Upskirting bill blocked

Well, as you're off "to read other threads now" Baggs you perhaps won't read this.

I've noticed you do this a lot. You post an article which seems to reflect quite a lot of what you have been saying yourself, but when people critique the article, you say "I didn't say I was in agreement with what he/she says", "I'm merely providing this link to provide another point of view", etc. etc.

In fact, when referring to JW's article, you said:

"I get her point" (re her view that criminalising this sort of behaviour is turning women into pathetic victims)

"she talks a lot of sense".

She says "changing the law will not make women safe" and you say "changing the law will not protect women".

You, then say, in line with the sort of dismissive comments that JW makes, "not wearing skimpy skirts would do more to protect women".

Saying to someone "I realise some of what I have said is too subtle for some people" and then suggesting that those who dislike Chope's conduct are "virtue signalling" are just cheap shots to try and undermine views which you object to. JW also employs similar sarcasm when she refers to "the permanently outraged".

As Baggs has mentioned, she has remained calm and rational during this debate, and this is precisely what is needed for a future law regarding upskirting. There is a fine, and necessary balance between intellectualising and knee-jerk reactions for that to happen which will be, hopefully, watertight. The range from silly kids trying their luck at school all the way through to serious pornographic usage is wide, so needs a clarity of thought in how to present such a law.

Frankly, with my background, I would be termed a victim, (which I’ve chosen not to be), but I’ve made it my business to not have my buttons pressed by moral outrage, but rather to step back, to take a long hard look at the business of how sexual abuse is dealt with in terms of ‘the law’ ..... because without clarity, calmness and in-depth understanding of the delicacy of specifics, the waters can become very muddied, and that does nobody any favours.

Writing off opinions with which you disagree as being evidence of "virtue signalling" is not, I think, "rational" but insulting, as is implying that someone is not bright enough to understand the alleged subtlety of a point you have made.

‘Silly kids trying their luck at school’ - well that’s all right then, nothing to see, there, move along. What both ffin and Baggs don’t seem to have taken into account is that Scotland has years of experience with this legislation and G23 wrote a very illuminating post om how it all worked in Scotland and how the application of the law was nuanced and balanced whilst sending a very clear message to ‘silly kids’ or as one might see them boys with no respect at all for girls who are clearly being brought up with a very warped ideas about sex and may well be sexual predators in the making - future office gropers, rubbing up against women on the tube, sexist comments dressed up as ‘banter’. As for snide childish comments about ‘virtue signalling’ yes very calm and rational.

Not, it’s not alright then M54. I didn’t say it was.
It’ll never be alright.

There are issues which are so obviously morally indefensive that anyone trying to put another point of view will be accused of pseudo-intellectualism. Upskirtimg is indefensible.

Hence (!) the old, white, upper-class male who tried to use this particular issue to assert his authority is bound to be pilloried. It does beg the question how stupid or antiquated is he not to have anticipated this reaction?

Anyone with any sense knows you pick your battles carefully,

I am not an expert on Parliamentary procedure but as I understand it if he hadn't objected the bill would then have gone on to be fully debated at a later date before becoming law.

You are not the misunderstanding type.
Ha, DH would disagree.

I still don't think that was his purpose.
well, that was perhaps my first, knee-jerk, reaction without thinking it through properly.

But in fact, that is what Chope has based his Parliamentary career on - knee-jerk objections to any PMBs.
He could have introduced a PMB himself to amend the way in which PMBs are debated but he didn't.
Then again, if he had, perhaps he would have objected to his own PMB on principle.

I'm quite sure I haven't misunderstood Bagg's logic - because she (or he?) hasnt been logical. Instead they throw out allegations left, right and centre and play the victim when the fallacy in their postings are exposed for what they are. How sad.

I started to write a post countering some of the comments but really they are too childish to need a response.

Well the Bill has been tabled and will receive a second reading before the recess. Congratulations to all those that helped bring this about

Yes, it’s very good news.

I have just read your latest post, eloethan. What I surmised about your misunderstanding what you call my logic would seem to be correct because you seem to have misunderstood all the things I said that you mention in that post.

For example: you seem to think that my saying "I get her point" means that I agree with her point whereas it only means that I understand it. It's possible, and actually quite important, to be able to 'get' a point while not agreeing with it or while only partially agreeing with it, or agreeing with it depending upon a number of ifs and buts.

You are right that I often post links to things I've found interesting. Your assumption that I always agree with all the arguments in such links is not right.

If you think the new law (which I fully support) will 'protect' women rather than simply punish the people who upskirt them, please could you explain how. Punishment meted out to the perpetrator of a crime is not 'protection' from the crime for the victim. It is retribution/recompence/karma if you like but not protection from. That is what I meant.

It could act as a deterrent (especially with teenage boys who may think it is funny but could be worried about being placed on the Sex Offenders' Register) but will not eliminate it entirely.

Oh, and by the way, the more it seems that 'everyone' thinks a thing the more I am likely to search out a point of view that differs from the 'consensus'. I was taught to do this and find it a useful device in thinking about stuff. Hearing only one side of an issue is never healthy.

Yes, I'm sure it will act as a deterrent to some, jal. Thank goodness.

I've been looking for an inspirational quote that I've seen a few times about thinking through the other side of an argument. I can't find it but I did find these:

If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don’t understand it yet.
– Anthony Weston, ‘Rulebook for Arguments’

When you pause arguing with an opposite perspective and try arguing for it, when you switch your point of view briefly, you will witness a profound shift in your thinking.

When people think I'm being perverse this is what I'm attempting to do.

When you pause arguing with an opposite perspective and try arguing for it, when you switch your point of view briefly, you will witness a profound shift in your thinking. I think my MIL must have embraced that as her philosphy for life .