(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 am always on the side of law and order unless it violates the constitution or scripture.

I don't generally take a position. i simply offer truths and talking points. unless the bible or the law says "X" then i believe "X"

I try and emotionally detach from any given topic so i can openly and honestly evaluate both sides.

Here I am simply trying to push you people into doing a little more thinking on the subject than "rapes is bad M'Kay, Rapes, is bad."

I wanted to define it, talk about victims, talk about pushing them to action as a means to determining their own victim status in this heads. getting help for those who want it walk away from those who did. I wanted to push the idea that consent is the only determining factor in rape. and that there is no evidence for consent. then the topic pushed into terms and termonology. i saw another chance of make another fun lesson to separate emotion from the points and facts you are representing. I wanted to see if any of you saw the irony in what I was doing, how i was taking the typical atheist position had 'proof' and citations on my side and how you guys were just arguing 'feeling.'

Now I've open my play book and shared all of it with you.

1 So where do I stand? Rapes is bad M'kay, rapes is Bad.
2 Victims should not wait and seek help asap
3 permanent victims should be made aware of their choice and offered help or left alone.
4 People who argue feeling rather than fact will always be made the fool.
5 If you are arguing with me and I am also taking on 'the rest of AF' as well, then know if you start reading stuff i write to other people, and try and plug everything in for yourself, you can't help but feel I can't offer a coherent argument.

Why? because you all don't seem to understand that not everyone is on the same page. I maybe on level one with you, and you read a level ten, but none of the posts in between. Or maybe level 10 had different question than you did on level 1 which brings us to a completely different aspect of the conversation, something in your line a of questioning we would not ever get to... so to you it does not make sense.

Being at the center of a barrage of attacks/challenges is a helluva lot different than being one of 10 launching those attacks. that fact that i can track and keep up with every level of conversation and offer you all a semi coherent argument is amazing. Let alone go point by point with everyone who asks.

I am not saying you can read posts not addressed to you, just understand instead of me have one conversation with 10 people I am having 10 conversations at once. That simply means if your going to break in to another conversation use some common sense, and approach what it is you and I are both doing with a little honesty.

(October 19, 2016 at 3:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(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]

Given the tough guy swagger he likes to project, I'd lay odds that she can fight him at least to a standstill in real life.

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

maybe they are thinking frodo

(October 19, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Drich Wrote:

(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.

Missing the point, missing the point, missing the point.  Also, you weren't being specific about WHICH terrorists, from WHICH country, and WHICH attacks you were talking about.  Or, on who's soil they took place. We aren't talking about the same thing here. I'm going to mash up what you said to fit it into my own narrative.

How does it feel?

(October 19, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: God'sChild was banned, but not THIS moron?!  WTF?  

What? When did this happen? And for what reason?

(October 19, 2016 at 3:21 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 19, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: God'sChild was banned, but not THIS moron?!  WTF?  

What? When did this happen? And for what reason?

It didn't.

(October 19, 2016 at 1:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @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.

You can go on face book and get the same treatment.. You guys are cookie cutter cut. rarely does one of you break the mold concerning your anti theology rhetoric.

My first two years of topics where of threads i universally could/did post anywhere and know EXACLY the counter arguments.

You guys think your snow flakes.. Pluuze bruh..

It seems silly to complain about having a bunch of people you chose to share your disgusting views with respond to them, particularly in that we -know- you don't share them to be ignored, lol.  So...Cry me a river? There's an easy fix to that, though, if it twists your panties so much. If it's just too hard.

Yes, you could go on facebook and get the same treatment, any chance on you going there to get your attention whoring fix? Like, say, next time you want to opine on rape, shit in someone else's earholes for a change?

(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.

Very Goood rythm..

I say rapes is bad M'kay, rapes is bad...
but you say
Rapes.. IS bad M'kay Rapes, IS bad..

you are coming right along.

(October 19, 2016 at 2:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

Whoa.. slow down there sport..

Maybe you should just stick with Rapes.. IS bad M'kay, Rapes, is bad...

For a little while longer before you go put'n and smashing in other ideas.