(October 17, 2016 at 4:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, it was a long time ago that Mermaid claimed to have been raped. But some scars run so deep that they stay with the person forever. The death of a child is one of them. My husband's cousin died in a motorcycle accident a while back ago. His dad (husband's uncle) was talking to us about it and he said that even though it happened 7 years ago, it still hurts like it was yesterday. I imagine a rape to be so traumatizing that it would leave similar life long scars.

To still feel hurt and effected by a traumatic experience from years before does not mean the person is playing the victim, or trying to stay a victim. Nor does it mean it is counterproductive of us to feel for them in regards to what they went through and are still effected by. I know you probably feel like I'm "analyzing" you too much and it's probably super annoying, but I think this may be part of your cold headedness and lack of ability to really connect with other people.

Some wounds never really scar over. Sometimes we simply have to not look at them and pack them away instead.

Then, you get someone like this guy who insists on blaming you for your own suffering.

Me, I don't dwell on past heartaches and violations ... but I know that for a couple of them, the trauma is made fresh again. I can only imagine how much moreso it would be if I had some Internet Asshole telling me it was my own fault.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:15 pm)Drich Wrote: People want Rape to be all instances of forced sex. I get that. Problem is.. It's not. Rape is only illegal sexual activity that is prosecuitable.

So, what is non-consensual sex if it's not rape?

(October 17, 2016 at 4:15 pm)Drich Wrote: Rape is only illegal sexual activity that is prosecuitable. [sic]

Not according to the Justice Department, as linked above.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Kingpin Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote: actually no.. Pity and compassion are synonymous.

The two words are literally used to define each other.

Search Results
pit·y
ˈpidē/
noun
noun: pity
1.
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.

com·pas·sion
kəmˈpaSHən/
noun
noun: compassion; plural noun: compassions
sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

You guys are arrogant if you think I don't know the meaning of the words. I simply asked CL to define those words as I do not understand her use of compassion so removed from the act. She wasn't responsible for it in any way shape or form nor did her words as far as I could determine show anything but pity.. So then inlight of what we (Cl and I) were discussion I was asking if there was some other reason besides and exhibition of pity did she intend when she offer her words... Then I asked why?

Why? because I see that as an offensive act. In other cultures say Korean, pitying someone in a similar situation could be construed as an offensive act. So I was wondering if she even knew why she said what she said or was it just a cultural reaction.

I would disagree that they are synonymous.  To have pity is to feel sorrow, but to have compassion is to be moved to do something about it.  When I walk by a homeless person and think "man, that poor guy" but I keep walking and go about my day, I pity that man.  If I stop and give him money or offer him food, I'm showing compassion out of my pity.  They are similar but compassion goes a step further.  

The key word in your definitions that you are overlooking is the word "concern".  If I pity someone, I'm not concerned.  If I'm compassionate, I have a concern for their well being.

I agree the two words are not precisely synonymous though there is some overlap.  When someone says "I don't want your pity" that doesn't mean they don't appreciate your compassion.

(October 17, 2016 at 2:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote: That's the problem though, if something is "unlawful", it's against the law. If the law has a statue of limitations, then the law doesn't apply to any events that happened prior to the period defined by the statute, so whilst at the time of the rape it was against the law, 5 years later it is not.

Effectively what the statute of limitations is saying is "rape is against the law unless the rape occurs 5 years or more before it is reported".

The argument Drich seems to be making (however poorly worded I think it is), is that rapes that occurred 5 years before they are reported aren't rapes in the sense that they aren't crimes, because they aren't unlawful anymore. I think his argument in that respect is correct, and it's effectively legal to rape someone provided the victim doesn't report it within 5 years, because after that time the person can't be charged with it.

That doesn't mean the rape (i.e. the actual non-consensual sex) didn't happen of course.

No, the crime still occurred.  It isn't that the act wasn't unlawful, it's that the law recognizes that after such and such period of time, it's not prosecutable.  Lack of prosecution, or inability to prosecute, is not what defines an act as lawful or not, it is the act itself.

To me, that sort of semantic handwaving is the opposite of what should be happening here.  It robs the victims of their voice.

But here's the thing with that...

The Law and the definition of the terms set by the law, are what determins actionable recourse by society of one who is ACCUSED of Rape or Murder...

In other words it is YOU who is the one playing a semantical game. When you decide to call people not prosecuted of rape for what ever reason rapists... or when you equate a killer with a murderer.

This is very dangerous boarder line insane behavior because it throws the presumed innocents clause (what this country's laws were founded upon) out the window and it assigns guilt where one must prove innocence. For what? the preservation of a victim culture???

No.. That is not right. If we are to remain innocent until proven guilty we must compel each other to know what the law says and operate with in it. Which includes knowing and identify with it's definitions and when society breaks away, to be able to identify with the law and come down on the side of the law.

Otherwise you will have a blurring of the line between justice and vengeance. (rioters) This is a perfect example when the pop culture rewrites morality/the law.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:44 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 4:15 pm)Drich Wrote: People want Rape to be all instances of forced sex. I get that. Problem is.. It's not. Rape is only illegal sexual activity that is prosecuitable.

So, what is non-consensual sex if it's not rape?

On this Drich is simply mistaken.  I know, not so surprising for a normal human being but Drich suffers from mote vision.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:31 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This is just a matter of semantics. In the English language, we say "I'm sorry" to someone who has suffered something, not as an apology on our behalf, but as an expression of sympathy.  

In my first language, Portuguese, we say "sinto muito" in the same context. Which literally means "I feel a lot". But it's the equivalence of saying "I'm sorry" in English. 


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...to%20muito 

It's an expression of sympathy. 

Again, Drich, if you seek to reach anyone here for any sort of productive discussion, you need to do so with better people skills. Perhaps being told "I'm sorry" by someone when one of your loved ones dies, means nothing to you personally. But not everyone is like you. I'd say most people aren't, which is why I described you as unique. If you want to get anything out of discussions with people, you'd do better to try to connect with them at least on a human level.

I guess it depends on how you measure sucess.

My goal is not to win a friend but to make people think and question what they know or at least think they know. My goal is not to get to disney, it is the road trip, the exchange of ideas and the thought/thinking process that goes behind it all.

But that's been my whole point. You are going to have much more success doing those things if you connect with the person on a human level. Otherwise they're just immediately going to dismiss everything you say as coming from a heartless robot. They're going to focus more on calling you an A-hole than they are on having a productive discussion with you. That's how you reach people... by having a connection with them.

Honestly, I'm trying to help you here because it's painful to watch someone get constantly verbally assaulted. I don't care who they are or whether or not they even deserve it. I don't like seeing it happen. I usually don't get involved with discussions you're in because of it.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote: You guys are arrogant if you think I don't know the meaning of the words. I simply asked CL to define those words as I do not understand her use of compassion so removed from the act. She wasn't responsible for it in any way shape or form nor did her words as far as I could determine show anything but pity.. So then inlight of what we (Cl and I) were discussion I was asking if there was some other reason besides and exhibition of pity did she intend when she offer her words... Then I asked why?

Why? because I see that as an offensive act. In other cultures say Korean, pitying someone in a similar situation could be construed as an offensive act. So I was wondering if she even knew why she said what she said or was it just a cultural reaction.

Did I clarify enough?

This is that bit where I am directly speaking only to the individual I quoted. I was explaining why I asked you what I asked you, I was not asking you for more information.

Quote:It is obvious that I see things differently. whether one is compelled or repulsed it is the thinking involved that is my primary motivation.

Just look at all the thinking you've done responding to me in this thread. We have exchanged more real ideas/thought in this one thread than all the time we've been on this site together. and agree with me or not, you at least understand and know a little more than what you did about me and how I see God, than you did before.. and as a natural result of our inner action I know more about you.

I have said more to people I don't generally get to speak to in this particular thread than I have at any other time.

Lots of good thoughts being exchanged and lots of people seeing things alittle different..

....Just think you'd be more successful at this if you went about it in a better way. While I've made the effort to actually engage with you, you will notice dozens of people just hurled insults and then left. Think of all the discussions you would have had with them otherwise.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:53 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Did I clarify enough?

This is that bit where I am directly speaking only to the individual I quoted. I was explaining why I asked you what I asked you, I was not asking you for more information.

Ok. Just making sure.