Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

George Spiggott wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Newspapers go to great efforts to train journalists, check their stories, and have editorial policies, boards and legal checks.

Individuals writing on the internet can just take quotes out of context or alter them with impunity in order to convey false impressions.

What am I missing here? You know that the 'black and white' distinction between newspaper articles and internet blogs that you seem to be implying doesn't exist.

Other than the fact that journalists working for a company or publication are vetted before being hired and any fool with a keyboard can have a blog?

It's pretty black and white to anyone that has an ounce of common sense.

Monster Rain wrote:Other than the fact that journalists working for a company or publication are vetted before being hired and any fool with a keyboard can have a blog?

It's pretty black and white to anyone that has an ounce of common sense.

Wow, bolshy and wrong. So because journalists working for a company or publication are vetted, the following statement can never be true; yes?

Journalists working for a company or publication can just take quotes out of context or alter them with impunity in order to convey false impressions.

It's not wrong, and don't try to change the subject.

News from recognized sources is generally more reliable than what some random angry typer with a blog says.

George Spiggott wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Other than the fact that journalists working for a company or publication are vetted before being hired and any fool with a keyboard can have a blog?

It's pretty black and white to anyone that has an ounce of common sense.

Wow, bolshy and wrong. So because journalists working for a company or publication are vetted, the following statement can never be true; yes?

Journalists working for a company or publication can just take quotes out of context or alter them with impunity in order to convey false impressions.

Journalists are responsible for what they print, as is the company they're working for.

Bloggers aren't really held to the same level of accountability.

Kanluwen wrote:
Even in this day and age, sexual assault is something where the "she was asking for it because she dressed slutty" attitude prevails.

I'm not sure it's a symptom of that issue so much as it might be a manifestation of the present trend in gender studies to recognize the idea that there are certain behaviors, by men and women, that make them more likely to be rape victims. That isn't to say that the victims in question cease to be victims due to some mistake that they may have made, but it does sort of put a chink in the righteous fervor that permeates the discourse surrounding sex crimes.

The basic idea is that rape is terrible, and the victim is never at fault for being raped, but that doesn't mean that there do not exist certain behaviors which, when executed in certain situations, are more likely to lead to rape.

dogma wrote:The basic idea is that rape is terrible, and the victim is never at fault for being raped, but that doesn't mean that there do not exist certain behaviors which, when executed in certain situations, are more likely to lead to rape.

Yes. However the 'all men are potential rapists' approach (that one blog seemed to have according to an earlier reference) is asanine. You might as well say all Dakkaites are potential serial killiers..

Kilkrazy wrote:.
Individuals writing on the internet ... convey false impressions.

Like that?

Kanluwen wrote:Bloggers aren't really held to the same level of accountability.

DING DING DING!
Accountability, the one thing that's rarely present on the internet!

Phototoxin wrote:DING DING DING!
Accountability, the one thing that's rarely present on the internet!

Unless it involves an EA title.


Taken out of context anything can seem wrong.

Phototoxin wrote:
Yes. However the 'all men are potential rapists' approach (that one blog seemed to have according to an earlier reference) is asanine. You might as well say all Dakkaites are potential serial killiers..

Well, obviously. Though it must be said that all men are potential rapists, just as all women are. Hell, all people are potential X insofar as X describes something that a person can be.

The problem isn't that the description is incorrect, the problem is that it is applied with a judicious helping of paranoia.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Even in this day and age, sexual assault is something where the "she was asking for it because she dressed slutty" attitude prevails.

I'm not sure it's a symptom of that issue so much as it might be a manifestation of the present trend in gender studies to recognize the idea that there are certain behaviors, by men and women, that make them more likely to be rape victims. That isn't to say that the victims in question cease to be victims due to some mistake that they may have made, but it does sort of put a chink in the righteous fervor that permeates the discourse surrounding sex crimes.

The basic idea is that rape is terrible, and the victim is never at fault for being raped, but that doesn't mean that there do not exist certain behaviors which, when executed in certain situations, are more likely to lead to rape.

In Statistics, at university level, we proved that the increase in sales of Ice Cream were directly co-related to an increased occurence of rape... why?

Because, Ice Cream sales increase due to hot weather... people wear less in hot weather... 'potential' rapists urges are piqued by this behaviour (Im no psychologist, but the facts and related assumptions fit).

However, BLAMING the victim for the actions of another is always INCORRECT. Regardless of circumstances, NO means NO.

George Spiggott wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Other than the fact that journalists working for a company or publication are vetted before being hired and any fool with a keyboard can have a blog?

It's pretty black and white to anyone that has an ounce of common sense.

Wow, bolshy and wrong. So because journalists working for a company or publication are vetted, the following statement can never be true; yes?

Journalists working for a company or publication can just take quotes out of context or alter them with impunity in order to convey false impressions.

Of course they can take quotes out of contest. However they find it hard to so with impunity because there are many factors which work against that, and when it is done, there is a company with a board and editorial officials who can be legally attacked (see mobile phone tapping scandal in the UK, for example).

Blogs have no such safeguards except the conscience of the individual. All you need to make a blog is internet access. You can do that from public libraries.

If someone made a malicious blog, you would have a big job to track them down, and you might have little legal recourse against them when caught.

Imagine a scale of 1 to 100 on which the strength of safeguards for truth, reliability and accuracy of a system of publishing can be measured.

Regardless of where you would put newspapers in general, would you really, honestly put blogs at the same level?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The hateful comments from some Americans blaming the Japanese earthquake on Pearl Harbour, are an example of the kind of BS you can publish in a blog.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Even in this day and age, sexual assault is something where the "she was asking for it because she dressed slutty" attitude prevails.

I'm not sure it's a symptom of that issue so much as it might be a manifestation of the present trend in gender studies to recognize the idea that there are certain behaviors, by men and women, that make them more likely to be rape victims. That isn't to say that the victims in question cease to be victims due to some mistake that they may have made, but it does sort of put a chink in the righteous fervor that permeates the discourse surrounding sex crimes.

The basic idea is that rape is terrible, and the victim is never at fault for being raped, but that doesn't mean that there do not exist certain behaviors which, when executed in certain situations, are more likely to lead to rape.

This.

Yes, no one deserves to be raped. No one deserves to be run over by a car, either. Funny thing, we seem to have no problem recognising that there are things one can do that make being run over more likely.

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Even in this day and age, sexual assault is something where the "she was asking for it because she dressed slutty" attitude prevails.

I'm not sure it's a symptom of that issue so much as it might be a manifestation of the present trend in gender studies to recognize the idea that there are certain behaviors, by men and women, that make them more likely to be rape victims. That isn't to say that the victims in question cease to be victims due to some mistake that they may have made, but it does sort of put a chink in the righteous fervor that permeates the discourse surrounding sex crimes.

The basic idea is that rape is terrible, and the victim is never at fault for being raped, but that doesn't mean that there do not exist certain behaviors which, when executed in certain situations, are more likely to lead to rape.

This.

Yes, no one deserves to be raped. No one deserves to be run over by a car, either. Funny thing, we seem to have no problem recognising that there are things one can do that make being run over more likely.

See...here's why I have an issue with that. People seem to have this idea of rape happening only during certain situations. A woman out on a date, at a bar, etc. I think most rape happens when a woman is doing exceedingly non sexy things like jogging through a park, washing dishes, being at home, taking a walk. Old women get raped at nursing homes. Little girls get raped on their way to school. What could they have done? How should they have changed their behavior to prevent such a thing?

I'm sorry, but the only person that should be held accountable for rape is the rapist. The one doing the raping. The rapist should never be able to say "Well I just couldn't help myself. She was wearing/doing/saying this certain thing, so really, it's partially her fault."

If a woman walks down a street wearing sexy clothes and finds herself raped, it is not her fault. Men should be held to more personal accountability rather than claiming that they just couldn't help it. It's a little insulting to men, i think, to imply that you all just lack an essential self control and can be lured into raping women.

Mrs. Stompa wrote: I'm sorry, but the only person that should be held accountable for rape is the rapist. The one doing the raping. The rapist should never be able to say "Well I just couldn't help myself. She was wearing/doing/saying this certain thing, so really, it's partially her fault."

No one's saying that the rapist shouldn't be held fully accountable.

What dogma and Albatross are saying, and I somewhat agree, is that in most cases there are behaviors that make things like being raped, hit by a car, struck by lightning or really anything you can think of more likely to happen.

Again, the person who commits the assault shouldn't take any less blame. The point is that people might want to be a little more cautious, that's all. Should any woman be able to walk down streets at night in bad neighborhoods dressed however she wants without fear of harm? Yes. Absolutely. Can she? I'm not so sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mrs. Stompa wrote:If a woman walks down a street wearing sexy clothes and finds herself raped, it is not her fault. Men should be held to more personal accountability rather than claiming that they just couldn't help it.

Totally agree.

Mrs. Stompa wrote:It's a little insulting to men, i think, to imply that you all just lack an essential self control and can be lured into raping women.

I don't think anyone has been generalizing that broadly.

Im glad I get to put these people in jail.. woot for me!

I don't think anyone has been generalizing that broadly.

You are correct there. And yes - we don't live in a perfect world where women can feel safe no matter what, that's entirely true.

I just get a little squicky with the idea that it should be the woman taking precautions against getting raped and not the men stopping themselves from doing it, if that makes sense. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure that I don't look good to a rapist? I -should- just be able to assume that I'm safe no matter how I look.

But yeah, I know that's not the case.


I hate people.

AvatarForm wrote:
However, BLAMING the victim for the actions of another is always INCORRECT. Regardless of circumstances, NO means NO.

Well, that's true of rape, but not true of everything.

For example, no one is going to say that person X, having just struck person Y, deserves no blame for the fact that person Y subsequently beat him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I think most rape happens when a woman is doing exceedingly non sexy things like jogging through a park, washing dishes, being at home, taking a walk.

That fits with the idea that rape is primarily about power. Though that same theory is often said to predict that the majority of rape occurs between heterosexual men, so your mileage may vary.

Mrs. Stompa wrote:
It's a little insulting to men, i think, to imply that you all just lack an essential self control and can be lured into raping women.

Not speaking to this particular case, which most certainly had nothing to do with men being lured, but I've heard of instances, mostly from female friends, in which a rape may have occurred without any explicit action by either party. Without being too graphic, it is possible for the woman to withdraw consent emotionally without indicating that fact to her partner. In general this is attributed to fear of rejection, or something similar, and many people consider sex despite such uncommunicative apprehension to be every bit as terrible as rape involving beating and restraint.

Ultimately this is also where questions of blame become fuzzier. If a person ascents to intimacy and subsequently ceases to consent, but never communicates that fact, is the other party guilty of rape? If so, is the, apparently ignorant, rapist still at fault?

Women should take precautions by being streetwise and not going in the wrong areas at night and son on. This is just common sense, like don't run over the road when the light is red.

That doesn't mean they are to blame if something happens. It is still a crime by the man.

The point where it crosses a line is when women are blamed for wearing attractive clothes and such. It is simply an excuse for men on the grounds of "I couldn't control myself". That is complete cobblers.

Indeed. Think with your brain you worthless gakker, not your dick...

Kilkrazy wrote:Regardless of where you would put newspapers in general, would you really, honestly put blogs at the same level?

I'd say there's a fair degree of crossover. Anyone with internet access covers both ends of the spectrum and vetted accountable professionals can have a really low ebbs like this and this. I think it's fairs to say that newspapers, like blogs, aren't a single entity or a definition of quality.

I have a right to walk the streets of Hough (a famously rough neighborhood here in Cleveland) at night with $500 in my pocket, but must people would agree that maybe I shouldn't because of the inherent risks.

Anybody that does something that dramatically increases their risk of being victimized has to be aware of that.

The NYT column is perfectly fine, and a completely sensible way to discuss the issue in the wake of the attack. That rape is a very, very bad thing indeed, and that the rapists are very, very bad people was taken for granted, because spending a full column declaring 'rape is bad!' would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

Instead the article asks some natural, important questions that should be asked in the wake of thing like this;

"what happened to make a large group of men come together to commit such an act?", which is part of the implied question "and what can we do to stop it happening again?"
"what was the child's personal circumstances that made this happen to her?", which is part of the more selfish but still entirely understandable "how can I convince myself this won't happen to my child?"

It would require an incredibly incompetent piece of reading to think the article is actually assigning blame for the rape to the victim. I don't believe people can be smart enough to turn on a computer, read words and turn them into thoughts, and simultaneously so stupid as to misread that article so completely. The only possible conclusion is that you have to will yourself to be stupid enough to read the article that badly.

biccat wrote:I did read the article in question, and while it seemed a little more on the side of the rapists

Well, it's Monday morning and I've just blown my complete allowance of tolerance for ridiculousness for the whole week.

I mean, seriously, I know you're a true believer and that means hating on the NYT, but to the extent that you'll pretend a perfectly sensible article is pro-rapist? I think you owe it to everyone to be a lot more sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Even in this day and age, sexual assault is something where the "she was asking for it because she dressed slutty" attitude prevails.

That isn't what was said.

It suggested that the girl's dress may have had increased her chances of being raped. It doesn't mean that she deserved it, it means she may have done something that increased her chance of being raped.

I am allowed to cross the road at pedestrian crossings. If I cross and a car goes zooming through without looking and runs me over, the driver is entirely to blame, and will go to jail for some time. I am entirely morally entitled to walk across that crossing without ever looking left and right, but moral righteous does me no good lying in the gutter with tyre marks on my back. So instead I realise that while I shouldn't have to look left and right, the world isn't a perfect place, and it's good to exercise a bit of care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mrs. Stompa wrote:See...here's why I have an issue with that. People seem to have this idea of rape happening only during certain situations. A woman out on a date, at a bar, etc. I think most rape happens when a woman is doing exceedingly non sexy things like jogging through a park, washing dishes, being at home, taking a walk. Old women get raped at nursing homes. Little girls get raped on their way to school. What could they have done? How should they have changed their behavior to prevent such a thing?

You seem to be working under the assumption that rape generally involves lying in wait for a girl and abducting her or breaking into her house or something. They aren't. The vast majority of rapes involve social situations where sex commonly occurs, dates and at parties.

Which in no way means the rapist isn't entirely culpable for what happened, and deserves to spend a long time in prison. But it does mean that girls would be wise to act with a little caution and common sense when in certain social situations.

dogma wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
However, BLAMING the victim for the actions of another is always INCORRECT. Regardless of circumstances, NO means NO.

Well, that's true of rape, but not true of everything.

For example, no one is going to say that person X, having just struck person Y, deserves no blame for the fact that person Y subsequently beat him.

What are you actually arguing here?

I believed the topic to concern "Blaming the victim".

You example has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My response ONLY addressed RAPE, not assault or repercussions. Nowehere does the case in point state that the 11-year old victim raped or another and her treatment was a response to this.

AvatarForm wrote:

dogma wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
However, BLAMING the victim for the actions of another is always INCORRECT. Regardless of circumstances, NO means NO.

Well, that's true of rape, but not true of everything.

For example, no one is going to say that person X, having just struck person Y, deserves no blame for the fact that person Y subsequently beat him.

What are you actually arguing here?

I believed the topic to concern "Blaming the victim".

You example has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My response ONLY addressed RAPE, not assault or repercussions. Nowehere does the case in point state that the 11-year old victim raped or another and her treatment was a response to this.

It wasn't clear if you meant only victims of rape, not all victims of crimes.

I dont' think anybody is saying that there's anything a woman (or man) could do to justify another person to rape them. But there's a lot more to any given story than if what a perpetrator did was wrong or illegal. Which is why not everybody suffers the same ramifications for roughly similar crimes.

Polonius wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

dogma wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
However, BLAMING the victim for the actions of another is always INCORRECT. Regardless of circumstances, NO means NO.

Well, that's true of rape, but not true of everything.

For example, no one is going to say that person X, having just struck person Y, deserves no blame for the fact that person Y subsequently beat him.

What are you actually arguing here?

I believed the topic to concern "Blaming the victim".

You example has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My response ONLY addressed RAPE, not assault or repercussions. Nowehere does the case in point state that the 11-year old victim raped or another and her treatment was a response to this.

It wasn't clear if you meant only victims of rape, not all victims of crimes.

I dont' think anybody is saying that there's anything a woman (or man) could do to justify another person to rape them. But there's a lot more to any given story than if what a perpetrator did was wrong or illegal. Which is why not everybody suffers the same ramifications for roughly similar crimes.

Uh huh.

if my response to a RAPE thread is confused for something else, I believe the confusion exists solely in your mind.

What part of the implicit "NO means NO" confused you?

How much MORE could there be to the case in question that would cause you to doubt that what was done to the 11-year old victim was WRONG or ILLEGAL?

sebster wrote:



It suggested that the girl's dress may have had increased her chances of being raped. It doesn't mean that she deserved it, it means she may have done something that increased her chance of being raped.



But it does mean that girls would be wise to act with a little caution and common sense when in certain social situations.

I understand these things...I do! And I'll begrudgingly agree. However, not in this case. Why? because the little girl was 11. 11 years old. I don't know if an 11 year old girl really has a concept of the horrible things that can happen to little girls. I don't know if she could have quite grasped why certain cituations are dangerous. It probably didn't even cross her mind. Likely she was dressing in a manner that she saw all around her and thought it would make per pretty and popular.

AvatarForm wrote:
Uh huh.

if my response to a RAPE thread is confused for something else, I believe the confusion exists solely in your mind.

What part of the implicit "NO means NO" confused you?

How much MORE could there be to the case in question that would cause you to doubt that what was done to the 11-year old victim was WRONG or ILLEGAL?

All caps, the argument of the truley erudite!

Sometimes discussions veer from their original, narrow, topic, and expand to greater things. In all other crimes, the culpability of a perpetrator can be mitigated, sometimes completely, by the actions of others or external factors. Why would it be completely irrelevant to the discussion here?

As for what could be more, there's the simple question of what to do with the perpetrators. It's wrong and illegal to, say, litter. It's also wrong an illegal to steal. We deal with those two things differently.

LIkewise, if you define rape as sex absent consent (a simplification, but a reasonable one), most people think that the punishment for a violent, planned rape should be worse than when a man doesn't stop having sex immediatly when a woman asks him too (both technically the same crime, wrong, and illegal.) Context matters.

Also, given the age of the victim, providng context about dress and behavior can show more of the story. In particular, it affects the, for lack of a better term, the psychological deviance behind the act. An 11 year old that's dressing and acting "adult" that may have already begun developing, is different from fully pre-pubescent. Yeah, they're still rapists and criminals either way, but it fleshes out the story.

Polonius wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
Uh huh.

if my response to a RAPE thread is confused for something else, I believe the confusion exists solely in your mind.

What part of the implicit "NO means NO" confused you?

How much MORE could there be to the case in question that would cause you to doubt that what was done to the 11-year old victim was WRONG or ILLEGAL?

All caps, the argument of the truley erudite!

Sometimes discussions veer from their original, narrow, topic, and expand to greater things. In all other crimes, the culpability of a perpetrator can be mitigated, sometimes completely, by the actions of others or external factors. Why would it be completely irrelevant to the discussion here?

As for what could be more, there's the simple question of what to do with the perpetrators. It's wrong and illegal to, say, litter. It's also wrong an illegal to steal. We deal with those two things differently.

LIkewise, if you define rape as sex absent consent (a simplification, but a reasonable one), most people think that the punishment for a violent, planned rape should be worse than when a man doesn't stop having sex immediatly when a woman asks him too (both technically the same crime, wrong, and illegal.) Context matters.

Also, given the age of the victim, providng context about dress and behavior can show more of the story. In particular, it affects the, for lack of a better term, the psychological deviance behind the act. An 11 year old that's dressing and acting "adult" that may have already begun developing, is different from fully pre-pubescent. Yeah, they're still rapists and criminals either way, but it fleshes out the story.

Erudite? Such a developed term for someone who did not understand the context of my original post, yet decides to argue it incorrectly anyway.

You seem to be searching for points to argue. Deliberately taking the topic off into little tangents in which you randomly list facts and terminology in order to position yourself as superior... all the while ignoring the initial arguement topic...

Both yourself and 'dogma' suffer this same condition, though I do not need to possess an overly-expressive vocabulary to explain to everyone this... nor do I feel the urge to express it as such in order to feed some obvious inferiority complex which you believe will be alleviated by making responses to this effect.

In future, please address someone's point directly... otherwise, your post serves no purpose other than to highlight this.

AvatarForm wrote:
Erudite? Such a developed term for someone who did not understand the context of my original post, yet decides to argue it incorrectly anyway.

You seem to be searching for points to argue. Deliberately taking the topic off into little tangents in which you randomly list facts and terminology in order to position yourself as superior... all the while ignoring the initial arguement topic...

Both yourself and 'dogma' suffer this same condition, though I do not need to possess an overly-expressive vocabulary to explain to everyone this... nor do I feel the urge to express it as such in order to feed some obvious inferiority complex which you believe will be alleviated by making responses to this effect.

In future, please address someone's point directly... otherwise, your post serves no purpose other than to highlight this.

If your original argument was that we shouldn't blame victims of rape for being raped, than congratulations: I totally agree.

It doesn't change the fact that the action of a victim are still relevant to any discussion of a crime.

I'm sorry if you feel like my "knowledge" and "experience" on a topic are inappropriate to bring into a discussion.

If you feel like i'm misunderstanding your point, why not try to explain it?

sebster wrote:The NYT column is perfectly fine, and a completely sensible way to discuss the issue in the wake of the attack. That rape is a very, very bad thing indeed, and that the rapists are very, very bad people was taken for granted, because spending a full column declaring 'rape is bad!' would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

Instead the article asks some natural, important questions that should be asked in the wake of thing like this;

"what happened to make a large group of men come together to commit such an act?", which is part of the implied question "and what can we do to stop it happening again?"
"what was the child's personal circumstances that made this happen to her?", which is part of the more selfish but still entirely understandable "how can I convince myself this won't happen to my child?"

Important questions like:

"These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives" - will these poor kids ever get over gang-raping this child?

"The whereabouts of the victim and her mother were not made public." - why can't we badger her with personal questions?

"The arrests have left many wondering who will be taken into custody next." - those darn police, just rounding up black kids.

"The students who were arrested have not returned to school, and it is unclear if they ever will." - will these poor boys ever get back to school?

Also, I'm glad I could provide you with your daily two-minute hate. Maybe next time you could try reading the whole post before making ridiculous personal attacks. Just a suggestion.

biccat wrote: Important questions like:

"These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives" - will these poor kids ever get over gang-raping this child?

Probably not, as they'll spend some of it in prison and the rest in a sex offender data base. So, yes, the consequences will follow them the rest of their life.

"The whereabouts of the victim and her mother were not made public." - why can't we badger her with personal questions?

Which is one reason that her "side" of the story isn't being told. She's not available for questions.

"The arrests have left many wondering who will be taken into custody next." - those darn police, just rounding up black kids.

Or perhaps the community will be shocked at who else was involved.

"The students who were arrested have not returned to school, and it is unclear if they ever will." - will these poor boys ever get back to school?

No, because they will be in detention, awaiting trial.

Also, I'm glad I could provide you with your daily two-minute hate. Maybe next time you could try reading the whole post before making ridiculous personal attacks. Just a suggestion.

I think it's likely you're bringing a healthy dose of your own bias into reading the story, rather than seeing the the bias of the reporting. Given that the victim wasn't local or available for questioning, is it surprising that most of the reporting is based on the community and the pepretrators? What are they supposed to do?

Spending time reinforcing the idea that rape of an 11 year old is bad isn't just a waste of space, but also comes close to sensationalist journalism. I think the question a lot of people have when they read a story like this is "why would anybody do that?"