This dude doesn't have 'unlocked door' spidey senses people. He went out for a purpose, to invade someones privacy, be a creepy douche bag, and watch someone sleep without their consent. Thankfully for him, the community is going to spend all it's energy chastising his victims and he'll be able to continue violating people for years to come.
Her door not being locked didn't make him go in there and do what he did. That's why he was out there, if it hadn't of been her it would have been someone else or maybe he would have broken a window or been more active in his home invasion.
The best way to prevent sexual assault, violating someone's autonomy is still DON'T FUCKING DO IT. Period.
To suggest that anyone, anywhere for any reason deserves to be violated or assaulted is disgusting. People have the right to their autonomy regardless of where they live or if they lock their doors or not.
Violating someone or enacting any actions towards them against their will is wrong. Not locking door isn't a crime, entering into someone's home while they are asleep without their consent is.
The fact that the coast is assisting to perpetrate this ideology is extremely disheartening.
The issue remains that the debate was presented to a philosophy professor as a debate on morality. Mercer presented a philosophical lecture on morality and personhood from a theoretical standpoint. He was not debating pro-choice, advocating for a women's rights etc.
Which is why the group choose him, and approached him the way they did. Mercer was having a philosophical discussion, while Stephanie Gray was doing her full time job, which is to advocate for the abolishment of abortion and debate the issue.
The fact alone that women/woman/girl/girls were not mentioned until audience questions near the end, in and of itself should illustrate the faults within this presentation.
Mercer was mislead, showcased and ill prepared. He was brought out to look foolish, present his own personal viewpoints on ethics, discuss philosophy and through association make the pro-choice arguments seem disjointed and laughable. He was there to make Stephanie look good, because without a show gate this would be difficult to achieve as her arguments cannot stand up to thoughtful criticism. Mercer's unfamiliarity with the formating alone was irresponsible, to the point where he was unaware that there would be rebuttals and closing statements and had finished his presentation following his opening statements and responding to Stephanie's come backs (which focused extensively on what Mercer's personal moral/ethical compass entailed).
No effort was made WITHIN Halifax to find a pro-choice rep. PLAD failed to contact any reproductive rights group, any health providers, any women's organizations, any sociology or other feminist/pro-choice profs or departments at any of the universities.
Recent Comments
Her door not being locked didn't make him go in there and do what he did. That's why he was out there, if it hadn't of been her it would have been someone else or maybe he would have broken a window or been more active in his home invasion.
The best way to prevent sexual assault, violating someone's autonomy is still DON'T FUCKING DO IT. Period.
Violating someone or enacting any actions towards them against their will is wrong. Not locking door isn't a crime, entering into someone's home while they are asleep without their consent is.
The fact that the coast is assisting to perpetrate this ideology is extremely disheartening.
Great selection, knowledgeable staff, equitably acquired leaves, unique blends and re-steeps/wi-fi.
Which is why the group choose him, and approached him the way they did. Mercer was having a philosophical discussion, while Stephanie Gray was doing her full time job, which is to advocate for the abolishment of abortion and debate the issue.
The fact alone that women/woman/girl/girls were not mentioned until audience questions near the end, in and of itself should illustrate the faults within this presentation.
Mercer was mislead, showcased and ill prepared. He was brought out to look foolish, present his own personal viewpoints on ethics, discuss philosophy and through association make the pro-choice arguments seem disjointed and laughable. He was there to make Stephanie look good, because without a show gate this would be difficult to achieve as her arguments cannot stand up to thoughtful criticism. Mercer's unfamiliarity with the formating alone was irresponsible, to the point where he was unaware that there would be rebuttals and closing statements and had finished his presentation following his opening statements and responding to Stephanie's come backs (which focused extensively on what Mercer's personal moral/ethical compass entailed).
-Saint Mary's Women Centre Coordinator-