(October 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think at this point you guys are just arguing semantics.

No, we're arguing definitions. There's a difference!

No there isn't!

(October 17, 2016 at 5:36 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: If a man breaks into a woman's house and forcibly, vaginally penetrates her...then...he forcibly, vaginally penetrated her.  It is an intimate, violent action against another human being, and that human being is going to suffer the psychological/emotional consequences of such an assault, regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized as a "crime of rape" in the eyes of the law.  You jerking-off in response to that trauma is the issue here.

Exactly. SoLs be damned, the fact that the rapist committed the act damns him -- and the fact that Drich would plead a technicality on the rapist's behalf, and then accuse victims of trying to leverage their plight for their own benefit, speaks volumes about his own character.

Growing up, I never heard a single person say, "Y'know, I want to be raped so I can garner sympathy."

Perhaps Drich has ... he seems to have lived in an emotionally-stultified world for a long while, to judge by his posts.

(October 17, 2016 at 5:46 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No, we're arguing definitions. There's a difference!

No there isn't!

Dude, don't make me fetch a definition.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:23 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I know, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding definitions and his argument. If you aren't found guilty of committing a crime, or for some reason cannot be convicted for a crime, was it still a crime?

One definition of "murder" is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So if the killing wasn't unlawful (because there was some statue of limitations preventing a conviction), is it still murder, or is it just a "killing".

The argument is an interesting one, though it's entirely based in semantics.

It's not just semantics. What separates a word like murder from killing is the prohibition and prosecution. Again If OJ Killed His wife and her BF and was release by the legal system then no matter what he by all aspects of the law is not a murderer.

As it is the prosecution of a killer that makes one a murderer. If however in the court of pop culture we decide to call him a murder despite his legal status, that is the matter of semantics.

It is to the legal definition that we are bound first, then if we wish to take liberties with out vocab then that is on us.

Quote:My argument is that "rape" has (at least) two meanings, one that relates to the legal situation, and one that is colloquial. If you have non-consensual sex with someone, you have raped them in a sense that most people understand (colloquially), even if you aren't viewed as having raped the person under the law because the rape wasn't reported in time (legally).

same is true here Forced sex and rape are not the same. Rape is a criminal act while forced sex is not. the SOL being the primary determining factor.

And again here if people want to call others rapists even though they were found innocent or can not legally be prosecuted for whatever reason, then this too is a matter of semantics.

Bold mine:

There is no distinguishable difference between "forced sex" and "rape" with regard to the harm it causes those who are on the receiving end of such an act.

(October 17, 2016 at 6:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Bold mine:

There is no distinguishable difference between "forced sex" and "rape" with regard to the harm it causes those who are on the receiving end of such an act.

But -- but -- words are more important than people!

(October 17, 2016 at 6:06 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 6:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Bold mine:

There is no distinguishable difference between "forced sex" and "rape" with regard to the harm it causes those who are on the receiving end of such an act.

But -- but -- words are more important than people!

Oh yeah, I forgot who I was arguing with for a second!  [emoji57]

(October 17, 2016 at 4:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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.

It became apparent to me early on in my interactions with Drich that he was didactic to a fault, unable to see nuance, unable or unwilling to reach out.

He's not here for discussion, he's here to propound his own views. Admit error? Perish the thought. Try to see something from someone else's view? Of course not -- God is talking to him, and he will not listen to anyone else.

(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?

In short non consensual sex in non prosecutible 'rape.' (for the lack of a better term.) Rape is a term that describes a criminal act. if the government can not prosecute or hold an individual accountable for this alleged crime then it the term rape does not apply.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

I appreciate you help/effort, and I will see what I can do.

Drich, the problem here is that you are asserting that the definition of rape is the criminal act. I've provided an entire Internet full of definitions that contradict that. You have yet to provide even one that supports your narrow definition. Whether you like it or not, you're provably, undeniably incorrect. Your entire argument rests on, at best, a bad grasp of the language or, at worst, a manufactured fallacy designed to discredit rape victims. I won't presume to know which it is, but you could at least try to back up your assertion. It should be easy enough, if that is the true definition.