This thread has been closed, as it is re-opening the very discussion that was just closed on
another thread.
We close threads when they become argumentative in a way that does not seem constructive, given the mission of the forum. Some topics lead to very heated discussion that cannot be resolved on an internet forum like this, and a "time out" is needed. The moderators felt that the original thread had reached the point. It does
not mean that we think the topic is unimportant.
It is not an uncommon practice on this forum to ask an earnest question or provide information, and be insulted, scorned for even inquiring or sharing, and some commenters projecting their own thoughts onto the OP, and even advising the OP to either not go on pilgrimage, or to be avoided.
Yes, this is a common problem that we need to deal with. Answers to unasked questions often lead to wonderful discussions and new perspectives. On the other hand, they can sometimes go off track, as you describe. We do not wish to have a strict rule that people must answer the question and only the exact question - so, there are many times when the thread will wander to one person's delight and another person's dismay.
We try to find a generally acceptable middle ground. It isn't easy, especially on a sensitive topic - sometimes closing the thread seems to be the only solution since purging individual posts can get very tricky.
if a young, attractive woman traveling solo feels that a bit of security is warranted to fend off unwanted advances from a man, who can easily overpower her or at the least disturb her peace …
We do not need a discussion of whether cute/young women need pepper spray more than ugly/old ones, nor at which point of an unwanted advance, pepper spray might be warranted. We are all sympathetic to the safety concerns of female pilgrims and we want to help women find ways to walk comfortably. That process includes weighing of risks, understanding our own risk tolerance, considering what controls are appropriate for those risks.
The OP of the original thread was derided, even apparently by a moderator.
No, this is not true. If you read the thread carefully, you will see that the comments by a moderator were directed quite specifically to statements (quoted) by other people, not the OP. Furthermore, the moderator was challenging the factual basis of these statements, and attempting to help the readers put the risks into perspective.
Moderators are allowed to have opinions, even strong ones, just as other members are. A strong contrary opinion is not the same as derision or insult.
If anyone wants to continue this discussion, feel free to start a private Conversation with me and/or other
moderators.