You don't understand your own position. If you did you would have addressed the second paragraph in my post instead of ignoring it.
Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
- Status
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:chuckle: Whatever, oh fanged one.
As stated, this basically seems reasonable. :idunno:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep....with no concept, whatsoever, of reaping and sowing. The humanists refuse to accept the fact that they are not little gods and may actually have to suffer the consequences for their own bad behavior. So, they call the behavior good and that solves that problem. In the case of rape, it's simple....man bad....woman good. Ugh!!!!
Slutty behavior is not bad, but responding to it is horrible. Not a chance that slutty behavior is bad and responding to it is bad, too. Incredible stupidity here in this non-Christian setting. And some here actually believe that we DESERVE MERCY. Go figure.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yes, Anna, no doubt you can out-nasty me. I simply see you as a victim. Ever the victim.
I would not approve.
Nothing. You can't force someone to realize they made a foolish decision. What would you do? :idunno:
glorydaz
Well-known member
:rotfl:
My only comment/criticism, as such, is the following:
Rape isn't strictly speaking a consequence of any action on the part of the woman. Yes, it is a foreseeable risk, but it is not, strictly speaking, a consequence of any actions on her part. Rape, by definition, is always unintended on the part of a woman. Expressed another way: there is no necessary connection between the actions of a woman and the actions of a rapist.
We aren't dealing with necessary laws of nature; we are dealing here with the interaction of free agents.
I wish further to note that, often, the woman actually does bear basically no responsibility for putting herself in any foreseeable danger. What could a woman reasonably do to avoid being stalked by an unknown person and subsequently having her home invaded?
Are you really going to sit her down, look her in the eyes and say: "Now see, what have we learned...you should have bought a gun after all
"?
We KNOW (in the context of these threads) what was meant. Rape victims DESERVE to be raped.
Yet there are a few who feel the necessity to argue over what they are endorsing.
Two in particular (who claim to be prolife) have even argued previously in favor of abortion in the case of rape. Selective morality much?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1199
View Poll Results: Should An 11-year-old Rape Victim Be Able To Legally Abort?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
send her to her room without dinner?
Well said. Better said than my attempts. :thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My only comment/criticism, as such, is the following:
Rape isn't strictly speaking a consequence of any action on the part of the woman. Yes, it is a foreseeable risk, but it is not, strictly speaking, a consequence of any actions on her part. Rape, by definition, is always unintended on the part of a woman. Expressed another way: there is no necessary connection between the actions of a woman and the actions of a rapist.
We aren't dealing with necessary laws of nature; we are dealing here with the interaction of free agents.
I wish further to note that, often, the woman actually does bear basically no responsibility for putting herself in any foreseeable danger. What could a woman reasonably do to avoid being stalked by an unknown person and subsequently having her home invaded?
Are you really going to sit her down, look her in the eyes and say: "Now see, what have we learned...you should have bought a gun after all
again, what started this was the following scenarios, in which the woman should have known that their actions put them at risk:
from here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4527049&postcount=12
| 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. |
and
| A female student in the dorms invited a male friend over to her dorm room. They were in the room alone with the door closed. He had just come from playing basketball and was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, she was wearing flannel jammies. They started making out on her bed, his hands went places she was ok with at first, but then thought better of and tried to stop. He didn't stop and continued, she didn't cry out for help and afterwards claimed rape. |
in those two specific cases (and an awful lot of scenarios that are being discussed on campus at the moment) i am still of the opinion that the choices the women made were directly responsible for the consequences
iow, they chose paths that any reasonable person would have known would lead to an expectation of sex from the male
i want to start another thread eventually on consent and sending mixed signals, because that was clearly at play in both of the two above cases
for example, the second case:
| Woman invites man over to her dormroom/bedroom. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman invites man into dormroom/bedroom. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman is wearing pajamas. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman and man are alone in dormroom/bedroom. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman and man sit down on her bed. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman and man start making out. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman and man start touching each others bodies. Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" Woman changes her mind and says no, but doesn't: 1. knee man in the crotch 2. shout "NO!" as loud as she can and cry out for help 3. scratch at man's eyes Man thinks "Oh boy! We're gonna have sex!" |
the choices/behaviors/actions of the woman were directly responsible for her finding herself in a position of having started something she couldn't stop, or wasn't willing to stop
that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped
that doesn't me she was asking to be raped
what it means is that she was acting like a damn fool
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm an old lady, too, so stop trying to play the "poor me" card. And YOU are the chief bully of the lot, so it's a joke to claim otherwise.
And, you're lying....you did not return fire with fire. You jumped on me because I dared to agree with Doser. My only "fire" was the truth that women are as responsible for their own bad behavior just like men are. You can't stand that. Lying about what happened will not change what you have done and said, Bybee. It's all right there for the looking.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:chuckle: And when the victim fights back, the bully whines about tyrants. You know, it's almost like you're sod's sock. You two are peas in a pod.
I would say case 2 be the case, i.e. questionable judgment. Which does not imply that the rape is justified qua case 1. (Good break down BTW.)
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No, venom queen, the honor is all yours. You've earned it. :first:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and gcthomas weighs in with a lengthy rep comment to this post instead of responding in the thread
:mock:gcthomas
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
never agree with me
never
they'll file it away and make you pay for it until doomsday
- Status