purpose. I'm pretty much forced to put up with Ehren because all of my friends do, and I enjoy hanging out with THEM. This is unpleasant, and frustrating at times, but I've no right to ask them to force him out of the group. So I try very hard to overlook his attacks and get on with life.

If Jackie and Guth don't like Stu, or the way he acts they need to deal with him as an individual. If he has had the problem explained to him, rather than being threatened and belittled(like Guth did) and is STILL a problem, then they could look at expulsion.

Manticoraus · Post by **Manticoraus** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 6:23 pm

Miz/Mister Aris I think you're taking this a little personally. I thank you for presenting your view. But don't feel so offended. I am not offended by your stance.

I hope whatever is being done to make you upset you can keep your joy beyond it and we can still be good net-friends.

Doublespeak · Post by **Doublespeak** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 pm

On 2002-04-02 15:58, SteveB wrote:
but as that's unlikely, I'll point out that if Jackie can't handle a fellow freshman at a frat rush party putting his hand on her breast without Will barging in to rescue her, she's going to have real problems in life.

You lost me right here, how does that excuse Stu?

LordNicodareus · Post by **LordNicodareus** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:39 pm

Ha ha, after it's all said and done, everyones tired as hell of this topic, the vote is a tie
14 he stays
14 he goes
Of course, now someone is gonna hafta start a new controversial topic, like Star Trek vs. Star Wars or something like that, but I'm not gonna do it. Not me, no siree. Not now not ever. I'm so proud of you all *sniff sniff* Well anyhoo, any last minute votes, cause I think I might ask T to close this topic, unless someone can think of a good reason not too.

Roscoe · Post by **Roscoe** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:04 am

Since my vote appearently got ate, I'm voting he stays, by Tim Logic.

Aris Katsaris · Post by **Aris Katsaris** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:02 am

On 2002-04-02 18:23, manticoraus wrote:
Miz/Mister Aris I think you're taking this a little personally. I thank you for presenting your view. But don't feel so offended. I am not offended by your stance.

What makes you think I was offended? I was becoming annoyed, yes, but not offended.

The only thing in the whole thread that could have offended me is the "Miz/Mister" bit in your last post. A bit weird to see in an otherwise non-humorous post.

SteveB · Post by **SteveB** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:11 pm

On 2002-04-02 20:05, Doublespeak wrote:
On 2002-04-02 15:58, SteveB wrote:
but as that's unlikely, I'll point out that if Jackie can't handle a fellow freshman at a frat rush party putting his hand on her breast without Will barging in to rescue her, she's going to have real problems in life.
You lost me right here, how does that excuse Stu?

It wasn't meant to excuse him, but to point out that referring to the situation as her being "endangered" was probably a bit strong.

Was it a jerky thing to do? Sure. Was Stu brought up to believe that this is the proper way to seduce a girl? Also sure. Was Stu brought up that seduction is both permissable and necessary since "nice girls" will always initially say "No, no" even when they mean "Yes, yes"? Not quite so certain, but probably.

In other words, while Stu's behavior would nowadays likely get him suspended for "sexual harassment" at a lot of colleges, it wasn't that long ago that this was essentially considered the proper first move for trying to get a girl in bed, and if Stu's background is as backward as I think it is, he probably still thinks that way.

That still doesn't excuse it, mind you. I think I understand the sociopathology of nazism, but that doesn't excuse the Holocaust.

Steve Bolhafner

Doublespeak · Post by **Doublespeak** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 4:02 pm

On 2002-04-03 12:11, SteveB wrote:

It wasn't meant to excuse him, but to point out that referring to the situation as her being "endangered" was probably a bit strong.

Was it a jerky thing to do? Sure. Was Stu brought up to believe that this is the proper way to seduce a girl? Also sure. Was Stu brought up that seduction is both permissable and necessary since "nice girls" will always initially say "No, no" even when they mean "Yes, yes"? Not quite so certain, but probably.

In other words, while Stu's behavior would nowadays likely get him suspended for "sexual harassment" at a lot of colleges, it wasn't that long ago that this was essentially considered the proper first move for trying to get a girl in bed, and if Stu's background is as backward as I think it is, he probably still thinks that way.

That still doesn't excuse it, mind you. I think I understand the sociopathology of nazism, but that doesn't excuse the Holocaust.

Steve Bolhafner

Ok cool. So why should he stay in the club if there is no excuse for his actions?

SteveB · Post by **SteveB** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:42 pm

On 2002-04-03 16:02, Doublespeak wrote:

Ok cool. So why should he stay in the club if there is no excuse for his actions?

I spoke not of actions, but a single action, one that did not impinge on any member of the club except Jackie, and that had no particular consequences (although you may argue that it may have led to worse if Will had not arrived).

Stu has done thoughtless things to piss off individual members of the club, not a single one of which has told him in a general way why his actions pissed them off, and some of whom haven't even bothered to tell him that he was making them mad. When I pointed this out, the best anybody could come up with was that Jackie said "Don't do that." That's the extent to which his behavior has been called to task.

When you correct someone's behavior you are not excusing it; there is a difference between forgiveness and excuse. But it makes no sense to hold someone's bad behavior against them if they do not know why you are doing so.

Well, that's not true. It makes sense in that you are more comfortable. But you have done nothing to further the growth of this individual, and you have done nothing to further the enlightenment of the world.

Who says the skiffy club should take on that responsibility? They do. These are their ideals. They want to change the world. The best way to do that is one person at a time. And they've not only failed, they passed up a chance to try.

I don't think that's why they've been zapped in any story-logical cause-and-effect way, but I do feel that on some metaphysical/moral level T is intending the zapping to be a punishment for having failed to live up to their own ideals.

Steve Bolhafner

Blondlot · Post by **Blondlot** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 7:11 pm

On 2002-04-03 18:42, SteveB wrote:
On 2002-04-03 16:02, Doublespeak wrote:

Ok cool. So why should he stay in the club if there is no excuse for his actions?
I spoke not of actions, but a single action, one that did not impinge on any member of the club except Jackie, and that had no particular consequences (although you may argue that it may have led to worse if Will had not arrived).

Stu has done thoughtless things to piss off individual members of the club, not a single one of which has told him in a general way why his actions pissed them off, and some of whom haven't even bothered to tell him that he was making them mad. When I pointed this out, the best anybody could come up with was that Jackie said "Don't do that." That's the extent to which his behavior has been called to task.

When you correct someone's behavior you are not excusing it; there is a difference between forgiveness and excuse. But it makes no sense to hold someone's bad behavior against them if they do not know why you are doing so.

Well, that's not true. It makes sense in that you are more comfortable. But you have done nothing to further the growth of this individual, and you have done nothing to further the enlightenment of the world.

Who says the skiffy club should take on that responsibility? They do. These are their ideals. They want to change the world. The best way to do that is one person at a time. And they've not only failed, they passed up a chance to try.

I don't think that's why they've been zapped in any story-logical cause-and-effect way, but I do feel that on some metaphysical/moral level T is intending the zapping to be a punishment for having failed to live up to their own ideals.

Steve Bolhafner

Exactly. Thank you for writing my post for me, Steve. I'm a very lazy person and you just saved me minutes upon minutes worth of typing.

Ex animo,
m.d

Doublespeak · Post by **Doublespeak** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:16 am

On 2002-04-03 18:42, SteveB wrote:
spoke not of actions, but a single action, one that did not impinge on any member of the club except Jackie, and that had no particular consequences (although you may argue that it may have led to worse if Will had not arrived).

Stu has done thoughtless things to piss off individual members of the club, not a single one of which has told him in a general way why his actions pissed them off, and some of whom haven't even bothered to tell him that he was making them mad. When I pointed this out, the best anybody could come up with was that Jackie said "Don't do that." That's the extent to which his behavior has been called to task.

When you correct someone's behavior you are not excusing it; there is a difference between forgiveness and excuse. But it makes no sense to hold someone's bad behavior against them if they do not know why you are doing so.

Well, that's not true. It makes sense in that you are more comfortable. But you have done nothing to further the growth of this individual, and you have done nothing to further the enlightenment of the world.

Who says the skiffy club should take on that responsibility? They do. These are their ideals. They want to change the world. The best way to do that is one person at a time. And they've not only failed, they passed up a chance to try.

Impinging on one club member is enough, and the consequence is that she feels used and abused. And perhaps fearful of such a thing happening again?

I think your point is that Stu's crimes are negligible, being mostly character issues, and thus he is worthy of redemption. That is fair, if subjective.

I am going to assume that you don't think any action leaves room for correction in this scenario. I don't think we would be having this conversation if he slashed Guth with a knife.

Should the Club correct Stu since he is ignorant and doesn't know any better? I don't think so. For one thing I doubt they have the means. Changing someone, when they think what their doing is fine, and it is all they know, (which is how you see Stu) sounds pretty impossible for a bunch of college students.

At the most I imagine he would just keep his thoughts to himself, but as a person he would be the same. Or perhaps he would just leave. "They just think I am stupid."

Ignoring all that though, since it is mostly opinion on my part, should they at least try? Well it would cause them unneeded discomfort for a long stretch, and in the situations they get into; comfort with each other is a matter of life and death. But more importantly I don't see anything about their ideals that say they should. Most of what they have done has been based on the survival and protection of themselves and fandom, of the dreamers. Changing the world, only when the world is hurting them and/or fandom. I have never seen them try to actively shape the minds of individuals to accept their views, or heard them talk about it.
In fact on this page http://www.faans.com/d/20010919.html Rikk says: "I am not going to start...molding minds for it! I don't know how much weight to put on God, how much on fandom." I may be taking the quote out of context.

Blondlot · Post by **Blondlot** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 2:25 am

On 2002-04-04 00:16, Doublespeak wrote:
Impinging on one club member is enough, and the consequence is that she feels used and abused. And perhaps fearful of such a thing happening again?

Stu put his arm around her. She asked him to stop and then Will burst in before anything else could happen. Hell, Shanna was the one who sent her there with her typewritten note- it

Maccabee · Post by **Maccabee** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 9:48 am

What the club did to Stu was completely democratic -- ostracism by majority vote, a tradition at least as old as ancient Athens. Whether it was just is a separate issue.

Maccabee

Blondlot · Post by **Blondlot** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 1:23 pm

On 2002-04-04 09:48, Maccabee wrote:
What the club did to Stu was completely democratic -- ostracism by majority vote, a tradition at least as old as ancient Athens. Whether it was just is a separate issue.

Maccabee

Yeah, but this isn't demokratia and we