This thread is for discussion of the formal debate that can be found in the associated Debate thread.

Anybody may post in this thread, but only agreed debaters may post in the Debate thread itself.

The format and participants in the debate were agreed in the Proposal thread.

Three versus one? Hahaha. That's fair.

Kadark the Colossal

You were invited to join in, Kadark. You refused. You were too scared.

Eat a dick, James. I was ready to participate, but you refused to tell me what the topic was about (considering everybody you initially challenged rejected the original proposal). But hey, you have nothing to be scared of, right? A three on one "debate" ... how fun it must be for you.

Kadark the Gritty

You're irrelevant, Kadark. Please go away. You had 24 hours to agree to participate.

If I'm so irrelevant, why is my name being tossed around in the actual debate thread?

Kadark the Monstrous

a very good point.
james you are acting like a petulant child.

kenworth:

Your post has been deleted from the Debate thread. You are not an agreed debater.

In answer to your question, I brought up Kadark in my opening post so that there is a record of his unwillingness to stand by his opinions. I don't think it is likely that I will need to mention him again, unless my opponent brings him into the debate.

Please read the Proposal thread. Kadark was invited to participate in a debate. He was given a generous 24 hours to agree to participate. He decided not to. Draw your own conclusions.

and then you comment in here that he was "too scared" to debate?
its like being in a playground,with you putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala not listening,we're playing my rules,if you dont wanna play you're just too scared"

and then you comment in here that he was "too scared" to debate?

That's the only conclusion I can come to.

Why do you think he refused to debate a topic that he has clearly expressed an opinion on?


its like being in a playground,with you putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala not listening,we're playing my rules,if you dont wanna play you're just too scared"

I invited him to propose an alternative topic, if he thought the one I proposed was unsuitable. I gave him 24 hours.

Please read the entire Proposal thread, kenworth. You're talking about things you clearly have little knowledge about.

Then again he did nothing but attach a strawman to me and tell me that I was supposed to defend a position that I never had. I demanded to see where he got the idea that I supported the position that he declared that I supported, and he just started on and on about how I was too 'scared' to debate him.

Kadark:

I am willing to have a separate debate on a topic of your choosing, one-on-one if you wish.

It's not like this topic was your only chance.

If you wish to suggest a topic, and we actually have a disagreement and I think I can defend my point of view, I will happily argue a point against you.

There's no point crying over spilt milk.

angrybellsprout:

Why don't you PM Kadark and sort out some kind of agreement to debate me, one against two? You choose the topic. See post #12.

and then you comment in here that he was "too scared" to debate?
its like being in a playground,with you putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala not listening,we're playing my rules,if you dont wanna play you're just too scared"

Exactly. I didn't really expect him to say some of the things he did. I mean, you can expect that stuff from me ... I'm just a regular user who logs in to clown around and have some interesting conversations. He's supposed to be an administrator, yet claims I'm "too scared" to debate him (even though I said I'd debate an alternate issue with him). I wonder ... if I challenged him to a formal debate about "Who's the Best Player to Draft as the Centre of a Dynasty" concerning basketball, he probably wouldn't want to accept, because the topic doesn't really interest him. Sure, maybe he watches basketball casually when there's nothing else on television, but he doesn't want to type lengthy posts about the topic, does he? Do I have the right to say he's "too scared" to debate me? No! This is the same thing with me and this whole "what constitutes rape?" issue. I'll post here and there, but I'll never get too deeply involved, because the interest and intrigue isn't there for me. Try explaining that to James Retard, though.

Kadark the Glorious

James is only operates in the realm of dishonesty.


You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

That sounds like a start for a topic.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1920542&postcount=42

ABS:


James is only operates in the realm of dishonesty.

You really want to buddy up with Kadark, do you? Kadark, remember, is the guy who wrote this:


Failing to stop having sex if a woman changes her mind is acceptable. Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.

Rape of a prostitute is impossible. Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.

Women somehow "owe" men sex. If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.

Tell me, ABS, do you agree with him? Of are you too scared to say what you think about these comments, too?


Kadark:


Exactly. I didn't really expect him to say some of the things he did.

What you mean is you really didn't expect anybody to take you to task about your archaic, misogynist views. You disrespect women. You don't understand what rape is. And when somebody calls you out on it you act as if it was all fun and games?


I mean, you can expect that stuff from me ... I'm just a regular user who logs in to clown around and have some interesting conversations.

If you're legit, then you might start by apologising to the women on the forum.


I wonder ... if I challenged him to a formal debate about "Who's the Best Player to Draft as the Centre of a Dynasty" concerning basketball, he probably wouldn't want to accept, because the topic doesn't really interest him.

It's a topic I know nothing about. Hell, I'm not even in the US.


Sure, maybe he watches basketball casually when there's nothing else on television, but he doesn't want to type lengthy posts about the topic, does he? Do I have the right to say he's "too scared" to debate me? No!

You can say what you like. The record of posts will speak for itself, as it does here.

I have quoted some of your comments about rape in this very post, again, for the record.

Surely sex without consent is just that, and the use of the word rape over emotionalizes and sensationalizes the issue, to the profit of militant feminists and their supporters.

It's just like when someone is killed and it is found to be race related. Suddenly, the whole crime takes on a far more ominous atmosphere, as though being killed because of your race is worse than being killed for any other reason.

Many words are defined so as to be shorthand for complex concepts - strings of other words. The word rape is just one of them.

Can you think of any examples of sex without consent where the word "rape" would not apply, DeepThought?

What you mean is you really didn't expect anybody to take you to task about your archaic, misogynist views. You disrespect women. You don't understand what rape is. And when somebody calls you out on it you act as if it was all fun and games?

No, that's not it at all, dick eater. Stop acting as if you know why I didn't agree to your bullshit proposal (like everybody else you challenged). I respect women enough to demand they fulfill their responsibilities, unlike such caring sweethearts like yourself. If you want to debate something else, I'm perfectly fine with that. However, you must get it through your thick skull that I only agree to debate topics I have an interest in. I also reserve the right to deny a debate proposal as I see fit, regardless of what the fuck you have to say. Got it?


If you're legit, then you might start by apologising to the women on the forum.

Fuuuuuuuuck no. You can start by apologizing to me for wasting so much of my time.


It's a topic I know nothing about. Hell, I'm not even in the US.

You don't have to live in the U.S. to know about the NBA and basketball in general. I'm Canadian, and I follow it without a problem; the games are aired in Australia, too. It was just an example illustrating how I felt about the debate topic - don't take it literally.


I have quoted some of your comments about rape in this very post, again, for the record.

So? I wouldn't have posted them if I was afraid of them being quoted.

Kadark the Bored

Again James Retard comes with dishonesty instead of any sort of rebuttal of anything that I've actually stated.

Kadark:


No, that's not it at all, dick eater.

I know you intend the term "dick eater" to be an insult. Therefore, I find it offensive. I will ask you, just once, not to insult me in such a manner again.

Thankyou.


Stop acting as if you know why I didn't agree to your bullshit proposal (like everybody else you challenged). I respect women enough to demand they fulfill their responsibilities, unlike such caring sweethearts like yourself. If you want to debate something else, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Ok. How about we debate "A woman must give her husband sex if he wants it, whether she wants to or not"?

You, of course, will argue the affirmative side.

Do we have an agreement?


However, you must get it through your thick skull that I only agree to debate topics I have an interest in. I also reserve the right to deny a debate proposal as I see fit, regardless of what the fuck you have to say. Got it?

Yes. You have already exercised your right not to participate in the current debate. So quit whining.



I have quoted some of your comments about rape in this very post, again, for the record.

So? I wouldn't have posted them if I was afraid of them being quoted.

Good for you. If only you'd had the guts to defend your comments in an actual debate.

Again James Retard comes with dishonesty instead of any sort of rebuttal of anything that I've actually stated.

I'm getting sick of your accusations of dishonesty. In this latest one, I made no claims. I asked you two questions. So, I cannot have been dishonest.

I ask you not to make any further accusations of dishonesty against me unless and until you can document them by quoting the relevant posts.

This is coming from the same person who keeps claiming that I stated that nonconsentual sex is not rape?

Hillarious.

This is coming from the same person who keeps claiming that I stated that nonconsent

Please do not lie.

I'm getting sick of your accusations of dishonesty.

Totally off topic, and feel free to delete this post, but OMG can I relate to this.

Totally off topic, and feel free to delete this post, but OMG can I relate to this.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1920499&postcount=16

Randwolf and I are now in agreement on the issue, angrybellsprout, so I see no relevance to your quoting of his post.

Please go play somewhere else.

That you were dishonest in trying to claim that he ever stated that nonconsentual sex is not rape?

That is apperant to everyone.

Where did I claim that, ABS? Certainly not in the post you linked to. There, I invited 3 people to debate an issue. That is all.

No, you 'invited' people to play your little strawman game with.

You 'invited' people who you knew never once made the claim that you wanted them to defend.

It would be similar to me inviting you to defend the position that fucking a dog in the ass is a noble and just thing to do, while I stick up for the position that it is rape.

As far as I know you never made this claim, but I'm just going to attach it to you and if you don't defend it, then you are simply a coward.

Many words are defined so as to be shorthand for complex concepts - strings of other words. The word rape is just one of them.

Can you think of any examples of sex without consent where the word "rape" would not apply, DeepThought?


James R,

I think this issue demonstrates how hard it is for us to make judgments concerning the experience of others, and, consequently, how dangerous words like rape and racism can be.

If a poor farmer from the Third World is trod on by the system, and left unable to feed and care for his family - perhaps even losing some of his children due to lack of medical care - is he completely in the wrong if he forces a childless female executive of a large multinational whom the system has made wealthy to have sex with him - and maybe even slaps her around a bit while he's at it?

Rape 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.

he is more than wrong. he is also a pussy
this is the way of the noble people.......

The Committee of Public Safety came under the control of Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer, and the Jacobins unleashed the Reign of Terror (1793-1794). According to archival records, at least 16,594 people died under the guillotine or otherwise after accusations of counter-revolutionary activities

/not amused

i think you have been compromised

/spits

angrybellsprout:


You 'invited' people who you knew never once made the claim that you wanted them to defend.

Let us be clear then.

Do you agree that sex without consent is always rape?

Yes or no?

I am asking you which position you defend.

Lemme ask you something, Kadark. If you're so right, why can you not use reason like anyone else instead of stooping to calling people 'dick eater'?

OK children, so far this has been very productive. Except maybe 3-4 actually ontopic posts, the rest should be deleted so far as irrelevant bickering.

Anyway, here are a few problems to start with:

1. DEFINITION. What definition are we using?
2. GEOGRAPHY. Which country or state are we refering to, whose laws are being discussed here?
3. TIME. Are we talking about now, about Victorian England, etc. or universally?

1. The problem of the definition is twofold:

a. If we give a strict definition and we all agree to it, there is nothing left to debate. Analogy: Is a 2 dimensional shape consisting points with equal distance from a particular point is always a circle? If we give the definition of circle like this:"Circle is a 2 dimensional shape consisting of those points in a plane which are at a constant distance from a fixed point." When everyone agrees, there is no point in debating what the circle is.
My point here is that I need a little leeway with the definition.

b. James' usage of "always" in the moral question. If I can show at least one occasion when the sexual attack without consent could be considered something else rather than rape, the answer is no, and I win the debate.

#2 and #3 are selfexplanatory, so I don't need to explain them....

OK, I will give some definitions here, from my mind and Wikipedia:

Rape (1): sometimes called sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without their consent.

Rape (2): physical attack when one is being forced against his/her will to engage in sexual activity.

I am open to other, similar definitions. Again, the problem is with #1 that there is nothing left to argue, as James' moral question is stated. Although here I am going to throw in one of my weapons:

Spousal rape! It all boils down to the definition of consent in the context of rape. Just about half of the world even today consideres MARRIAGE being an institution that gives long term consent to the spouse to use the other's body for sexual activities. Thus even if the husband forces the wife to have sex with him against her will, legally it can not be considered rape.

Oups! Did I just win the debate? That was fast, but I told you I was good... :)

For educational purposes, the grey area of the world is where spousal rape is not criminalized, thus by legal definition it is NOT a rape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MaritalRapeMap.gif

Spousal rape! It all boils down to the definition of consent in the context of rape. Just about half of the world even today consideres MARRIAGE being an institution that gives long term consent to the spouse to use the other's body for sexual activities. Thus even if the husband forces the wife to have sex with him against her will, legally it can not be considered rape.

Oups! Did I just win the debate? That was fast, but I told you I was good... :)

It's still rape because it was AGAINST HER WILL.

Syzygys, please be advised that the actual debate is being held in a different thread. This is a discussion thread about the debate itself where non debaters can discuss the actual debate.

Please post your debating points in:

Debate: That sex without consent is always rape (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82799)

Thank you.

Wifey: Oh hubby dearest please accept this stick up your arse as a token of my affection.
Hubby: Whaa. Get that fucking thing away from my anus!
Wifey: But darling we are married and doing this to you would really turn me on right now.
Hubby: But that's a serious sexual assault!
Wifey: Not legally it isn't now BEND OVER!!

Syzygys, please be advised

Damn! Should I copy the posts there? I told you this subforum was anal...

Anyway, I will switch to that thread, I let you children play here....

Also, Syzygys, I refer you to rule #7 of the team debating rules, which you agreed to when you agreed to this debate.

That rule says that a poster may post a maximum of 4 posts in the entire debate - one each round.

In fact, you have already used your quota with your initial string of posts.

I am happy to overlook this and merge your initial posts into one larger posts, but I ask you to review the rules for the debate.

Lastly, if you think this is "anal", I really wonder why you agreed to the debate in the first place. Nobody forced you into it, you know. Regardless of your opinions on the process, this is a formal debate, conducted according to pre-agreed rules. You were invited to negotiate the parameters of the debate before the start, and you raised no objections about the format then.

james i was just assuming he was alowed 3 posts a round cause hes on his own and we are a team:p

Thus even if the husband forces the wife to have sex with him against her will, legally it can not be considered rape.

Oups! Did I just win the debate? That was fast, but I told you I was good... :)


umm
cos she consented?
so sex without consent (marriage) is indeed rape?

scoring points for the other team?

james i was just assuming he was alowed 3 posts a round cause hes on his own and we are a team:p

In the Proposal thread, I offered a one-one-one debate. He said he didn't mind debating 3 people.

That rule says that a poster may post a maximum of 4 posts in the entire debate - one each round.

I forgot to mention I am above the rules... Also, without me there wouldn't be a debate at all....Nobody wanted to take your challenge...


I am happy to overlook this and merge your initial posts into one larger posts,

Sure. I pretty much already said what I wanted, although I still have a few fun case studies...


but I ask you to review the rules for the debate.

real man don't read instructions...

Asguard's point me being alone against 3 is valid, should't I be allowed more responses??? Anyway, as I said I made most of my points...

Where is my prize?

Since there is a chance my post will be removed from the debate thread because of the silly rules I will use this thread as filesaving. So here it is:

Case study #5: From the Mumbai Times:

"No charges against the Serial Pleasurer!

No charges were filed against the so called Serial Pleasurer, because none of her victims are willing to do so. In the infamous case of Sam, a secretary of Dr. Loveguru, the famous sexual psychologist, she gained unauthorized access to the files of his boss' clients and collected the names of women unable to orgasm. In a course of 5 weeks she kidnapped 6 of them, tied them down, and after a long, nice bodymassage she brought them to multiple climaxes, digitally. After that she released them otherwise unharmed, but cured. Lawyers for Sam argued that she might be guilty of kidnapping but not rape, because she was just practicing medicine without a medical license. Several of the kidnapped women were also ready to defend Sam, including their husbands. The police say no harm, no crime, although they warned Sam not to do it again. Sam opened up a "healthclinic" treating women with orgasm issues using bodymassage. Her clinic is booked for the next 2 decades...."

syzygys no one deleted your post, the whole thing is still there. All james did was merge the 4 of them into one post because everyone gets only one post per round.

I got food poisoning from lunching at the in-law's. My husband and I are never, ever, eating gravy again. Will do my round 2 post tomorrow.

:bawl:

Need to go lie down now. Been :puke: since this afternoon.

:(

I got food poisoning from lunching at the in-law's. My husband and I are never, ever, eating gravy again. Will do my round 2 post tomorrow.

:bawl:

Need to go lie down now. Been :puke: since this afternoon.

:(

Hope you get better soon Bells..
Your in-laws eh.. ? Jeez.

Wifey: Oh hubby dearest please accept this stick up your arse as a token of my affection.
Hubby: Whaa. Get that fucking thing away from my anus!
Wifey: But darling we are married and doing this to you would really turn me on right now.
Hubby: But that's a serious sexual assault!
Wifey: Not legally it isn't now BEND OVER!!

Anyone gonna answer sniffy's post?

And ya, Bells, hope you get better soon. That sucks.

Anyone gonna answer sniffy's post?

And ya, Bells, hope you get better soon. That sucks.

It's still rape.. :shrug:

You know it is rape, I know it is rape, but Syzygys is still trying to argue that marital rape is somehow not rape because of a legal definition.

As soon as one party becomes incapable of having rational consent due to drink or drugs, the crime of rape is questionable.
An intoxicated woman (or man) is an easy target for a rapist because proving non-consent is difficult.

Where is my prize?

Well if you'd just bend over darling.......

As soon as one party becomes incapable of having rational consent due to drink or drugs, the crime of rape is questionable.
An intoxicated woman (or man) is an easy target for a rapist because proving non-consent is difficult.

errr if intoxicated one cannot give rational consent.......if you were sober kremmen you would know this

errr if intoxicated one cannot give rational consent.......if you were sober kremmen you would know this

Where do you draw the line with rational consent though?

If someone is pissed/stoned to the point of not knowing what thy're doing or saying, nope, rational consent is indeed right out the window. But if they're only pissed enough to disinhibit what desires are already there?

Where do you draw the line with rational consent though?

If someone is pissed/stoned to the point of not knowing what thy're doing or saying, nope, rational consent is indeed right out the window. But if they're only pissed enough to disinhibit what desires are already there?


This is why I've long suspected that women who get drunk or stoned are not that bothered about being raped.

It's still rape.. :shrug:

Not according my Bible... :)


marital rape is somehow not rape because of a legal definition.

DUH!!! Is OJ a murderer legally??? You know he is a killer, I know he is a killer, but according to the criminal justice system, he is innocent, so there you have it...

This is why I've long suspected that women who get drunk or stoned are not that bothered about being raped.

For fuck's sake.

There is a difference between wanting to meet someone you are attracted to and have sex with them, and wanting just any random man to force you to have sex whether you want to or not.

For fuck's sake.

There is a difference between wanting to meet someone you are attracted to and have sex with them, and wanting just any random man to force you to have sex whether you want to or not.


I thought we were talking about someone who's stoned or drunk?

In that kind of state your not capable of meeting anyone. In my experience such women are usually dressed like sluts anyway and inviting any passer by to partake of their wares.

Under those circumstances it wouldn't technically be rape, but it begs the question just what would you have to do to a women like that for it to be considered rape?

My guess is, they're practically rape-proof, as they would ultimately submit to anyone.

I thought we were talking about someone who's stoned or drunk?

In that kind of state your not capable of meeting anyone. In my experience such women are usually dressed like sluts anyway and inviting any passer by to partake of their wares.

Under those circumstances it wouldn't technically be rape, but it begs the question just what would you have to do to a women like that for it to be considered rape?

My guess is, they're practically rape-proof, as they would ultimately submit to anyone.

Would they really? Do you honestly think that? That's YOUR judgement of them, not how they actually are. Go up to one of those women and ask her if she would agree to sex with any random male. If not - she is not rape-proof.

Go up to one of those women and ask her if she would agree to sex with any random male. If not - she is not rape-proof.


I have no intention of carrying out a market research campaign amongst drunken tarts. Maybe if any of them could mentally focus long enough to comprehend a question they might just manage a reply, but how reliable would such a response be anyway under the circumstances?

No judge in his right mind should convict a man who has sex with a woman like that of rape.

I have no intention of carrying out a market research campaign amongst drunken tarts. Maybe if any of them could mentally focus long enough to comprehend a question they might just manage a reply, but how reliable would such a response be anyway under the circumstances?

No judge in his right mind should convict a man who has sex with a woman like that of rape.

It is not whom you do something to, but rather what you do to someone that makes it rape. (including ignoring certain things like the wishes of that person)

What I put in bold above is really rather creepy.

I've been reading this topic and have become quite interested in it, so thought i'd try and put my 2 cents in there, i'm not the best person with debates, so if I say something wrong or anything, apologies :) Hope no one minds me popping in.




In that kind of state your not capable of meeting anyone. In my experience such women are usually dressed like sluts anyway and inviting any passer by to partake of their wares.



Dressing provocatively doesnt really do them any favours... but they're not exactly asking to be raped. I wouldnt say just because you're pissed or stoned you're rape proof. I'd say it was down to self respect more... I mean surely despite someone being really drunk, they'd still be able to fathom the request as it's a pretty big deal to the majority. However if you have low self respect, sex is about as important as watching tv...

I think I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick and made absolutely no sense or decent contribution to this conversation. Sorry again. :)

Syzygys:


I forgot to mention I am above the rules... Also, without me there wouldn't be a debate at all....Nobody wanted to take your challenge...

Nobody else was brave enough to take my challenge, you mean.

Really, I'm glad you did. It's a good debate so far, I think.


Asguard's point me being alone against 3 is valid, should't I be allowed more responses??? Anyway, as I said I made most of my points...

Well, the agreed word limit on posts was 1500 words, but I'm happy for you to post up to 4500 words in a post if you like, to even things up.

By the way, just to be clear: nothing you wrote was deleted in the Debate thread. I simply merged 7 of your posts into one.


TeKore:


I've been reading this topic and have become quite interested in it, so thought i'd try and put my 2 cents in there, i'm not the best person with debates, so if I say something wrong or anything, apologies :) Hope no one minds me popping in.

What you have to say is as valid as what anybody else has to say. You're very welcome to join in.

I would like to make a short apology.

i missread the case study 2 as the note saying
"take ME if you want"

I apologise for the missunderstanding

i also took the wifes comment in case study 1 to mean that the wives were awear of the switch and just pretending they wernt
From a rereading of the initial post by my oponant and through reading the arguments by my colleges i realised i was mestaken in my assumption on both counts and apologise:)

Ok, I posted my round 2 post.

Damn food poisoning.:bawl: My husband and I have both been hugging the toilet since 4pm yesterday. He's still queasy while I was able to keep down some water and toast from this morning. Our 4 year old nephew had to be admitted to hospital this morning for severe dehydration. His mother is just as bad and his brother and our son's escaped because they did not eat the gravy their grandmother prepared. Tasted ok.. we thought the 'tang' came from the lime she always adds to food. Seems not.. Crazy woman (mother in law) made gravy and added in a gravy mix (to spice it up a little apparently) that she found in her cupboard. She failed to check the expiry date and it was only after we all fell ill and called them to see if they were sick, did she then check and realise it was past it's used by date by more than a year. A year!!

Ugh.. kids are still napping.. going to lie down.. queasiness is returning.:bawl:

hope you are feeling better soon bells:)

Ok, I posted my round 2 post.

Damn food poisoning.:bawl: My husband and I have both been hugging the toilet since 4pm yesterday. He's still queasy while I was able to keep down some water and toast from this morning. Our 4 year old nephew had to be admitted to hospital this morning for severe dehydration. His mother is just as bad and his brother and our son's escaped because they did not eat the gravy their grandmother prepared. Tasted ok.. we thought the 'tang' came from the lime she always adds to food. Seems not.. Crazy woman (mother in law) made gravy and added in a gravy mix (to spice it up a little apparently) that she found in her cupboard. She failed to check the expiry date and it was only after we all fell ill and called them to see if they were sick, did she then check and realise it was past it's used by date by more than a year. A year!!

Ugh.. kids are still napping.. going to lie down.. queasiness is returning.:bawl:


Hey Bells. I'm sorry to hear about your condition. If you have "true" food poisoning, which from the symptoms you have described and the duration, it sounds like you do, I really feel for you. I have had it as well, not once, but twice, and it was the most godawful experience I could imagine. *Somebody shoot me* I discussed it with a woman experienced with both the birth of children and food poisoning and she said she would pick labor any day. Of course, I realize this varies greatly from individual to individual. Anyway, hope you are better soon.



It is interesting to follow the progress of this debate. One side seems to be presenting their case, let's just say, "a little better" than the other.



As an item of curiousity, where, in the context of the debate topic, does necrophilia fit in legally?

Disclaimer:
1. I am not advocating necrophilia. 2. I am not condoning necrophilia. 3. I think necrophilia is sick.
Any questions, see these three points.

Randolf if you look at my first post and click on the wikipedia link they go through concent with regard to necrophila if it was to ever become legalised

Randolf if you look at my first post and click on the wikipedia link they go through concent with regard to necrophila if it was to ever become legalised

Thank you Asguard. I will do that. I was ready to be attacked for even asking, so thanks again... :)

Randolf if you look at my first post and click on the wikipedia link they go through concent with regard to necrophila if it was to ever become legalised

I read through it.


From your Wiki reference:

The issue of prior informed consent may also come up if the legality behind consensual necrophilia is ever further explored.

I'm confused. WTF is "consensual necrophilia "????

ok lets use the anology of donating your body to science.

In order to give your body to medical students (or forensic science students or whatever) you write a will and living will making this clear. Now its concevable that the same regulations could be aplied to necrophilia where you chose to leave your body to an organisation or person through a will for the purposes of necrophilla. Thats what they are refering to

ok lets use the anology of donating your body to science.

In order to give your body to medical students (or forensic science students or whatever) you write a will and living will making this clear. Now its concevable that the same regulations could be aplied to necrophilia where you chose to leave your body to an organisation or person through a will for the purposes of necrophilla. Thats what they are refering to


OK. And, the $64 question, what happens if they do? Say they make a living will addressing this when they are 20 years old. They die at 80. Is "consent" presumed to remain in place unless explicitly revoked? Please think about this carefully before you answer.

I realize that this is an absolutely absurd case to contemplate, but Wiki seems to have thought of it. Not that that is worth a hill of beans of course...

Damn you Asguard! Necrophilia was to be my next case study, but now I will be accused of stealing the idea from you, so I have to throw it out. And I had such a good story....

dont blame me he asked the question:p

dont blame me he asked the question:p

Oh, f**k. Did I just screw up again? Violate some sort of rule? I didn't mean to inhibit the debate... :(

Bells,

Food poisoning is awful. I went to a restaurant about a year ago and spent most of the night throwing up after eating a particular dish with a lot of cheese (presumably dodgy). Thankfully, my partner had something different, and she was just fine.

Syzygys:

Just to let you know, you only have one more post left in the debate. Asguard, Bells and myself currently have two to go, each.

Bells,

Food poisoning is awful. I went to a restaurant about a year ago and spent most of the night throwing up after eating a particular dish with a lot of cheese (presumably dodgy). Thankfully, my partner had something different, and she was just fine.

Yes. It's the third time I've had food poisoning, but this time would have to have been the worst. We got off lightly. Our nephew is still in hospital. Poor little thing can't keep anything down at all, not even water and he spent yesterday afternoon and last night throwing up every 5 minutes or so apparently, so even the little sips of water he was having was not enough to keep him hydrated.

We're just thankful neither of our sons like gravy. They had bad gastro not long ago as well as flu and they are still recovering from that. Food poisoning would have set their recovery back and probably would have seen our 1 year old back in hospital..

I tried to joke with my husband earlier today that if I was the only one who fell ill, I could have joked my mother in-law was trying to see me off. I don't think it went down too well... no pun intended.. lol..

Syzygys:

Just to let you know, you only have one more post left in the debate.

Oh OK, I will keep it short and I will thank my team members and take home the prize in that post.

Hey, just in case, case study #6 (true story):

"In a rare rebuke, a bar association has criticized a judge for refusing to uphold sexual assault charges against a man who allegedly let friends rape a prostitute he had hired. The judge said she considered the case "theft of services."
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni heightened the furor when she defended her decision to a newspaper. "She consented and she didn't get paid," Deni told the Philadelphia Daily News. "I thought it was a robbery."
Dominique Gindraw was accused of ordering the accuser at gunpoint to have sex with three men. But Deni dismissed the rape and sexual assault charges on Oct. 4. She upheld conspiracy, robbery, false imprisonment and other charges against Gindraw."

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/10/31/news/doc4728db7e0d9fa573177778.txt

Nobody else was brave enough to take my challenge, you mean.


Can you please quit with your dishonest bullshit?

Nobody wanted to partake in your strawman. There is nothing brave about putting up with logical fallacies.

The only coward is the one who has to hide behind strawmen to have any sort of argument, and that coward is you James.

Either you start backing up your claims, or you will just remain a dishonest piece of shit who has to make stuff up about others when their claims have been consistant.

I have never gotten consent that I can remember. We just went at it.

Can you please quit with your dishonest bullshit?

Nobody wanted to partake in your strawman. There is nothing brave about putting up with logical fallacies.

The only coward is the one who has to hide behind strawmen to have any sort of argument, and that coward is you James.

Either you start backing up your claims, or you will just remain a dishonest piece of shit who has to make stuff up about others when their claims have been consistant.

There IS something brave about arguing for something you believe, because you may have to admit that you were wrong, which those users refused to do.

There IS something brave about arguing for something you believe,


Arguing on belief is wrong. Being 'passionate' about something is always likely in error.

Only logic and reason can save the day.

Arguing on belief is wrong. Being 'passionate' about something is always likely in error.

Only logic and reason can save the day.

Believing something strongly does not automatically equate to using feeling alone and not logic. Most people form their opinions on reason, not emotion. Or am I giving people too much credit?

Or am I giving people too much credit?


You are.

Humans are animals. Most are incapable of reason, and mistake their appetites for the truth. The lowest rung of Plato's Republic.

Especially those who believe in things like women's rights, black rights and human rights.

You are.

Humans are animals. Most are incapable of reason, and mistake their appetites for the truth. The lowest rung of Plato's Republic.

Especially those who believe in things like women's rights, black rights and human rights.


Women = People.

Black people = People.

Sentients who think and feel, like you.

Explain to me why they should not have rights.

There IS something brave about arguing for something you believe, because you may have to admit that you were wrong, which those users refused to do.

Looks like someone is too much of a stupid shit to even understand what the term strawman means.

angrybellsprout:


Can you please quit with your dishonest bullshit?

Are you accusing me again without evidence? Really, you are a slow learner.


Nobody wanted to partake in your strawman.

At least 4 people wanted to take part in the debate, as it happens.


Either you start backing up your claims, or you will just remain a dishonest piece of shit who has to make stuff up about others when their claims have been consistant.

I'm backing up my claims by arguing them in the Debate thread - a thread you were too scared to participate in.

Hell, you still don't even have the guts to commit to a position on the topic of the debate.

Really, you've forfeited any legitimacy you might have had to express an opinion on this topic. Just go away.

I have never gotten consent that I can remember. We just went at it.

I assume she wasn't struggling to get away, or telling you to stop, and was a willing participant. I'd hope that consent was implicit in her actions.

Do you have any idea what the term strawman means James?

Do you have any idea what the term strawman means James?

considering you don't where the fuck do you get off asking others if they do?

I assume she wasn't struggling to get away, or telling you to stop, and was a willing participant. I'd hope that consent was implicit in her actions.

If she doesn't give written consent, signed and notarized, it's rape.

i may not get my responce done until monday and so i beg the apology of both my team mates and our oposite.

considering you don't where the fuck do you get off asking others if they do?

Why don't you point to one of my explinations of what a strawman is, and then point out exactly how I'm wrong?

Either way, did you ever get your GED?

Why don't you point to one of my explinations of what a strawman is, and then point out exactly how I'm wrong?

Either way, did you ever get your GED?

1.I didn't need a GED. I got my diploma. Did you need to get a GED?
2. You bitched about strawman over what could be considered an ad hominum.
3. Why the hell did you the word either? Your only talking about 1 thing there is no or so the use of the word either is well wrong.

If she doesn't give written consent, signed and notarized, it's rape.

Do you have a problem understanding the word 'no'?

Looks like someone is too much of a stupid shit to even understand what the term strawman means.

What the word means is completely irrelevant.

And hey, nice personal insult. You really showed off your razor intellect and arguing ability there.

ya, and calling someone's argument a strawman does not equal explaining why it is wrong.

So basically, another idiot who can't figure out what the term means.

You are.

Humans are animals. Most are incapable of reason, and mistake their appetites for the truth. The lowest rung of Plato's Republic.

Especially those who believe in things like women's rights, black rights and human rights.
I find that the people who most judge passion are cut off from it and are the least likely candidates to notice how their passions are affecting their 'logic'.

I assume she wasn't struggling to get away, or telling you to stop, and was a willing participant. I'd hope that consent was implicit in her actions.

I don't know, I wasn't paying attention.

This debate is a joke. There is no universal definition of the word rape. Different cultures view it differently (sex without consent within marriage is a good example of that), thus sex without consent is not always rape.

So basically, another idiot who can't figure out what the term means.

Simply dismissing it as a strawman does not explain why it is wrong. If I'm so wrong, then explain why my argument is a 'strawman', instead of crying strawman and leaving it at that.

Also, I find your behaviour extremely hypocritical. You complain about logical fallacies, then resort to calling people trash and shit instead of refuting their arguments.

I pointed out why James' bunch of shit was a strawman, but you come in with a bunch of ignorant bull just to show off the fact that the ability to understand the term is simply beyond your reach.

I pointed out why James' bunch of shit was a strawman, but you come in with a bunch of ignorant bull just to show off the fact that the ability to understand the term is simply beyond your reach.

I was talking about my post, I argued something, and instead of replying you just called me a stupid shit.

I find that the people who most judge passion are cut off from it and are the least likely candidates to notice how their passions are affecting their 'logic'.


The English don't do passion.

From my human sexuality class I learned the term rape encompasses a wide variety of situations and actions. According to these rules a study found that among college aged women who were sexually active nearly 86% fell into a category that legally says they were raped. We did the poll in my class too and the results were about the same. But you can't go off of the legal jargon of the word because that would mean almost all men are rapists and should be in prison. It more personal I think. If you don't feel like you were raped, then you weren't. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to tell you that you were. If you did not like the situation ans felt like you were in fact forced then it is rape, as far as you should be concerned anyway. At least those are my rules and regulations for myself... :D

If she doesn't give written consent, signed and notarized, it's rape.

What are you talking about?

Maybe you should have volunteered to join Syzygys' side of the debate.


I don't know, I wasn't paying attention.

Not paying attention to whether your partner is consenting to having sex with you or not could land you in a lot of trouble. I'd advise more care in future.

A quick note on the mechanics of the debate as it stands right now:

According to the agreed rules for the debate:

Syzygys has now posted all of his posts.
Asguard and James R each have one post left.
Bells has two more posts left.

I am willing, if Asguard and Bells are, to allow Syzygys an extra, brief (say 200 word), summing-up post, if he wishes.

I already did a summary at the end of my last post. Somebody just PMed me with the following info, so I will share it here:

"In UK law, a person does not commit rape if they had 'reasonable belief' that the other person gave consent. In other words, it's not down to whether the person actually consented or not, it's down to whether the accused believed they had consented. Therefore, under UK law, a person can have unconsented sex with another person and not be liable for rape.

The moral is that crimes are punished because the wrong doing was deliberate. One doesn't get punished for accidents.

This interpretation was exercised when a girl accused a man of rape because she consented whilst under the influence of alcohol, to later regret it when she sobered up."

James, it is incredibly dishonest to associate a bullshit opinion with angrybellsprout in an attempt to belittle him, and then call him a coward when he refuses to support an assertion which he didn't make in the first place.

Business as usual on sciforums.

I already did a summary at the end of my last post. Somebody just PMed me with the following info, so I will share it here:

"In UK law, a person does not commit rape if they had 'reasonable belief' that the other person gave consent. In other words, it's not down to whether the person actually consented or not, it's down to whether the accused believed they had consented. Therefore, under UK law, a person can have unconsented sex with another person and not be liable for rape.

The moral is that crimes are punished because the wrong doing was deliberate. One doesn't get punished for accidents.

This interpretation was exercised when a girl accused a man of rape because she consented whilst under the influence of alcohol, to later regret it when she sobered up."

What exactly is reasonable belief?? Where do they draw the line?

And why did they need to use that interpretation? She still consented, even if she regretted it afterwards. If she actually consented, as opposed to being taken advantage of while semi conscious and too disorientated to know what she doing or saying, she had no business crying rape.

VI i guess it would cover a senario like this

Say a man picks up a women in a bar, and sleeps with her only to find out a friend of his kidnaped her child and told her if she didnt sleep with the friend then he would kill the child.

Now the guy who picked up (or was picked up by) the women had no idea that this guy had done this.

Its the guy who FORCED her to do it, not the guy who was acting in good faith who is guilty of rape.

VI i guess it would cover a senario like this

Say a man picks up a women in a bar, and sleeps with her only to find out a friend of his kidnaped her child and told her if she didnt sleep with the friend then he would kill the child.

Now the guy who picked up (or was picked up by) the women had no idea that this guy had done this.

Its the guy who FORCED her to do it, not the guy who was acting in good faith who is guilty of rape.

I see...

its a far fetched senario i know but there are some sick people in the world. For an example of this, there was a guy here who was abduted at knife point by a husband and wife (i THINK because he was firing blanks) and raped

what the fuck??

yup, sick.

whats especially stupid was the fact that not only did this guy force his wife to rape this man but if he wanted to get her pregnant so badly there are sperm banks all over the place they could have used paid for by medicare for christ sake.

Now not only did this guy help RAPE a random guy but it was he stod there and held a knife to the guys throat while his WIFE raped him. I couldnt even imagin letting another guy sleep with PB let alone force someone else to at knife point. Its INSANE

it was fucking sick, was what it was.

I was talking about my post, I argued something, and instead of replying you just called me a stupid shit.

Still being proud of the fact that you aren't able to figure out what a strawman is...

From my human sexuality class I learned the term rape encompasses a wide variety of situations and actions. According to these rules a study found that among college aged women who were sexually active nearly 86% fell into a category that legally says they were raped. We did the poll in my class too and the results were about the same. But you can't go off of the legal jargon of the word because that would mean almost all men are rapists and should be in prison. It more personal I think. If you don't feel like you were raped, then you weren't. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to tell you that you were. If you did not like the situation ans felt like you were in fact forced then it is rape, as far as you should be concerned anyway. At least those are my rules and regulations for myself... :D

If she has to be told that she was raped, well what kind of young adults are being raised on this planet? What kind of people take advantage of the alleged victim like that?

Alleged victim? I wish that our legal system would allow that term to be used.

Still being proud of the fact that you aren't able to figure out what a strawman is...

I know what the term means, thank you very much.

And you are still hiding behind insults like that and refusing to use reason.

Alleged victim? I wish that our legal system would allow that term to be used.

If no one is being victimized they have to manufacture a victim and victimization.

I know what the term means, thank you very much.

And you are still hiding behind insults like that and refusing to use reason.

You obviously don't show the fact that you have any clue as to what strawmen are at all.

You obviously don't show the fact that you have any clue as to what strawmen are at all.

*digs nails into underside of knuckles*

A "strawman" argument is when you misrepresent someone, attributing to them an argument that is exaggerated or otherwise more easily refuted than the one they actually made.

There, happy now? Any chance of you getting back to discussion instead of calling people trash and shit every time they actually make a point?

*digs nails into underside of knuckles*

A "strawman" argument is when you misrepresent someone, attributing to them an argument that is exaggerated or otherwise more easily refuted than the one they actually made.

There, happy now? Any chance of you getting back to discussion instead of calling people trash and shit every time they actually make a point?


VI, don't let yourself have apoplexia.. What are you trying to accomplish? You are very good at making a point, relax, don't let people sidetrack you... :)

*digs nails into underside of knuckles*

A "strawman" argument is when you misrepresent someone, attributing to them an argument that is exaggerated or otherwise more easily refuted than the one they actually made.

There, happy now? Any chance of you getting back to discussion instead of calling people trash and shit every time they actually make a point?

You mean instead of simply throwing up more distractions like you had been doing by defending James strawmen?

Strawmen are dishonest distractions which warrant no response except a demand for such dishonestly to be taken back.

VI, don't let yourself have apoplexia.. What are you trying to accomplish? You are very good at making a point, relax, don't let people sidetrack you... :)

She didn't make any points, only attempted to defend the distractions being flung around by James.

Syzygys:


I already did a summary at the end of my last post. Somebody just PMed me with the following info, so I will share it here:

"In UK law, a person does not commit rape if they had 'reasonable belief' that the other person gave consent. In other words, it's not down to whether the person actually consented or not, it's down to whether the accused believed they had consented.

The belief must, however, be reasonable.


The moral is that crimes are punished because the wrong doing was deliberate. One doesn't get punished for accidents.

Yes.

lepustimidus:


James, it is incredibly dishonest to associate a bullshit opinion with angrybellsprout in an attempt to belittle him, and then call him a coward when he refuses to support an assertion which he didn't make in the first place.

I have now asked angrybellsprout 6 times a simple yes-no question, which was this:

"Do you agree that sex without consent is always rape?"

Perhaps you missed those 6 times. So far, he has been unable or unwilling to answer the question.

Now, what are we to conclude from his unwillingness to answer? I outlined several possibilities earlier:

1. He thinks it makes him look like a big man if he can hold out against a reasonable question. i.e. he refuses to answer because he is petulant and it is me asking him.
2. He thinks that sex without consent is rape but is worried about making himself look stupid after a consistent week of whining.
3. He thinks that sex without consent is not rape, but realises that this is a shameful view to hold and therefore is too scared to admit to it.

Why don't you find out for us why is holding out. Maybe he'll talk to his little friend. You can comfort him.

lepustimidus:
I have now asked angrybellsprout 6 times a simple yes-no question, which was this:

"Do you agree that sex without consent is always rape?"

Perhaps you missed those 6 times. So far, he has been unable or unwilling to answer the question.

Now, what are we to conclude from his unwillingness to answer? I outlined several possibilities earlier:

1. He thinks it makes him look like a big man if he can hold out against a reasonable question. i.e. he refuses to answer because he is petulant and it is me asking him.
2. He thinks that sex without consent is rape but is worried about making himself look stupid after a consistent week of whining.
3. He thinks that sex without consent is not rape, but realises that this is a shameful view to hold and therefore is too scared to admit to it.

Why don't you find out for us why is holding out. Maybe he'll talk to his little friend. You can comfort him.

It's amazing how no-one here calls you on your dishonesty, James. I guess being a moderator has it's perks, hey?

Angrybellsprout doesn't need to play by your bullshit rules, especially after you misrepresented his point of view, and then labelled him a coward for not arguing in favour of the strawman you erected.

James R:


2. He thinks that sex without consent is rape but is worried about making himself look stupid after a consistent week of whining.


He's always thought that, you stuttering imbecile. Anyone who can read knows this.

Here's a suggestion. Re-read that stupid rape list, and just think about how many options claim that an act of sex is rape, despite explicit and/or implicit consent being given. Start with the ones regarding alcohol.

lepustimidus:


It's amazing how no-one here calls you on your dishonesty,

I apply the same standard to you as I do to your friend.

If you wish to accuse me of dishonesty, please cite and link to the relevant posts in which that dishonesty is evident. Otherwise, I ask you not to make unfounded accusations. Thankyou.


Angrybellsprout doesn't need to play by your bullshit rules...

He did not need to participate in this thread at all. But for about a week now he has repeatedly and mysteriously felt the need to whinge and whine about how I have set up some "straw man" version of his opinions, yet strangely without ever feeling any need to correct the record and express his real opinions in a clear and concise manner. In fact, when asked for his actual opinions directly, he declines to answer, as pointed out above.

Once again, I open the floor for him to say what he really thinks - if he has the guts, that is.

He's always thought that, you stuttering imbecile. Anyone who can read knows this.

Can't he talk for himself? Why does he need you as his spokesman?


Here's a suggestion. Re-read that stupid rape list, and just think about how many options claim that an act of sex is rape, despite explicit and/or implicit consent being given. Start with the ones regarding alcohol.

Hmmm.... so it is a "stupid" rape list, is it?

What's your opinion? Do you think that sex without consent is rape, or not?

Again with the dishonesty James.

My position has been clearly stated time and time again. The fact that you refuse to read and of the many times that I stated it, but would rather push your strawman just further points towards your dishonesty.

angrybellsprout:

You know what? I give up. I'm not going to ask you again what your position is. It is very easy for you to complain "I have expressed a position! Really I have! I promise!", and yet never refer to it, never link to it, never repeat it. The simple fact is that I have asked you to express your position 7 times now. That record speaks for itself.

I have had enough of you. The best thing about beating your heat against a brick wall is stopping, so I'm stopping.

The fact is: you're not important, anyway. Who gives a damn what you think? You've already forfeited any semblance of respectability in this debate.

My position has been stated many times in this thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82693

I even hinted towards it in this thread as well.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1920542&postcount=42

The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge my position, but instead insist on your strawman is very telling of you James.

would some please be the fire pokemon to abs being a bellsprout.

James mentioned the word bizarre when describing my case studies. Since I was arguing against an "always" I had to go to some lengths and to think outside of the box.

But nothing is as bizarre as real life, so here is case study #10 (true story):

Rape or casting out sex demons?: (I guess it depends on if you believe in sex demons, what I of course do)

http://heartlandvalues.blogspot.com/2005/11/pastor-accused-of-bizarre-rapes.html

"Welch said that after the sexual assault, the pastor gave the woman two wallet-size photographs of his daughters and told her that they were her sisters."

Speaking of another bizarre true story, the rape in this case is obvious, but not who committed the act:

Case study #11: Split personality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minds_of_Billy_Milligan

"William Stanley Milligan (born 1955), known as Billy Milligan, was the subject of a highly publicized court case in Ohio in the late 1970s. After having committed several felonies including armed robbery, he was arrested for three rapes on the Ohio State University campus. In the course of preparing his defense, psychologists determined that Milligan had Multiple Personality Disorder; 10 personalities were identified. Examination by psychiatrists suggested that two of Milligan's personalities had committed the crimes without the others being aware of it. Milligan pleaded insanity, the first diagnosed multiple to do so."

" While he was in these hospitals, Milligan displayed 10 selves. Among these were Arthur, a prim and proper Englishman, Allen, a con artist and manipulator, Ragen Vadascovinich, a Yugoslavian communist who had committed the robberies in a kind of Robin Hood spirit, and Adalana, a 19-year-old lesbian who craved affection and who had supposedly committed the rapes."

actually i herd of case of multiple personality disorder where one personality commited murder, aparently rather than exicuting the person they destroyed the offending personality. I dont know if it was a real case or an urban legand though

Oh, yeah case study #12:

Jack and Joan are lovers. Joan always had a weak heart since birth. One night while they were having red hot monkey sex, she gets a heartattack and dies, while Jack is inside her. Jack finishes the action after she died.

Was it rape or just wraping it up? Jack claims he didn't realize she died....

This appears to be little more than pointless semantics. Whether or not it is rape depends on how you define the word rape. If you define it to mean any sex without consent, then it's rape. If you define rape to mean forcing sex on someone despite their protests, then it’s not necessarily rape.

That was my very first point and I think that's what ABS refers to as strawman by James...

actually i herd of case of multiple personality disorder where one personality commited murder, aparently rather than exicuting the person they destroyed the offending personality. I dont know if it was a real case or an urban legand though

That sounds like a science fiction story that I read.

possably, as i said i couldnt rember where i herd it so it could have been a fiction book

James R:


Hmmm.... so it is a "stupid" rape list, is it?


Yes, it is. Added to which, it's inherently sexist. Why can't you grasp this very simple fact?

Just for comparison: I wonder what sort of reaction I'd get from pussied whipped individuals such as yourself, Fraggle and Tiassa if I had generated a list with the title.

"You are a slut if you..."

and then listed a whole lot of bullshit reasons (eg. You are a slut if you have a boyfriend and fantasise about another man, You are a slut if you wear eye shadow while married), all of which only applied to females.

No doubt I'd be accused of misogyny, and probably banned (again, most likely for two weeks), while you ignore the little fact that the rape list posted is blatant misandry. Because morons on this forum can't distinguish a well crafted piece of satire from the real deal. Because you're thin skinned idiots who feel the need to use censorship to enforce your own agenda.

Oh, and yeah, I'm insulting you. Boo hoo. Ban away. If you were smart (instead of a retard) you might realize that increasing the length of my bans makes me care less, not more. I'm tired of chasing my tail on this bullshit, I'm tired of putting in any effort into authoring posts when I'm forced to deal with censorship, outright dishonesty and distortions. You're partially responsible for essentially weaning me off sciforums.



Hmmm.... so it is a "stupid" rape list, is it?

What's your opinion? Do you think that sex without consent is rape, or not?


See? You're at it again with the fucking strawman. That was never the issue here, James.

But just to clarify, yes, I do think that sex without either explicit or implicit consent is rape. It's also clear that abs thinks the same, if you had bothered to read his posts instead of stereotyping him as a woman hater (he's not) and then extrapolating his beliefs from that axiom.

To put it very clearly so that even someone as deliberately obtuse as you cannot ignore: If you re-read that sexist piece of shit rape list, you might just realize that many of the items listed are rape, despite implicit and/or explicit consent being given.

Oh, and I repeat, they all only apply to males. Apparently rape isn't a gender neutral crime. It's a crime perpetrated by big mean males against poor innocent females.

Misandry incarnate.

So to summarise, James, so that there is no confusion between us.

1. I do think that sex without either explicit or implicit consent is rape.

2. My problems with the rape list are that:

a. Many of the items listed are rape, despite implicit and/or explicit consent being given.

b. The items listed only apply to males.

3. I detest you because you are deliberately obtuse, grossly dishonest, willfully ignorant of the abuses committed by your fellow moderators, unable to detect obvious satire, operate under ridiculous double standards, and engage in cowardly censorship of views that may be contrary to your own. And then you act as though you have the moral highground.

lepustimidus:

I agree with you that the list is provocative. And yes, it is "sexist" in that it restricts itself to male rapists (no doubt to make it more punchy). I concede that point.

Now, what about this?


Just for comparison: I wonder what sort of reaction I'd get from pussied whipped individuals such as yourself, Fraggle and Tiassa if I had generated a list with the title.

Does it occur to you that the term "pussy whipped" is inherently sexist? Eh?


Because morons on this forum can't distinguish a well crafted piece of satire from the real deal.

Hmmm... Turn that mirror on yourself for a moment.


Oh, and yeah, I'm insulting you. Boo hoo. Ban away. If you were smart (instead of a retard) you might realize that increasing the length of my bans makes me care less, not more. I'm tired of chasing my tail on this bullshit, I'm tired of putting in any effort into authoring posts when I'm forced to deal with censorship, outright dishonesty and distortions. You're partially responsible for essentially weaning me off sciforums.

It's entirely up to you whether you want to stay or leave.

I think you have a lot of growing up to do, lepustimidus. You're obviously intelligent, but right now you waste that intelligence on nonsense and hatred. I feel sorry for you; I hope you'll overcome your current deficiencies - here or elsewhere.


But just to clarify, yes, I do think that sex without either explicit or implicit consent is rape. It's also clear that abs thinks the same, if you had bothered to read his posts instead of stereotyping him as a woman hater (he's not) and then extrapolating his beliefs from that axiom.

I've read his posts. The last thread he started was about how women get off lightly for crimes such as rape because they are good looking. Hmm... No hatred of women there! Oh no.


To put it very clearly so that even someone as deliberately obtuse as you cannot ignore: If you re-read that sexist piece of shit rape list, you might just realize that many of the items listed are rape, despite implicit and/or explicit consent being given.

Which items?


So to summarise, James, so that there is no confusion between us.

1. I do think that sex without either explicit or implicit consent is rape.

I'm glad. Now, see if you can get angrybellsprout to express the same opinion publically.


3. I detest you because you are deliberately obtuse, grossly dishonest, willfully ignorant of the abuses committed by your fellow moderators, unable to detect obvious satire, operate under ridiculous double standards, and engage in cowardly censorship of views that may be contrary to your own. And then you act as though you have the moral highground.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

James R:


I agree with you that the list is provocative.


Provocative? According to that list, 'nagging' a woman for sex and then doing the deed is rape. It is also rape if a woman drinks alcohol, and then has sex willingly. It is also rape if you have sex with a woman while asleep, even if she gives explicit consent beforehand (eg. Playboy Bunny and Asguard). It is also rape if you use the art of persuasion to convince a woman to have sex.

In all of the above, the man may have obtained either implicit and/or explicit consent, yet the author classifies them as rape despite this. So no, the list isn't 'provocative'. It's bullshit. It's worse than bullshit, because females also use the tactics described above to obtain sex, yet they weren't condemned in the list. So not only is it bullshit, it's sexist bullshit.



And yes, it is "sexist" in that it restricts itself to male rapists (no doubt to make it more punchy). I concede that point.


No, you don't concede the point, because you placed "sexist" in quotation marks, implying that you don't actually think that the list is really sexist.

If you were honest and unbiased, you would take one look at that list and condemn it, as you have condemned myself and angrybellsprout for our supposedly sexist attitudes.


Does it occur to you that the term "pussy whipped" is inherently sexist? Eh?


Nope, I don't think it's sexist. It's just a term to describe men who have been conned by women into adopting an inferiority complex, who blame every last little thing on the male gender. Who believe in bullshit like male privilege, rape culture and the patriarchy. Ergo. 'Pussy whipped' essentially describes men who have been tricked into being sexist... against their own gender. Usually they do so because they are desperate for the approval of women, or they have been brainwashed by a anti-male establishment.



Hmmm... Turn that mirror on yourself for a moment.


If you knew what satire was, you would never have banned me for 7 days for misogyny. For Christ's sake, I even sent an email to this site after my ban to clarify exactly what I meant in my response to Orleander, and wasn't even dignified with a response, let alone an apology and ban reversal.



It's entirely up to you whether you want to stay or leave.


You're right there. It's up to me as to whether I tow the party line, restrain myself from expressing my opinions freely, and endure your endless dishonesty and biased moderation.



I think you have a lot of growing up to do, lepustimidus. You're obviously intelligent, but right now you waste that intelligence on nonsense and hatred. I feel sorry for you; I hope you'll overcome your current deficiencies - here or elsewhere.


Pathetic. Your attempt at passive-aggressive behaviour is so transparent, even a blind two year old would pick it.



I've read his posts. The last thread he started was about how women get off lightly for crimes such as rape because they are good looking. Hmm... No hatred of women there! Oh no.


Firstly, you'd need to link me to where he said that, because you have a long history of misrepresenting the views of others.

Secondly, how is it hateful to point out a double standard? Women DO receive lesser sentences in comparison to men, especially when in comes to having sex with minors. That's common knowledge even to the pussywhipped, although they usually justify it by saying something along the lines of "Young boys might get exploited by that older woman, but deep down they love getting fucked by women twice (or even three times) their age. But young girls getting exploited by older men, OMG NATIONAL DISASTER WOMENZ HATE THE SEXX0RZ!"



Which items?


The ones where explicit and/or implicit consent may be given, yet the author claims that it is still rape.

Start with these ones:


1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.

2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.

3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness is no excuse.

4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

6. If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a rapist.

9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a rapist.

10. If you drug her then you're a rapist.

11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a rapist.

13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.

14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.

15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.





I'm glad. Now, see if you can get angrybellsprout to express the same opinion publically.


He won't, because he likes people to actually think for themselves instead of being spoon fed every little thing. Personally, I don't have the patience for your bumbling.



You're entitled to your opinion, of course.


Of course. Now you know where you stand, James.

Funny how I even go as far as to link to one of my posts, and a thread where I consistantly state the same thing over and over again, but instead of attempting to talk about anything that I actually stated, James just runs as fast as he can back to his strawman.

lepustimidus:


According to that list, 'nagging' a woman for sex and then doing the deed is rape.

If she doesn't want to have sex with you but grudgingly agrees because there is no other way to shut you up, then it's borderline rape. She didn't want sex. Her consent, if it exists, is half-hearted. What do you think?


It is also rape if a woman drinks alcohol, and then has sex willingly.

Well, no.


It is also rape if you have sex with a woman while asleep, even if she gives explicit consent beforehand

If she says "Please feel free to have sex with me while I sleep", I don't see how that could be rape. But if she doesn't say that, chances are she is not consenting to your having sex with her while she sleeps. What do you think?


It is also rape if you use the art of persuasion to convince a woman to have sex.

There are many types of "persuasion", from dragging her into an alley and physically "persuading" her, to taking her to the Bahamas for a week long holiday and working on her to get her to have sex with you. Some kinds may be rape; others are not likely to be. What do you think?


It's bullshit. It's worse than bullshit, because females also use the tactics described above to obtain sex, yet they weren't condemned in the list.

I suggest that the list would apply equally well if you replaced all occurrences of "her" with "him" and so on. What do you think?


No, you don't concede the point, because you placed "sexist" in quotation marks, implying that you don't actually think that the list is really sexist.

Not in anything more than the superficial use of pronouns, as noted above. Hence the quotation marks.


["Pussy whipped" is] just a term to describe men who have been conned by women into adopting an inferiority complex, who blame every last little thing on the male gender. Who believe in bullshit like male privilege, rape culture and the patriarchy.

Hmmm.... interesting. Do you imagine that I am "pussy whipped"? I'm sure you do. Do you think I have an inferiority complex ... really? As for male privilege, rape culture and patriarchy, let me ask you: why do you think that men still hold the majority of the highest-paid positions in companies, politics and other positions of power and influence? Natural superiority? Or what?


Secondly, how is it hateful to point out a double standard?

It's just fine, but you and ABS continually point out all the supposed double standards that favour women, while at the same time being wilfully blind to all the double standards that favour men. Or do you actually imagine that men are not favoured? I mean, just how blinkered are you?


Women DO receive lesser sentences in comparison to men, especially when in comes to having sex with minors.

I notice that many judges, for example, are men. What do you make of that? Anything?


Start with these ones:

1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.

If she doesn't consent, then you are. What do you think?


2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.

If she is so out of it she can't consent. What do you think?


3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness is no excuse.

If she doesn't consent. What do you think?


4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

If she doesn't consent. What do you think?


6. If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a rapist.

We've already covered this one above.


9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a rapist.

Absolutely. How could you not be? What do you think?


10. If you drug her then you're a rapist.

That's "If you drug her AND HAVE SEX WITH HER then you're a rapist." I'm sure you're smart enough to read this one in context. So, what do you think? Drugging somebody so you can have sex with them is just fine? (Also note that alcohol is a drug.)


11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a rapist.

As above.


13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.

Do you think consent is real and free in this case?


14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.

Ditto. See Q13.


15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.

See Q13 again.

So, will you justify your opinions, or do an ABS?

umm bells, Syzygys

are you two going to post your summing up posts?

it seems that so much is being laid upon the definition of rape. what i would suggest is paying more attention the concept of consent. though legal definitions of what constitutes consent are abound. in everyday reality the concept of consent is some what shrouded.

as to this debate, consent would be "the agreement between to possible sex partners". but as we all know nothing could be more further from the truth. i can see it now, your lying in bed and just before intercourse you pull out a form and say "i need you to sign this giving me consent to have sex with you at this time". yeah that's a real mood getter. so what is the "real" definition of consent? in reality consent would be mutual involvement in the act of having sexual relations. even though one of the parties has not given consent to having sex the mere reciprocation to sexual advances can be interpreted as giving consent even though no "real" consent has been given.

i will add my own personal experience. im sure many guys have had something like this occur if they have engaged in "casual sex". you are in bed and both of you are totally naked and all over each other. when suddenly you "put it in her" and she says "no!"..... there was sex, there was no consent, and there wasn't rape.

to sum up my thoughts i suggest that sex occurs with out "consent" in nearly every instance and rarely does one call it rape. no consent does not "always" mean rape.

buckybeam this was a formal debate between the 4 of us, you post has been moved to the atached disscussion thread
w.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82800&page=8


oops sorry but.....

holy smokes thats a long debate. looks like all four of ya gave up?

no the debate ended. We reached the closing arguments and then the debate was closed. Admitedly bells and Syzygys gave up on there summing up posts but oh well

Stupidest arguement ever made.

Sex without consent is not always rape. If you're not consenting to sex then it is without a DOUBT not to be considered rape if say you grabbed your wife by the ass and started fucking her just to make a fool of yourself.

Also, it would be understandable to realize that, in the first place, there is no reason for sex with consent in all conditions... Sex without consent, is entirely moral and just.

You need to explain yourself, Tnerb. So far, we have only your opinion. How do you respond to the points raised in the debate?