Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[Ktoyou]

Yes, I can see how ignorant you are, but I have so sympathy for your plight.


Being raped is no ORDEAL for a slut. It's no "hideous assault" for those who pass it out like candy on a daily basis. Poor little Artie. Are you really that naïve? Here's what it IS.

It IS a reward for wrong doing.
It IS wages earned.
It IS just deserts.

It can be a valuable lesson learned.
If you really cared about those sluts, you wouldn't make excuses for them, you'd be working to get them out of that life.

I do not care how a woman behaves; it is always wrong to rape! Sure, loose and promiscuous women offend me too, but men raping is never right. No one deserves to be raped.

No man either, and I know something about that, working in the Texas prison system.

When a woman wears evocative clothes, or acts in a suggestive manner, it may be undesirable, yet this is no excuse to rape her.

Further, any man who uses a woman's dress or actions as a defense has not one in any court of law in the US.

This is a problem of attitude! There are others to blame as well; such being why would those making decisions advocate co-ed dorms? Such persons of responsibility are also to blame.

The only time the court shall find an innocent, is when there was no actual rape, only a charge made be a malcontent. This is am abuse of justice.

 

[Rusha]

I do not care how a woman behaves; it is always wrong to rape! Sure, loose and promiscuous women offend me too, but men raping is never right. No one deserves to be raped.

No man either, and I know something about that, working in the Texas prison system.

When a woman wears evocative clothes, or acts in a suggestive manner, it may be undesirable, yet this is no excuse to rape her.

Further, any man who uses a woman's dress or actions as a defense has not one in any court of law in the US.

:BRAVO:

 

[Rusha]

You just won the Stupid award.

Just? I think that happened way back on the first several rape threads.

 

[bybee]

And you hate it because it's an example that disproves you theory...and if you chose to take off your blinders, you'd be forced to admit it.

Were you born without a heart or did someone destroy it?

 

[glorydaz]

I do not care how a woman behaves; it is always wrong to rape! Sure, loose and promiscuous women offend me too, but men raping is never right. No one deserves to be raped.

No man either, and I know something about that, working in the Texas prison system.

When a woman wears evocative clothes, or acts in a suggestive manner, it may be undesirable, yet this is no excuse to rape her.

Further, any man who uses a woman's dress or actions as a defense has not one in any court of law in the US.

This is a problem of attitude! There are others to blame as well; such being why would those making decisions advocate co-ed dorms? Such persons of responsibility are also to blame.

The only time the court shall find an innocent, is when there was no actual rape, only a charge made be a malcontent. This is am abuse of justice.

Of course it's always wrong to rape. No one has ever said otherwise.

However, it's also wrong to play the slut and entice men to sin.
It's also wrong to attack those who point out the slut's behavior as if pointing out bad behavior is wrong.
It's also wrong to claim the slut does not deserve consequences for her actions.

Do you see the problem, Ktoyou? I'm betting you, of all people, will see there is always plenty of wrong to go around. The fact is that God allows us to suffer consequences for our bad behavior. And the fact is that those consequences can include a wide variety of things, including rape and even death.

Christians should not be deterred from pointing that out just because it's not politically correct to do so. Do we deserve to suffer the consequences of our bad behavior or not? If not, why not? And if not, why did Hosea and David and Jeremiah, and Paul all pray that God would reward people according to the evil they had done?

Believers are called to do what I have done, and yet no one wants to admit it? No one wants to address the fact that when we suffer the consequences for our bad behavior, we have a choice.....change or continue on the path to hell.

Hosea 9:14, Psalm 28:4-5, Jer. 32:19, 2 Tim. 4:14

 

[glorydaz]

Just? I think that happened way back on the first several rape threads.

Yep, when I dared to say a stripper was not one of your innocent victims. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

Were you born without a heart or did someone destroy it?

My heart is in good shape. Unlike yours that bleeds all over the place, and doesn't understand that believers are to judge rightly.

I actually care enough about strippers to tell them the truth.....that they could have avoided being raped had they not been stripping and enticing men to desire them. I care enough to tell them why a loving God allows us to to suffer consequences when we do what we should not do.

You simpletons just want to stroke her hand and send her way.... telling her, "It's not your fault. You did nothing to deserve it".

What kind of love is that, pray tell? It's a liar's love....a hypocrite's love....a fake love. It's the only love you bleeding hearts know.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Were you born without a heart or did someone destroy it?

Were you born without a heart that has concern for women in lives of self imposed misery. No woman wants to live a life as a slut. It may pay off early in life in snagging a wealthy man but he won't hang around long when he realizes what he got was a mistake.

 

[glorydaz]

Were you born without a heart that has concern for women in lives of self imposed misery. No woman wants to live a life as a slut. It may pay off early in life in snagging a wealthy man but he won't hang around long when he realizes what he got was a mistake.

They don't care about women like that. They care about being politically correct. They care about being right according to the humanists who have taken control of this world. They are the new "moral majority", and they have declared that good is evil and evil is good because they are the deciders of all things.

 

[ClimateSanity]

They don't care about women like that. They care about being politically correct. They care about being right according to the humanists who have taken control of this world. They are the new "moral majority", and they have declared that good is evil and evil is good because they are the deciders of all things.

They think emotionally and without depth. First and foremost on their minds are the edicts of the 60s thru 80s feminist movement. One such edict is that the woman should be free to express her sexuality even to the point of what earlier years would have described as sluttiness. Any deeper thought into the misery this life brings is discouraged because nothing is more important than free sexual expression. Do it in the street as the saying goes.

 

[glorydaz]

They think emotionally and without depth. First and foremost on their minds are the edicts of the 60s thru 80s feminist movement. One such edict is that the woman should be free to express her sexuality even to the point of what earlier years would have described as sluttiness. Any deeper thought into the misery this life brings is discouraged because nothing is more important than free sexual expression. Do it in the street as the saying goes.

And, sadly, many don't even realize they've been brainwashed by a movement. A movement that has had horrible, destructive, and far reaching effects.....more horrible and destructive than the rape of a stripper could ever have. Yet they refuse to call a spade a spade (or a slut a slut, as the case may be) lest it offend the sensibilities of the feint of heart. And then they bemoan the death of the American family. :nono:

 

[Angel4Truth]

I repeat:
So did David the king.

yes, admittedly so. Like you and like me, we all deserve death. His punishment was the loss of his child.

I do not see the death of the child as David's punishment, per se.

-The death of this child came as no surprise to David because it had already been foretold by Nathan.
-Nathan had already explained the reason for death of this child to David.
-David's mourning during the child's sickness was an act of repentance.
-The death of this child was accepted as God's final answer to David's petitions for the child's life.
-David was comforted by the fact that what he asked for (and was denied) was grace.
-David found consolation and comfort in the death of the child because he was assured that, although the child could not return to be with him in life, he would go to be with the child in heaven.
https://bible.org/seriespage/13-death-david-s-son-2-samuel-1214-31

You dont know your bible, it says the loss of the child would be his punishment from God, outright.

2 Samuel 12

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! 9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’”

13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground.

So, is your not seeing it willful or selective reading? It says it plain as day.

I guess you did not have the time to read the article yet.
I understand, it is a very long one, it took me a while to read.
It contains many scriptures.
It comes from a study of 2 Samuel 12:14-31.
I certainly could not place the whole article here.

Nice diversion, but I am smart enough to post the whole context.

Are you actually trying to deny that God punished David with the loss of his child even though scripture says it outright?

You don't seem to care what scripture says, since you will deny scripture for anything else, instead of admitting you are wrong.

You would rather make God mistaken, instead of yourself.

Sad to see.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Can you imagine this child born of adultery being on the throne of king of David’s earthly kingdom?

Would the people respect and accept this illegitimate (I have to be PC) child as their ruler?

No, I believe God protected the child from the consequences of David’s actions and David accepted God's protection.

Which has nothing at all to do with what you said, you denied that God punished David with the loss of his child, even though the bible says it outright.

It. Says. It. - Read it.

2 Samuel 12:14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You do understand what 'per se' means, right?
I do not see the death of the child as David's punishment, per se.

Youre a liberal right? Nothing ever means what it says plain as day.

per se
ˌpər ˈsā/
adverb
adverb: per se; adverb: perse

by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically.

Yes - in and by itself, God struck down Davids child because of Davids sexual sin, which gave cause for men to blaspheme God. Just like it says. Plain. As. Day. It even added that God would not take Davids life, for it, directly pointing to it being punishment, no way to misunderstand, context is clear.

Its written as plain as it can get. You cant just admit you were wrong, can you.

Better for you to add what isnt there and remove what is plain as day, rather than be wrong. Sad.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Since you can't see any difference between children and hookers, I don't expect you to "see" anything at all.
And you don't....you're a blind and ignorant fool with no excuse for your ignorance.

But don't give up your day job, you wouldn't qualify as anything but a teacher of whining and victimhood. You've got that down pat. :chuckle:

I would just wrap this up, they do not care what you actually said in context, they do not care that you said it doesnt apply to innocent people, and it doesnt apply to kids etc.. and and and - they will hurt you and anyone else who points those things out, even to lie about them too. Its sickening.

Truth and context, to hell.

You have made yourself perfectly clear. Let them reap what they are sowing for their deliberate dishonesty.

Matthew 5:37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Their clear motive isnt Godly one bit.

With that, im out of this discussion.

 

[glorydaz]

I would just wrap this up, they do not care what you actually said in context, they do not care that you said it doesnt apply to innocent people, and it doesnt apply to kids etc.. and and and - they will hurt you and anyone else who points those things out, even to lie about them too. Its sickening.

Truth and context, to hell.

You have made yourself perfectly clear. Let them reap what they are sowing for their deliberate dishonesty.

Matthew 5:37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Their clear motive isnt Godly one bit.

With that, im out of this discussion.

Yeah.... They're a sorry lot, aren't they?

 

[ok doser]

The Accused - the scene immediately preceding the rape scene, in which Jodie Foster's character chastely and demurely interacts with a group of strangers in a bar:

...

does Jodie Foster's character bear any responsibility for the consequences of her actions?


it would be nice to get a response from bybee and kat

 

[ok doser]

Yes, your ignorance. You clearly have no idea just how damaging such an ordeal is for the victim.

artie, explain to me how "damaging" the "ordeal" was for the Swarthmore student:

Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”: “They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’” Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped.

 

[patrick jane]

artie, explain to me how "damaging" the "ordeal" was for the Swarthmore student:

Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”: “They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’” Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped.

Contrariwise, she enjoyed it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Contrariwise, she enjoyed it.

Your being a bad doggie. Your owners are going to be highly disappointed.