Just got out of an all day meeting, so catching up:
Out of order:
Vic: She knows exactly what “misogyny” means… like myself, Brenadine literally has a degree in teaching this subject matter. It’s just like when you say we don’t know what “institutional racism” means because you don’t like the definition… There’s a difference.
What you’re really trying to say is “that I don’t agree that this behavior is bad.” But because that behavior is commonly called “misogyny” you object to the term. It’s more obvious on the “victim blaming” term. Where you literally said “it’s not victim blaming…. some of the blame must lie with the victim.” Rhetorically speaking, I have no problem with the latter half of the argument. The first half simply sets you up for poor debate. I know you don’t see it. That’s why you said it. But it does. It’s contradictory language. Rhetorically, we call this a naturalistic fallacy.
That said, logically your argument falls apart because you’re making a faulty equivocation. Most specifically:
“In this scenario, the girls ACTIONS are demonstrated to cause an outcome. She did go online, she did meet up with a stranger alone, she did in fact get ambushed.”
Well, yes…. The girls’ actions demonstrated AN outcome, but not an IMPORTANT one… and not at all a relevant one. Sure… if the girl had never left her house, she would never have been fake kidnapped/raped. If she had never gone online at all, she would never have been fake kidpnapped/raped…. that’s not causality. If her great grandfather had been aborted, she would never have been fake kidnapped/raped! Abortions are good because they stop kidnappings and rapes!!!!
In this case, the assumption is “look, doing this behavior caused kidnapping.” But she wasn’t. She was entrapped in a completely fictitious situation that the parents and Coby THOUGHT might happen. It doesn’t actually prove anything…
In reality, only 3% of all kidnappings are by strangers. Only 18% of rapes are by strangers. The vast majority of people on the internet are NOT rapists. Generally speaking, meeting a boy that you met on the internet for a date is relatively safe. Even of those 3% and 18% MOST of those have nothing to do with the internet at all. The most famous kidnapping/rape case by a stranger of recent times is Elizabeth Smart. She was abducted from her bedroom while she was sleeping.
Parents make the assumption that internet meeting has raised the danger to kids. Studies actually show the exact opposite. Since most social networks have some implicit tracking of identity (if trivial) AND because kids are far more likely to interact with peers who are geographically distant and associable mostly on shared interests rather than convenience, its actually LOWERED the incidence of abductions.
In other words, the likelihood of you getting kidnapped/raped because of typical teenaged behvior (making friends on the intenet) is not even remotely substantially raised… and in fact actually lowered. What these girls actions actually resulted in was them being caught in an artificial sting set up by their parents.
Here is the equivalent sting:
• Parent tells 5-year-old daughter “Cindy, I want you to never wear blue jeans. Always wear courdory. Denim increases the livelihood that a stranger will run you over by a car.”
• Cindy doesn’t wear denim for most of her life. Then she gets to be 13 and realizes that maybe her parents are idiots and so she starts wearing denim in secret.
• Cindy’s parents and a random guy they met online hang out in an unmarked van three doors down and wait for Cindy to start walking to school in the morning. They see her walk down out of the house and immediately upon her getting to the sidewalk, they floor the gas and ocme barrelling owards her while a guy across the street films. Cindy is terrified and starts running and screaming and shitting her brand new jeans.
• The van comes to a screeching halt five feet from a terrified Cindy. The parents jump out and scream “What did we tell you about blue jeans?!?!?! What if we weren’t strangers. You’d be run over and dead right now!?”
This is exactly the same “proof” that they example shows.