(October 19, 2016 at 2:02 pm)Drich Wrote: [vile shit removed]
"vanilla" is just another example.
[more vile shit removed]

To paraphrase pocaracas: I prefer strawberry cheesecake.

Unfortunately for your constant bullshit, Drich, the place from which the metaphoric boat originates defines rape the same way we do. Obviously, it's not a cultural thing, it's a drich thing. I doubt you'd have had any trouble convincing -any- woman that she didn't want to be raped, no matter how many times that you insist that she did, deep down....because she was asian.

(October 19, 2016 at 1:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

the kudos was for the bold bit.

It is funny how you blocked out 7/8 of the post for one sentence and made the whole post about said sentence.

In truth C/L took the time to ask fair and honest question and based on my response put together my intended position even inspite of not being able to reconcile my statements that seemed to contradict what I was saying.

This is a wise temperate person, and the statement deserved to be recognized for it's merits on whole, not just because of one sentence.

(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.

I'd just like to see him gone to protect me against myself.  I don't like the way I feel about the way I end up talking to him.  I don't for a minute think he adds anything of value to these forums.  But that's just my opinion and for the most part I do like that this forum space doesn't suppress speech.  

God'sChild was never banned as far as I know.  I just used him as an example of someone who got under people's skins but was still a human being at the end of the day.  If Drich is a human being he hides it well.  I can't think of any other theists on these forums who thinks well of Drich.  He probably embarrasses them on top of disgusting them as much as he does us.

But it isn't a big deal and I think using the ignore function and some personal restraint (in the manner suggested by Shell) is probably a better solution than sullying our open/free reputation.

Just leave the garbage to the people who're used to the smell Whatevs, lol.  Yet another service we provide.  

(October 19, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Bella Morte 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?

I'm obviously not a moderator, but that's a slippery slope there. Drich and his opinions are absolutely vile but I thought AF was all about freedom of speech.

So far it has been.

But that's the thing when one wanders too far left. The good of the people always supersede the good of the individual's rights.

This is no different than people who steal trump signs and rebel flags from people's homes. they feel that their wants/desires should be mandated and everyone else should be forced into their way of thinking.. because it is the 'moral' thing to do. Only they become the oppressors this country fights to free people from.

(October 19, 2016 at 11:08 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 19, 2016 at 10:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: bold MINE:

But it's not like it "never happened" for the victim.  That's my entire point.  It's like you have a blind spot for empathy.  Look, I understand what you're saying:  telling a woman that it will essentially be like her assault never happened in the eyes of the law if she fails to report it within the SOL set by her state.  A motivator.  I see that.  But, I don't get why you think that a simple acknowledgment of someone's pain is encouraging them to hold a victim mentality.  It seems like, to you, saying "I'm sorry that you were hurt" is as offensive as taking the lord's name in vain.

Because I am not a believer in perpetual victim hood. There is a time to mourn and a time to grieve, which again is ultimately up to the victim to set a limit on, but approaching the 5 year mark/SOL someone needs a push or kick in the pants IF they are ever to be anything more than a perpetual victim.

Which again is fine if that is what they need to do. However forever victims also need to know the rest of the world is going to move on with or without them. That is where the reality of  what I said comes in. The Law/Justice will turn a blind eye to you and the terrible thing that happened, if you do not act. What I said is a kind of focused litmus test. If what I said bring out the acid then you know something inside you does not want to be a victim forever then that means you must act/My comment becomes a call to arms. If you roll over into yourself and have to 'relive' everything again then you know you want to be a forever victim.. If that is the case then in a sick way what I said only furthers that person's end goal.

Look at the response everyone gave when I acted harshly.. A virtual pity parade was thrown, if it's been 15/20 since the act, then all the fussing and 'nurturing' that went on was well received.

Again I know the pain. I also know the sickness that one creates for themselves being or thinking of themselves as a victim, and I am well aware of what needs to happen inorder for that cycle to be broken.

I disagree that a "virtual pity party" took place. And you brought "acid" out of a lot of people. Regardless of whether or not they have been victims, or if they have been victimized and DID report it. (Read: me).

Acknowledging that someone was harmed...feeling bad that someone harmed them either because you are capable of imagining what that experience must have been like, or because you know first hand what it's like, is NOT encouraging victim hood. It's just...being human.

Scenario: A woman is raped in her 20's, she reports it, and the rapist is convicted. The woman deals with the trauma in an emotionally healthy way, and gets on with her life. 10 years later she confides in her fiancé about the assault. He feels awful; sad that she was harmed, and angry that someone harmed her. She reassures him that she is fully recovered from the experience and the man is in jail. The assault has no significant, lasting negative impact on her as an individual, or on their relationship. How is his empathy altering how she perceives herself in ANY way? His personal feelings about what happened to her are his. I don't know why on earth you would condemn such feelings.

"Empathy perpetuates self-ascribed victim status" is a non-sequitur, Drich.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-xc24C8g
We can all do without dreamers like this.

(October 19, 2016 at 2:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 19, 2016 at 2:02 pm)Drich Wrote: look at the broader picture.

Everything I am talking about/all the different subjects all start out with, a 'call to arms statement' then they are seeded with questionable statements, conclude in a broader picture that makes one look at his/her preconceived notion as the reason for the call to arms. because I have taken a common understanding of a word or phrase and used it in a different way

"vanilla" is just another example.

What you've been taught to understand as boring, can be seen as a foundational flavor that supports an almost endless array of possiblities.

As it applies to sex, having a foundation of trust and open honest communication can lead to anything "just mix in any topping or flavor you like and vanilla takes on and makes a new flavor."

While again, a fixed flavor like Lime sorbet or say a sexual relationship that is based on one narrowly defined avenue which sex is permitted under certain conditions, because you and you partner, can't communicate truthfully.. will always result in following a certain recipe of sorts. it cant change.. Sure you might be able to add in different things but if the sorbet relationship is going, to work then what can be added must be compatible with lime.

Since you seem to be so focused on ice cream flavors, I;ll try to explain something to you in a language you understand.  When you add the force sprinkles, or omit the consent syrup, what you have is rape flavored icecream.

LOL. Mmmm...rape-cicles!

(October 19, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-xc24C8g
We can all do without dreamers like this.

Or my favorite, we can all do without you.  Bye now.  Gotta go find that ignore button.