(October 18, 2016 at 1:25 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: You're not wrong, Huggy. Yes, that is a thing in some parts of the world. The question is, is the woman in on it? If so, it's a game based on some kind of consent. If not, then it is rape -- cultural norms be damned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqpGDYO459I

Consent is the word you are looking for..

Consent is what separates forced sex from rape.

Forced sex means only means partner resists the sexual encounter. the only legal question that can be asked does she consent to be forced into sex.

Which again goes all the way back to one of the first things I said... consent IS The Only Measure/Determining factor to Rape. And the problem with consent is that it is simply a state of mind one that can not be proven.

nice to see some lights finally coming on at least in one or two attics

'Consent' is not the word I'm looking for. It's the word I used. And you didn't flip the switch. That light's been on for a long time.

(October 18, 2016 at 12:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The state doesn't agree.  "Forced sex" is -exactly- what they prosecute a rapist for.  I;d shit a brick if someone tried to defend themseves from a charge of rape by claiming that it was, instead, "forced sex".

better lube up.. I never pooped a brick before, but I can imagine it would hurt pretty bad dry.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern...ntext=jclc

 

Quote:May as well walk yourself into a cell.  Fun fact, the simple offering of such a defense would waive any protection an SOL -could- confer, if it conferred any, which it usually doesn't.  The rapists best bet, and yours as well..on this count..is simply to remain silent.  To refuse to defend themselves at all.

oh, bother...

The SOL would prevent an arrest, let alone a need for a trial.

Rough sex is not forced sex.  Fail, again.  The rough sex defense -invokes- consent.

No, the sol does -not- prevent arrest, or the need for a trial - as has already been explained. Choose to defend yourself in court, 20 years after an offense with a 2 year sol, and you will be arrested and brought to trial. You -can- be arrested and brought to trail 20 years after an offense with a 2 year sol even if you -don't- choose to defend yourself, because sol time is not linear time. These are not exceptions, this is the rule.

I admire stubborn people, I really do. You're still just as wrong as you were before. Next?

(October 18, 2016 at 12:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote: Yes It is a legal term like murder.

Murder is to unlawfully take life. There is a difference between murder and killing. a cop may kill someone in the line of duty but may never murder someone. the physical act/evidence being the same.

Wrong.

All things being equal, murder is always murder. The fact that the US justice system rarely charges a cop for murder, is a reflection on the system and has nothing to do with the definition.

Murder is prohibited under natural law, which supersedes US law, which is why a particular document states that the right to life is unalienable.

Does the state ever sanction taking a life?

IDK like say:
Abortion, Death penalty, cases of lawful self defense, acts of war, the act of policing under certain rules or under specific guidelines.. Are you saying each and every life EVER taken by the hand of another is always murder, no matter what?

Do you know that is not how the legal statute reads?

If you know how the statute reads, you can say murder is always murder. but you must also make an allowance and say killing is not always murder. Because there are very well defined instances where the state sanctions the taking of human life and does not consider it murder.

that is what is being said in the quote you highlighted.

(October 18, 2016 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote:

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

but again we are measuring sucess in different ways. I am looking at the journey, and it seems you are looking at obtaining an objective/destination. I don't measure nor look to measure what people think/final conclusion I am just trying to make the needle move.

I understand most people will not change their position unless the crowd they identify with does so. That means most interactions are pointless no matter how you broach the subject. For example how many people have you converted to Catholicism from here or places like this? If your objective is to successfully 'win' every argument then at some point you should be hold a mass baptism somewhere right?

When I came here 4 or 5 years ago the bar was set pretty low. (In terms of the theological debates and arguements) Real bottom of the 'thinker' barrel. 'Can God create a rock so big he can not lift it? What happened to all the fish durning the flood, the epicurean paradox, Long lists of why does a 'good' God______ ect..

Now I approached all of this as a heartless robot, and I got nothing but pure steaming hate for at least a year or two, but a funny thing began to happen... I started to note that all the cliche atheist fare began to disappear, and some really good questions came out, and I feel the primary members of this site are indeed growing past the basic questions other atheist sites center themselves around.

Again, i am playing the long game. i am not concerned with individual subjects and 'winning them' but rather I am trying to help people see things differently, to move past their 'feelings on God and to think a little more like a 'robot' in some instances. Which to me again is the journey and not a specific destination. I am not looking to drag anyone to heaven with me, I am simply trying to get them to drop the self supporting atheist narratives based on stereotypes and religion and look at what is simply and truthfully out there. To think past what their crowd of choice thinks of a given situation.. To ask another question to seek the truth, and not give up when they don't hear what they want to hear.

This particular thread was an attempt to show (those who automatically oppose everything I have to say) that just because I say something your not immediately comfortable with does not mean we can not agree on some of the finer points. which should (if and when I repeat this type of post) should cause some of you to pause before you move to dismiss. This very thing has happened several different times over the course of the thread. Again I did things your perscribed way for a very long time. (5 years at CF.com plus my face to face minstries) but again no change.

Look at my last post to you as an example. When people are trying to be nice, they tell you what you want to hear. I told you what you wanted to hear and breifly considered trying to somehow impliment what you suggested... but given 1/2 an hour I reverted back to my original position, because I knew your way does not work with what I want to do.

Now do not miss read that I am not saying you way can never work.. You are a Barnabas (a encourager) you are a heart to the body of Christ.. But we All Can't be Hearts.. we all can't be a Barnabas we can all approach ministry in the same way you do.

That said i do understand that you do get more flies with honey.

My blue bold.

And again... I think you will be more successful with all that if you try to connect with people on a human level when you interact with them.  

I'm not talking about any sort of goal to convert people, since I don't think that's possible to do here anyway. I would have given that same advice to anyone who I constantly saw getting ripped to shreds here, because as I said, I don't like to see that.   

It seems you think your way is/has been effective and would work better for you than what I have suggested. From what I've seen and from what I've gathered about people in general, I would disagree. But you are free to do as you see fit. I tried. Though I do appreciate you giving it a thought.

(October 18, 2016 at 1:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The women in your asian example (which has jack shit to do with US law, btw) would be willing participants in a cultural drama, or so you'd have us believe.  Obviously, a willing participant has not been raped.   She has not been forced.  

Something tells me that even in asia, the state can secure a conviction of rape from time to time.  You're wrong about SOLs, you're wrong about rape, and your own silly fucking examples argue against you.

EXACTLY

I am simply providing a narritive of forced sex Not being an example of rape.

The Difference between rape and forced sex is consent.

The asian women who Consent to forced sex EVEN HERE IN THE US, are not being raped even though they may endure a similar physical act. Which is how the law applies.

I said that to refute the idea there forced sex is always rape/ There can not be an example of forced sex without it being considered rape.

Go back a few pages and look at all the self righteous condemnation you were just apart of or have you already forgotten?

Has it ever occurred to you, CL, that your measure of success and his are not the same?  I think Drich get's -exactly- what he want's from these boards, and his interactions. He's a dirty little masochist, lol.

(October 18, 2016 at 1:44 pm)Drich Wrote: I am simply providing a narritive of forced sex Not being an example of rape.

No, you;re not.  Forced sex is rape in those countries as well.  You provided a narrative of -consensual- sex that was different than whatever you think the narrative is here.  Though why you would think that is beyond me.  Chalk it up to cultural and legal ignorance.

Quote:The Difference between rape and forced sex is consent.

-again, incoherent by reference to itself.  If consent is the difference, then forced sex is rape.

Quote:The asian women who Consent to forced sex EVEN HERE IN THE US, are not being raped even though they may endure a similar physical act. Which is how the law applies.

Incoherent by reference to itself.  No one consents to being forced.  The words are diametrically opposed.  You're imagining that people consent to rough sex...and buddy let me tell you, they do...those girls are my bread and butter.  I get all the sex you fantasize about. But so what?  

Quote:I said that to refute the idea there forced sex is always rape/ There can not be an example of forced sex without it being considered rape.

Because it is, by definition.  You want to argue that rough sex is not rape, and it isn't...so that hardly needs to be argued.  

Quote:Go back a few pages and look at all the self righteous condemnation you were just apart of or have you already forgotten?

Your tears sustain me.  At what point, do you think, that reminding me how I called you out for what you are will affect me negatively, or make some non-point you've been arguing against with your own examples?

I'll say it again..you're an ignorant rape apologist....if the lady says no..put your dick back in your pants. You can take that advice with you alllllll the way back to asia, where it's equally applicable.

I agree with Drich, the thought that I might have sex with someone one day and they might later convince the authorities I raped them even though I didn't haunts me.

That being said, I only ever read a couple of posts on the first page. What's this thread evolved into since then?

(October 18, 2016 at 1:50 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I agree with Drich, the thought that I might have sex with someone one day and they might later convince the authorities I raped them even though I didn't haunts me.

That being said, I only ever read a couple of posts on the first page. What's this thread evolved into since then?

If you've only read a few posts on the first page, you might want to be careful about "I agree with Drich."