Answering old threads thread

[ok doser]

Sorry, it was meant to be humorous. I find the topic, itself, it be old and worn out.

It did get a lot of play back in the day didn't it? Most of those threads are gone.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm saying it isn't rape. It might be something else, but not rape.

What do you propose to do to someone who rapes his wife?

You can say whatever you want, doesn't alter the fact that it's rape.

Same as with anyone else. As I don't support the DP (more for miscarriages than anything else) then lob em' in jail and throw away the key.

 

[Idolater]

@Ben Masada who hasn't been around for a while posted an interesting argument, here's the thread:

Jesus Will Never Return

Ben says

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Wouldn't Ben have been fun to have around for the Flood threads!

Oh and, my answer to this old thread, is Yeah huh. He will too return. And He is really present in the sacraments.

 

[Derf]

You can say whatever you want, doesn't alter the fact that it's rape.

Same as with anyone else. As I don't support the DP (more for miscarriages than anything else) then lob em' in jail and throw away the key.

Because you decide? (Please apply question to both paragraphs.)

 

[Derf]

@Ben Masada who hasn't been around for a while posted an interesting argument, here's the thread:

Jesus Will Never Return

Ben says

​

Wouldn't Ben have been fun to have around for the Flood threads!

Oh and, my answer to this old thread, is Yeah huh. He will too return. And He is really present in the sacraments.

Not to mention the obvious limitation God included in his promise--that he only wouldn't destroy the earth again with a flood.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because you decide? (Please apply question to both paragraphs.)

Nope, it's because that's what rape is. Forcing yourself on another is rape. If you force yourself on your partner, your spouse then it's rape, simple as.

You asked me what I'd propose to do so you had your answer.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Nope, it's because that's what rape is. Forcing yourself on another is rape. If you force yourself on your partner, your spouse then it's rape, simple as.

You asked me what I'd propose to do so you had your answer.

Derf has trouble separating the definition of rape and how difficult it is to prove in marriage especially. In a marriage unless there are witnesses, proving lack of consent vs consent is hard -- The proverbial he said she said.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Derf has trouble separating the definition of rape and how difficult it is to prove in marriage especially. In a marriage unless there are witnesses, proving lack of consent vs consent is hard -- The proverbial he said she said.

I don't think that's the problem with him. If you scroll back through the exchanges he doesn't seem to consider forced sex in a marriage rape at all.

 

[Derf]

Nope, it's because that's what rape is. Forcing yourself on another is rape. If you force yourself on your partner, your spouse then it's rape, simple as.

You asked me what I'd propose to do so you had your answer.

You give a definition of rape that not everybody agrees on. So how do you know yours is correct?

 

[Derf]

Derf has trouble separating the definition of rape and how difficult it is to prove in marriage especially. In a marriage unless there are witnesses, proving lack of consent vs consent is hard -- The proverbial he said she said.

That's the second problem. It introduces the third problem:
If the penalty for forced sex in marriage is as severe as death or lifelong imprisonment, as several people have suggested it should be, and the evidence threshold of additional witnesses is impossible to achieve, it becomes a handy way to get rid of your spouse, turning the supposed victim into the aggressor.

Remember the other word that went with rape--pillage? It means to take or rob by force, which can only apply to something you don't already own.
That's very similar to what "rape" used to mean:
1. In a general sense, a seizing by violence; also, a seizing and carrying away by force, as females.

The "seizing" part is where the spousal forcing can't apply. You can't sieze what you already have.

And interestingly, the root word is the same as that event so many believers are looking forward to--the rapture.
' In Middle English, and occasionally after, the verb ("rape") was used in figurative senses of Latin rapere, such as "transport in ecstasy, carry off to heaven,"'

 

[Sherman]

Have any of these people changed their minds?

• Sherman
• Nathon Detroit
• Freak
• ddevonb
• Servo
• Adam
• Crow
• Yorzhik
• ApologeticJedi
• Turbo
• Aimiel
• drbrumley
• Delmar
• Sozo
• Poly
• Vera Carp
• Mr. 5020
• RightIdea
• philosophizer
• Frank Ernest
• AROTO
• CRASH
• Lighthouse
• Clete
• Christine
• Lucky
• Free-Agent Smith
• cruxenlightened
• JoyfulRook
• Imrahil
• Wamba
• Vaquero45
• Stripe
• docrob57
• asstpastor
• genuineoriginal
• dorothy.neville
• sentientsynth
• whitters
• truthteller86
• Army of One
• 7cworldwide
• dRock
• GuySmiley
• rehcjam
• DocHoliday
• Jadespring
• thelaqachisnext
• amosman
• Tazjhe
• RobE
• firefighter
• Just Tom
• MrRyanPeters
• dataanapar
• immivik
• Sacredadoption
• sgttomas
• Huff
• DavesWorldView
• PKevman
• macguy
• olsparky
• YahuShuan
• Mystery
• MaryContrary
• Sanmateo
• Manwithsmellyfeet
• Iconoclast
• serpentdove
• some other dude
• peace13
• MrDeets
• Merry meat
• AD&D
• resodko
• ok doser
• Abu Bakr
• Jefferson

I never posted in the thread, so asking me is moot.

To answer the question since you asked - No.

 

[Sherman]

Can’t we bring back threads that aren’t so harsh?

We can lock the harsh ones. I don't see any good coming from threads like that.

 

[Idolater]

... trouble separating the definition of rape and how difficult it is to prove in marriage especially. In a marriage unless there are witnesses, proving lack of consent vs consent is hard -- The proverbial he said she said.

Extend this conceptually to murder though. What if in some universe murder is difficult to prove, maybe people can kill with their minds, and there's never and physical evidence of who did it. That situation doesn't render the right against being murdered any less absolute. The two are, as you say, separate matters.

 

[Idolater]

I can't speak for Skeeter, and he can't either until he gets back from his ban. But I'd venture to say that what may have prompted his reply was that there have been contentions in the past that a woman or girl can't get pregnant if she's raped and that kind of misinformation provides good motivation for correction. If you also agree then we're all in agreement that rape can and does result in pregnancy.

Which makes the abortion dispute that much more thorny. Pregnancies from a rape can be seen as punishment of the victim, who has already been unjustly punished by the unconditionally violent criminal himself. So many people have difficulty not permitting the rape victim from deliberately evoking a miscarriage, out of a sense of justice.

It's very thorny.

 

[ok doser]

Which makes the abortion dispute that much more thorny. Pregnancies from a rape can be seen as punishment of the victim, who has already been unjustly punished by the unconditionally violent criminal himself. So many people have difficulty not permitting the rape victim from deliberately evoking a miscarriage, out of a sense of justice.

It's very thorny.

The argument on the left/feminist side is that forcing the woman to bring the innocent life to term and delivery is "revictimizing" them, and that they should be allowed to kill that innocent life to avoid that "revictimization".

It was an argument I loved to jump in on when I was trolling the hardcore feminist group on Facebook years ago. I would ask them how they balance that against the possibility that the mother would in the future regret killing her unborn child, and that the regret would last far longer than the 9 months she would be inconvenienced if she brought her child to term, delivered it and put it up for adoption.

If I was pressed for time I would just tell them that murdering the innocent child wouldn't reverse the rape no matter how they wished it would.

Which usually got me banned

 

[Idolater]

The argument on the left/feminist side is that forcing the woman to bring the innocent life to term and delivery is "revictimizing" them, and that they should be allowed to kill that innocent life to avoid that "revictimization".

It was an argument I loved to jump in on when I was trolling the hardcore feminist group on Facebook years ago. I would ask them how they balance that against the possibility that the mother would in the future regret killing her unborn child, and that the regret would last far longer than the 9 months she would be inconvenienced if she brought her child to term, delivered it and put it up for adoption.

If I was pressed for time I would just tell them that murdering the innocent child wouldn't reverse the rape no matter how they wished it would.

Which usually got me banned

This guy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You give a definition of rape that not everybody agrees on. So how do you know yours is correct?

If you have a functioning moral compass you don't even need an answer to the question. You should already know that forcing yourself onto another against their will be it a stranger, partner or spouse that it's rape and inexcusable.

 

[glorydaz]

If you have a functioning moral compass you don't even need an answer to the question. You should already know that forcing yourself onto another against their will be it a stranger, partner or spouse that it's rape and inexcusable.

And that is that. Period. Great job, Artie.

 

[Idolater]

If you have a functioning moral compass you don't even need an answer to the question. You should already know that forcing yourself onto another against their will be it a stranger, partner or spouse that it's rape and inexcusable.

And strangers, partners and spouses all reserve their inalienable right against you raping them.

 

[Idolater]

This guy.

This lady.