(October 19, 2016 at 1:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

That's the thing. I wasn't vague i defined my position several times. But, prejudice and pride would not allow anyone to see anything different.

What does it say about a group of 'thinkers' who can't think when emotionally charged? Who shut down and circle the wagons and defend a single solitary scrap of truth and will not consider anything else as truth despite the evidence?

What does it say that this must go on for two days and 10 pages?

What does it say when I reveal the truth the arguments cease, but there is not one concession?

(October 19, 2016 at 2:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

You choose the strangest examples to make your points. People stealing others' yard signs or flags are . . . stealing. That's a crime, and I haven't seen anyone here argue that it's a good or moral thing to do. Equating such actions with decisions whether to retain this or that member on a site with its own rules for inclusion is simply beside the point.

Most of the people here are probably socially and politically left of you, I dare say. And most people here also support your continued membership, so long as you observe the site's rules -- as you have thus far. This isn't a left/right thing, and you're not some champion of individualism fighting a mob of PC do-gooders, whatever you might imagine.

Oh, and that bit about the supposed 'good of the people' superseding the individual's rights . . . while it's true of far left regimes, you do know that it's also a hallmark of far right regimes, right?

What evidence Drich?  Forced sex is rape here, forced sex is rape in korea.  If you're doing -anything- against the will of another you do not have their consent.  It;s super important for you to understand that these are non negotiable facts and terms.  You don't get to ignore them or define them, and in so doing legitimize rape without feeling a little blowback.  

What does it say that this has gone on as long as it has?  What I've -been- saying, that you're a stubbornly dishonest rape fetishist. You clearly believe that women can be raped into wanting it real bad, and that this somehow makes it not rape, or half rape, or whatever the fuck you want to call it next.

(October 19, 2016 at 1:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.

context context context...

Is ISIS or the Taliban operating under US law?

Are the people or citizens of this country operating under US law?

Do you see the difference? Those under this law/citizens are afforded rights enemy combatants are not. Is it right to deem someone/citizen not convicted of a murder a murderer? no

Is it ok to deem the terrorists who flew into the twin towers and the others of have committed terrorists acts murders yes?

Why?

They forfeit their rights when they take up arms of this country, which is why we classify them as enemy combatants.

Which is why we can detain those in 'Git-mo' without any rights or due process.

(October 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

That's it. I'm going to Baskin Robbins after work and I'm going to ask to taste samples. After the 2nd or 3rd sample, I'm going to say, "Yeah, these are good, but I'm in the mood for something a bit rape-ier. Do you have anything like that? I mean, yeah, put that vanilla on the bottom of the cup. But then I want some serious forceful kink on top. What do you have?"

(October 19, 2016 at 2:20 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

Well, I think it's funny that you gave kudos to a post that implied you are inciting drama on purpose, without specifying the specific portion of the post you actually agreed with, and denouncing the portion that implied you are a troll, lol.

(October 19, 2016 at 2:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I don't know why on earth you would condemn such feelings.

I'll take "because he's an asshole, and quite possibly a sociopath" for $500, Alex.

(October 19, 2016 at 12:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: yeah, about that...pushing things that people don't want is exactly the sort of thing that'll get you pinched for rape.   Just trying to help keep you out of shit...since you seem to be unclear on what rape is. Wouldn't want you to accidentally get yourself into trouble. Hey....maybe that's what a 1/2 rape is?

I'm starting to seriously fear for his wife's safety at this point. [emoji848]

(October 19, 2016 at 1:52 pm)Losty Wrote: He wasn't banned
https://atheistforums.org/user-848.html

Thank you for the clarification, dear!  

(October 19, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 19, 2016 at 2:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I don't know why on earth you would condemn such feelings.

I'll take "because he's an asshole, and quite possibly a sociopath" for $500, Alex.

I'm sorry. You're correct, but you need to phrase your answer in the form of a question.