(October 18, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 3:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: But nowhere in this thread has he indicated that he's talking about bdsm roleplay or fantasy.  At all.

If he spend dozens of pages trying to get that point across, and all he has to say is that he's talking about it in a fetish/fantasy setting, then yes, I would agree, I love the freaky fetish stuff as much as the next person.

Literally all he has to do is say that simple statement.  So he's either the single worst communicator that I have ever seen, or he's not talking about bdsm fantasy.

He's referring to cultures in which women are supposed to "act" like they don't want to have sex. I don't care if he defines it as bdsm or roleplay or what. Bottom line is he is referring to sex that IS consensual. However it was he twisted words to get there, I don't care. 

And like I said, I think he may like to stir up drama. That could be another reason why he's refraining from better explaining his position in a way that would make us go "Ohhh, ok then. Yeah, I agree with that." 

That's why I think we need to leave it alone.

LOL, I love that Drich gave this response a Kudos.  He basically just admitted he's trolling.

(October 19, 2016 at 10:35 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 7:43 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I was just about to post the same thing.

When people are talking about forced sex, they're using the second definition of forced.  Which makes it rape.

Of course, trollishly leaving out that second definition that utterly torpedoes his 'argument' (such as it is) dovetails nicely into the portion of the conversation addressing special pleading....

But he's so much smarter than the rest of us.  Just ask him, he'll tell you!

and i am using the first.

In that a man physically forces himself onto a resistant but willing partner. I've said that 10's of times..

Can't you see by doing that, I qualified the statement and my specific use of the definition by providing a legitimate context that backs my usage of the term.

I have said several times my usage of the word forced does not mean one is made to do something against their will.

I have many times described the physical force used in a consensual way...

So the big question is why am I holding to my definition?

To demonstrate that one does not have to rank and file think and act in accordance with the popular consensus and still have a valid point. That thier is more than one way to view a subject, and most importantly if you are not flexible enough to consider anything other than what you bring into a conversation, I want you to understand your mind is closed. Closed to anything you don't already think you know.

Subsequently I want to point out that you all have been condition to only receive new information if it is present one specific way. That you frown on original free thought and will not openly debate any real topic. If you think you know something you are not willing to examine it any other way.

In this thread are many sub-topics this last one on the word forced is a prime example. most of you locked on to a tradition understanding of the word forced in a sexual context. this brought up a very singular picture of how 'forced sex' can work. To which I countered a senerio that showed a very popular example of forced sex NOT incompliance with your stereotypical view. I outlined the usage of the term, i even provided back ground and showed you that your understanding of sex is indeed in a minority view. Yet you all assume my use of the word is in error...

Here's the thing morons...

We are BOTH correct.

Forced sex per the second defination of the word is to coherse sexual intercourse against the will of another.
However to have Forced sex, describes sexual intercourse with physical resistance, and one partner forced or over comes the other physically.

The difference???

CONSENT

So Again for the very slow among you Forced sex is to coherse (against the will of another) sex from an unwilling partner.

AND

It can describe Consensual sex where one partner resists another physically and yet consent to the act.

The devil here/The evil is in the details. If I give an senerio that does not support a legal sexual assault yet physically describe an act that could play for play leave the same exact physical evidence as a sexual assault then know I am not talking about the sterotype you automatically associate with when the words forced and sex are used together.

Your mind should be flexible enough to ask a question, seek a defination and examine the senerio to see if the defination fits. if it does then open the rusty vault you call a mind and make room for a slightly broader POV.

Lol, you're not encouraging anyone to think about anything of actual substance.  You're just getting people going is all.  You just spent 10 or so pages being intentionally vague about which dictionary definition of the word "forced" you are using (just for the fun of it?) when all you had to do was say, "I'm talking about consensual, role play, guys."   And we could have all moved back onto the topic of the OP.  Troll.  Elaborate troll.  Or you just have a really hard time stringing your ideas together into a coherent narrative.

Quoting Drich from the "cultural context excuse" thread where he is speaking of Islamic Terrorism:

"...these people are hell bent on killing everyone like you, or enslaving you, I want you to honestly take the time and give me 5 no 3 realistic alternatives that is consistent with your every life is precious and everyone deserves to be free mentality, and list out how to deal with these murderous monsters."

I see you had no problem slinging around objective moral judgement and purely legal terms like "murder" in THAT discussion; when you wanted it to be morally okay to blast the shit out of people. I wonder why that is, Drich? If people in other cultures kill in the name of their religion; because their holy book instructs them to do so, then who are you to judge, you bigoted xenophobe!

The fact that you are now appealing to moral relativism; your pop morality" ™, in THIS thread only further exposes your trollish behavior.

(October 19, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Fine .. fine .. rain on my hopes.  Guess a guy just can't dream big anymore.

You can always imagine the majority shoving a hot poker up his ass.

The existence of Drich and his ilk is the perfect example of why the emotion of contempt isn't fruitless.

(October 19, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Honestly I wish we'd use the nuclear option to send Drich on his way.  I don't think anyone appreciates hearing from him and some of us don't like what he brings out in us.  

With God'sChild I always felt like there was some warmth and humanity there even though his responses became pretty predictable and of little interest to anyone here.  I don't think he was toxic at all.

Does anyone at all like the topics, discussion or presence of Drich?  If not, how would we activate the nuclear option for the first time?

God'sChild was banned, but not THIS moron?!  WTF?  

To answer your question: No.  I feel Drich's presence is absolutely toxic to this forum.  I think he argues in a particular, round-about way on purpose to send threads spiraling for pages and pages.  I can NEVER discern what his sincere feelings on a subject are (which again, it seems he's vague on purpose to keep people biting at him), and he insults people in incredibly hurtful ways because he knows it will derail the thread, giving him the opportunity to send us around and around for no good reason.  He's practically admitted as much in this very thread, ffs!  If this isn't the definition of trollish behavior worthy of a permaban, then I don't know what is.

(October 19, 2016 at 11:06 am)Shell B Wrote: I'm considering we play a game called "don't respond to Drich," wherein none of us respond to Drich and he stops posting paragraph after paragraph of responses that aren't responses.

It's a fun game. I've been playing for years.

He wasn't banned
https://atheistforums.org/user-848.html

@LFC

This board, imo, has the collective effect of driving the true believers  nutty.  Plenty of them show up right as rain....you know, indistinguishable from anyone else.  It's just that they're not used to hearing people say the sorts of things we say about their imaginary friends.  Centuries of undeserved cultural deference have made them soft.  On a long enough time scale they all end up saying something fantastically ignorant or disgusting...and when confronted with that they explode in an entirely predictable way.  Had they not been coddled like fucking infants their entire life they may have run across whatever it is that triggers them long before they got here....but the damage is already done on that count.  I see this sort of shit as an inevitability, and banning them on account of it would be pointless.  It just sends them back to whatever echo chamber they crawled out of, and that;s why we all find ourselves in this mess to begin with..so, meh.

(October 19, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 19, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Honestly I wish we'd use the nuclear option to send Drich on his way.  I don't think anyone appreciates hearing from him and some of us don't like what he brings out in us.  

With God'sChild I always felt like there was some warmth and humanity there even though his responses became pretty predictable and of little interest to anyone here.  I don't think he was toxic at all.

Does anyone at all like the topics, discussion or presence of Drich?  If not, how would we activate the nuclear option for the first time?

God'sChild was banned, but not THIS moron?!  WTF?  

To answer your question: No.  I feel Drich's presence is absolutely toxic to this forum.  I think he argues in a particular, round-about way on purpose to send threads spiraling for pages and pages.  I can NEVER discern what his sincere feelings on a subject are (which again, it seems he's vague on purpose to keep people biting at him), and he insults people in incredibly hurtful ways because he knows it will derail the thread, giving him the opportunity to send us around and around for no good reason.  He's practically admitted as much in this very thread, ffs!  If this isn't the definition of trollish behavior worthy of a permaban, then I don't know what is.

But what contribution has he made in this thread that hasn't been related to the topic at hand. There was a lot of conversation generated and it was all at least loosely related to thread topic. I don't see how he's derailing the thread. He's discussing the topic. In his typical dishonest and disgusting way but he hasn't gone off topic.