The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that a new nail polish called Undercover Colors changes color when it comes in contact with any date rape drug so, a woman just has to discretely dip her finger in her drink to test it for safety. "Our goal is to invent technologies that empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and quietly pervasive crime," say four male undergraduates at North Carolina State University who are developing the polish and currently asking for donations to complete their work. "Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught."
However some sexual assault prevention advocates warn that the nail polish is not necessarily the best way to approach the sexual assault epidemic on college campuses. “One of the ways that rape is used as a tool to control people is by limiting their behavior,” says Rebecca Nagle. “As a woman, I’m told not to go out alone at night, to watch my drink, to do all of these things. That way, rape isn’t just controlling me while I’m actually being assaulted — it controls me 24/7 because it limits my behavior. Solutions like these actually just recreate that. I don’t want to fucking test my drink when I’m at the bar. That’s not the world I want to live in.” According to Alexandra Brodsky the argument that women simply need to be more responsible is a common response to the current conversation about sexual assault on college campuses — and one that activists say doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. "The problem isn’t that women don’t know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:27AM
my original question was: "This is what it sounds like you're saying, am I wrong?"
Since that text does not actually exist in anything you've posted here, you are now making shit up to rationalize your poor behavior.
I think that marks the end of this discussion.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:45AM
Since that text does not actually exist in anything you've posted here, you are now making shit up to rationalize your poor behavior.
Here it is:
Here, I'll rephrase it less assholishly: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"
I think that marks the end of this discussion.
Heh. Sure you don't want to advertise your reading comprehension problem a little more before you go?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by mrider on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:50AM
Posting as A.C. because I've moderated in this thread - and in fact I've moderated you up elsewhere in this post:
I think you're just feeding the troll at this point... mrider
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2) by mrider on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:52AM
AAAND of course I forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" check box. Oh well, syonara points I've given in this thread. :(
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:04AM
Soylentcode changed that. Posting does not negate previous moderations, it just blocks you from doing any new ones afterward.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:05AM
Unlike on the other site, on Soylent News you don't undo your moderations by posting after moderating.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:18PM
Sorry about your mod-points, though. Have a good week, man.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:01AM
Here it is:
Here, I'll rephrase it less assholishly: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"
Since that is not literally the same text you seem to be arguing that the OP erred by not taking the best possible interpretation of what you wrote (that you were not accusing him of being pro-rape) while simultaneously arguing that you were correct in taking the worst possible interpretation of what he wrote (that the logical conclusion was more raping).
There is something called the "principle of charity" [lander.edu] which includes this precept:
"We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent."
It looks like you are trying to claim it for yourself while denying it to the OP, even though the last paragraph of the first post looks like a straight-up contradiction of your interpretation.
I'm a fan of the principle of charity and I don't see either of you using it here, but I think all this mishegas would have been avoided if just one of you had.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:23AM
> Since that is not literally the same text you seem to be arguing that the OP erred by not taking the best possible interpretation of what you wrote (that you were not accusing him of being pro-rape) while simultaneously arguing that you were correct in taking the worst possible interpretation of what he wrote (that the logical conclusion was more raping).
Those two are both noisy morons. However, your assertion that their two statements were equally faulty is false. You might have had a point if that statement didn't end in a question mark.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:18AM
The cavuto mark. [newshounds.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:06AM
That doesn't describe either of the idiots in this thread.