Objectifying women

[Scented Nectar]

You are saying that eating and breathing, which does to oneself, is comparable to the great emotional/physical harm done to another person against their will? WTF? Are you a sociopath with no empathy? Tell me you are joking please.

Yes, it is quite comparable. Observe these things that can hurt you when you are eating:

You can choke and die from eating.
You can get morbidly fat from eating.
You can suffer malnutrition from eating.
You can eat Big Al's sandwich and be killed as a result of having done so.
You can bring diseases into your body from eating.
The 'consistency' of your shit is affected by what you eat (and some forms of what can happen to it might be declared 'vile' ).

Let us not also forget that you can feed someone else food and they might choke and die from it.
They can get morbidly fat from eating it.
They can become malnutrated from it.
You can feed them Big Al's sandwich and frame them leading Big Al to kill them.
You can give them diseases by feeding them.
You can affect the consistency of their shit.

'Vile' is in the intention. The lack of empathy to the point where the person causes preventable harm without a good enough reason to justify it. You might need to kill in order to eat and keep living, but you won't die if you don't rape.

I have no idea what a 'sociopath' (as you are using it) is... but I certainly have empathy. A great deal of it in fact. More than most people I should think, but I know only so many And yet, noting all of that: I am not joking when I suggest that things should not be considered "vile" solely because they can hurt you. In fact... I was rather under the impression that declaring something 'vile' was a way to suggest that it makes you "sick to your stomach", "disgusted", "queasy", etc. Now... sometimes people attribute 'vileness' to a person, so as to imply that the person (or the person's actions) "make them sick"

It's in the disregard for other's happiness that the word vile applies, in my opinion. The lack of empathy is often referred to about sociopaths. These are totally preventable harms/pains/unhappinesses. It is the rapist that chooses to act them out instead of just keeping it to wanking thoughts, specialized porn, and perhaps having sex with people who consent to pretending nonconsent.

You also seem to suggest that some group of individuals somehow decides what people deserve and do not... but no: they usually compromise with each other to find a 'decent moral fit' for the majority. It is only individuals who decide what is deserved and also not... and further: while they may share an ideal of what is deserved... all concepts remain firmly within an individual. We aren't a hive mind... at least not yet.

We are a somewhat social animal. We do have a hive like structure in some ways.

Different tastes which are nonharmful are very different from different tastes which are harmful. You seem to be missing the ability to recognize harm and why causing pain is a bad thing.

Are not. Observe:

Eating A.

Eating B.

A = Cherries.

B = Ground glass.

Both are eating. Granted: eating one is quite likely to harm you more than the other... but that is not to reflect the action itself.

The cherries are never, or almost never eaten with the intention being harm. The ground glass is almost always eaten with the intention of harm. Shit happens anyways in life, but when intentional&preventable harm to others happen, there is a difference.

You seem to be missing the fact that whilst tastes might be different: they are tastes nonetheless. Now... I might have a real taste for ice cream... but also be diabetic and not eat it for my health's sake. It is not having a taste for a thing that dictates wether the action is done: that would be your decision to eat it (or absence of a decision to not eat it).

There is a big difference between causing harm to yourself and causing it to others. With yourself, you are consenting.

See: I might have a real attraction to rape... but also not want to do so because of not wanting to hurt another person like that. There is this wonderful thing for me if I happen to have internet: rape porn! And I will never have to rape a single soul to get a taste of how it feels (assuming I am empathetic enough towards the rapist on screen )

Hopefully that category of porn keeps many real attacks from happening. It's good to know that you have empathy and would not actually do it in real life. To me, that's where the entire difference, the 'vile' factor maybe, lies.

[Violet]

'Vile' is in the intention. The lack of empathy to the point where the person causes preventable harm without a good enough reason to justify it. You might need to kill in order to eat and keep living, but you won't die if you don't rape.

What is defined as "good enough" varies from person to person too

And you are worth more than that which you ate? Why the obsession with remaining alive? I'm going to have some difficulty understanding what makes you think so towards either issue. Perhaps you should try to justify it.

You may well die by not raping. I can think of many situations where this might be the case. One that is not related to someone killing you if you don't rape some person: you choose not to rape a person... and thus when you get in your car and travel down the highway: you get hit and killed by a drunk driver.

Life is funny like that... isn't it?

Anyway, more seriously: I don't call not having empathy towards another to the point one is unwilling to cause harm ("without a good enough reason...?????") "vile". In fact... in leaders I consider that positively weak at times and them perhaps unworthy of the title of 'leader'.

It's in the disregard for other's happiness that the word vile applies, in my opinion. The lack of empathy is often referred to about sociopaths. These are totally preventable harms/pains/unhappinesses. It is the rapist that chooses to act them out instead of just keeping it to wanking thoughts, specialized porn, and perhaps having sex with people who consent to pretending nonconsent.

Ahh! So it is not in the hurting that you believe the word vile to be used now? That's an improvement... I can get down with that definition in some ways... but in this sense a large boulder is vile automatically by not regarding other's happiness. I still can't adhere to the definition you've presented here (as demonstrated by a boulder).

I have actually said this before, and I will say it again: the rapist may have in fact not chosen to rape... but rather not chosen to avoid raping. It is amazing what a perspective change can do for understanding a situation, imo

We are a somewhat social animal. We do have a hive like structure in some ways.

Hence my addition of 'yet'. I'd like to avoid the occurrence if possible

The cherries are never, or almost never eaten with the intention being harm. The ground glass is almost always eaten with the intention of harm. Shit happens anyways in life, but when intentional&preventable harm to others happen, there is a difference.

How about eating cherries or ground glass without thinking much (if at all) about what it was or what effect it would have on you? I call that an impulse.
Also, I think that harm (preventable or not) is often accidental... and that things done with an intent can be very difficult to prevent.
I do not think very many rapes are done with the intent to harm either.

Can you identify this 'difference' for me in a way that is not redundant? (ie: yellow is different from blue because yellow is different than blue)

There is a big difference between causing harm to yourself and causing it to others. With yourself, you are consenting.

I see it both as causing harm. Also, the self is not necessarily consenting to what it does (ie: reflex, impulse). Further: how does consent enter into is?

Hopefully that category of porn keeps many real attacks from happening. It's good to know that you have empathy and would not actually do it in real life. To me, that's where the entire difference, the 'vile' factor maybe, lies.

@ the bold: Did you assume I even have an attraction to raping? 0.o

One might hope it would keep many 'real attacks' from happening... but I honestly doubt it. Does pictures and videos of people smoking keep them from smoking? ^_< (last sentence was rhetorical joke, not an argument...)

[Scented Nectar]

'Vile' is in the intention. The lack of empathy to the point where the person causes preventable harm without a good enough reason to justify it. You might need to kill in order to eat and keep living, but you won't die if you don't rape.

What is defined as "good enough" varies from person to person too

And you are worth more than that which you ate? Why the obsession with remaining alive? I'm going to have some difficulty understanding what makes you think so towards either issue. Perhaps you should try to justify it.

I'm not even going to try right now. Not enough coffee in me yet, but it's not just in living. In fact, sometimes cruelty is in the forcing of someone to remain alive against their will, such as on one's deathbed if in too much pain.

You may well die by not raping. I can think of many situations where this might be the case. One that is not related to someone killing you if you don't rape some person: you choose not to rape a person... and thus when you get in your car and travel down the highway: you get hit and killed by a drunk driver.

Life is funny like that... isn't it?

I'm not talking about that sort of thing, since that can never be pre-assumed the way death can if one doesn't eat.

Anyway, more seriously: I don't call not having empathy towards another to the point one is unwilling to cause harm ("without a good enough reason...?????") "vile". In fact... in leaders I consider that positively weak at times and them perhaps unworthy of the title of 'leader'.

Not me. I'd rather see a highly empathic leader. If someone is willing to be unecessarily cruel to others, they will likely turn on their own.

It's in the disregard for other's happiness that the word vile applies, in my opinion. The lack of empathy is often referred to about sociopaths. These are totally preventable harms/pains/unhappinesses. It is the rapist that chooses to act them out instead of just keeping it to wanking thoughts, specialized porn, and perhaps having sex with people who consent to pretending nonconsent.

Ahh! So it is not in the hurting that you believe the word vile to be used now? That's an improvement... I can get down with that definition in some ways... but in this sense a large boulder is vile automatically by not regarding other's happiness. I still can't adhere to the definition you've presented here (as demonstrated by a boulder).

Who said it's not in the hurting? I'm referring to harms/pains/unhappinesses, all in that category of hurt. The vileness is in the intention. Boulders have no intention. Note that I'm using the word 'vile' to be my emotional opinion of such intentions. I'm not even attempting to say it's not subjective, but most can agree that a boulder is not being vile.

I have actually said this before, and I will say it again: the rapist may have in fact not chosen to rape... but rather not chosen to avoid raping. It is amazing what a perspective change can do for understanding a situation, imo

I don't give a shit what they are thinking. Are they doing it to others without consent? Anyone can talk themselves into any perspective. That doesn't make the perspectives equal somehow. Harm caused intentionally IS the difference. A big one.

I do not think very many rapes are done with the intent to harm either.

Can you identify this 'difference' for me in a way that is not redundant? (ie: yellow is different from blue because yellow is different than blue)

If the harm is known about, and yes, rapists do tend to know full well that they are causing harm to their victims, and the rapist does it anyways, that is the difference. If you don't understand this, I probably can't explain it further.

There is a big difference between causing harm to yourself and causing it to others. With yourself, you are consenting.

I see it both as causing harm. Also, the self is not necessarily consenting to what it does (ie: reflex, impulse). Further: how does consent enter into is?

Are you serious???

Hopefully that category of porn keeps many real attacks from happening. It's good to know that you have empathy and would not actually do it in real life. To me, that's where the entire difference, the 'vile' factor maybe, lies.

@ the bold: Did you assume I even have an attraction to raping? 0.o

I missed the word 'might' in the original sentence of yours that I was replying to. Sorry about that. Huge 'ooops' on that one, for sure!!!

One might hope it would keep many 'real attacks' from happening... but I honestly doubt it. Does pictures and videos of people smoking keep them from smoking? ^_< (last sentence was rhetorical joke, not an argument...)

I think that it likely keeps at least some attacks from happening. If the guy is all spent from wanking, he won't be raping at least until he is horny again. Each wank = one less rape.

[Violet]

I could have sworn I responded to this before 0.o I'm not certain why. :S

I'm not even going to try right now. Not enough coffee in me yet, but it's not just in living. In fact, sometimes cruelty is in the forcing of someone to remain alive against their will, such as on one's deathbed if in too much pain.

Indeed. Have you had your coffee yet? ^_^

I'm not talking about that sort of thing, since that can never be pre-assumed the way death can if one doesn't eat.

It rather can be preassumed in many a situation And indeed... one need not necessarily eat to remain alive... as the IV should tell you v_v

Not me. I'd rather see a highly empathic leader. If someone is willing to be unecessarily cruel to others, they will likely turn on their own.

And yet they will be far more powerful than the leader who cringes at the thought of hurting others. v_v And a powerful leader is an important thing for a country to have.

Who said it's not in the hurting? I'm referring to harms/pains/unhappinesses, all in that category of hurt. The vileness is in the intention. Boulders have no intention. Note that I'm using the word 'vile' to be my emotional opinion of such intentions. I'm not even attempting to say it's not subjective, but most can agree that a boulder is not being vile.

I wouldn't agree... it is a vile thing for a boulder to flatten a car. But under your definition, I suppose it applies. But even under such... I can see many a situation where a rapist or murderer is not 'vile'.

I don't give a shit what they are thinking. Are they doing it to others without consent? Anyone can talk themselves into any perspective. That doesn't make the perspectives equal somehow. Harm caused intentionally IS the difference. A big one.

I, on the other hand, care very much what they are thinking... and if you consider it only vile in the intention: it wouldn't be 'vile' unless they were thinking about doing it for reasons you deem to be 'vile'... all of which requires thinking. If they were thinking nothing, and acting on instinct/impulse... one might rightly say they are as lacking in vileness as the boulder you exemplified above v_v

Also, i do not understand why this point about consent keeps getting made... ie: I do not consent to have other people cut my hair, and I am fully honest when I say I will immediately attempt to horribly maim or kill whomever does such. That is why people don't cut my hair (because I have made the consequences for such clear, and the people affected by them appear to wish to avoid them). But if they didn't know I would do that, or if they believed I could not, and yet still wanted to cut my hair: what reason should they have to not do so? My lack of consent for it? Hah... <insert cynical viewpoint here>.

And that is there perspective, which is as valid to them as yours is to you. So really... just who is to say who is right? v_v Their perspective is likely quite similarly valuable to them as yours is to you. That harm is caused intentionally in one view, and that it is considered vile to cause harm intentionally in another, exemplifies that they are different. But the difference is no greater than one person loving red, and another one hating said color. Differences are just that: different. You can't become more different by changing an attribute that is already different into another attribute that remains different to the compared attribute. Anyhow... i really don't see how it is that large of a difference

If the harm is known about, and yes, rapists do tend to know full well that they are causing harm to their victims, and the rapist does it anyways, that is the difference. If you don't understand this, I probably can't explain it further.

I actually think that many rapes are done because of a great pressure to fuck someone, and an opportunity arising along with this great pressure, to a person either not resilient enough to resist it, or uncaring to resist it. I don't think that an intent to harm (as one might think of in the sense of an assassination) enters into it on even an uncommon basis (though perhaps it does rarely occur, not that I would know of any such instances. Perhaps serial rapists?) even enters into it, even though they likely know they are causing 'harm' to the one they are raping.

I do not understand why a rapist would rape with the intent to harm unless they were sadistic.

Are you serious???

When I said that? Yes. Quite serious. I even did the little emoticon to make myself clearly serious. I'll repeat: "I see it both as causing harm. Also, the self is not necessarily consenting to what it does (ie: reflex, impulse). Further: how does consent enter into it? " (And edited a small mistake I just noticed too, how quaint ^_^)

I missed the word 'might' in the original sentence of yours that I was replying to. Sorry about that. Huge 'ooops' on that one, for sure!!!

How frightening ^_^ Someone briefly thought that one so silly as I would rape someone? ^_^ Nobody can say no to Saerules... she's far too lovable, cute, sexy, and caring to be resisted!

---

---

I think that it likely keeps at least some attacks from happening. If the guy is all spent from wanking, he won't be raping at least until he is horny again. Each wank = one less rape.

I rather notice that the more I masturbate, the higher my libido seems to grow, if only temporarily Men (and women...) can 'get horny again' rather quickly... especially when encouraged by things they find sexually attractive v_v

[Scented Nectar]

I could have sworn I responded to this before 0.o I'm not certain why. :S

I'm not even going to try right now. Not enough coffee in me yet, but it's not just in living. In fact, sometimes cruelty is in the forcing of someone to remain alive against their will, such as on one's deathbed if in too much pain.

Indeed. Have you had your coffee yet? ^_^

Yes. I have had my Saturday morning Wake 'N Bake, which is a combo of very strong coffee and a nice joint of fine Canadian tokables (Ontario bud is every bit as good as the famous BC bud). A weekend morning ritual. I was talking about the basic survival instinct most life forms have, and how I don't have an opinion of that instinct as vile. I don't have much of an opinion on it at all morally speaking, it just exists, sometimes with pleasant results (for the eater in the case of a carnivorous meal), or with unpleasant results (for the eaten). The intention of harm/negligence, or that sort of thing is not there.

Not me. I'd rather see a highly empathic leader. If someone is willing to be unecessarily cruel to others, they will likely turn on their own.

And yet they will be far more powerful than the leader who cringes at the thought of hurting others. v_v And a powerful leader is an important thing for a country to have.

It's only important when it comes to self defense. A leader must not be so overly pacifist that they don't fight back to the fullest necessary extent. But that's where it must end, in my opinion.

Who said it's not in the hurting? I'm referring to harms/pains/unhappinesses, all in that category of hurt. The vileness is in the intention. Boulders have no intention. Note that I'm using the word 'vile' to be my emotional opinion of such intentions. I'm not even attempting to say it's not subjective, but most can agree that a boulder is not being vile.

I wouldn't agree... it is a vile thing for a boulder to flatten a car. But under your definition, I suppose it applies. But even under such... I can see many a situation where a rapist or murderer is not 'vile'.

Boulder disasters are not vile. Rape always is. I can't think of any situation where it wouldn't be. The only way it wouldn't be, is in some sort of weird situation where the rapist really doesn't think it's nonconsentual, but that is not what I've been talking about.

I don't give a shit what they are thinking. Are they doing it to others without consent? Anyone can talk themselves into any perspective. That doesn't make the perspectives equal somehow. Harm caused intentionally IS the difference. A big one.

I, on the other hand, care very much what they are thinking... and if you consider it only vile in the intention: it wouldn't be 'vile' unless they were thinking about doing it for reasons you deem to be 'vile'... all of which requires thinking. If they were thinking nothing, and acting on instinct/impulse... one might rightly say they are as lacking in vileness as the boulder you exemplified above v_v

I'm referring to people who carry out their horniness about nonconsent on real life nonconsenting people, and who know full well that doing so causes them harm, but do it anyways. I am assuming they are not as fully unthinking as your example, on some sort of 'must fuck any warm hole' mode without even noticing that they are doing it an unwilling one.

Also, i do not understand why this point about consent keeps getting made... ie: I do not consent to have other people cut my hair, and I am fully honest when I say I will immediately attempt to horribly maim or kill whomever does such. That is why people don't cut my hair (because I have made the consequences for such clear, and the people affected by them appear to wish to avoid them). But if they didn't know I would do that, or if they believed I could not, and yet still wanted to cut my hair: what reason should they have to not do so? My lack of consent for it? Hah... <insert cynical viewpoint here>.

I would think it vile for someone to forceably cut your hair, and vile for them to forceably prevent you from cutting your own hair. It would also be vile for you to force someone else to cut your hair for you.

Of course, the haircut example is probably a lot less traumatic and harmful as what rape victims go through, especially when you can't catch AIDS or get pregnant too easily from a haircut. There also wouldn' t be the social stigma that you must have been somehow asking for your hair to be cut forceably, etc.

And that is there perspective, which is as valid to them as yours is to you. So really... just who is to say who is right? v_v Their perspective is likely quite similarly valuable to them as yours is to you. That harm is caused intentionally in one view, and that it is considered vile to cause harm intentionally in another, exemplifies that they are different. But the difference is no greater than one person loving red, and another one hating said color. Differences are just that: different. You can't become more different by changing an attribute that is already different into another attribute that remains different to the compared attribute. Anyhow... i really don't see how it is that large of a difference

Is the red lover forcing the red hater to be in a brightly lit room with their eyelids glued open and where everything is flourescent red? We are not talking about one person liking sex and one person not. I'm not talking about that, anyways.

If the harm is known about, and yes, rapists do tend to know full well that they are causing harm to their victims, and the rapist does it anyways, that is the difference. If you don't understand this, I probably can't explain it further.

I actually think that many rapes are done because of a great pressure to fuck someone, and an opportunity arising along with this great pressure, to a person either not resilient enough to resist it, or uncaring to resist it. I don't think that an intent to harm (as one might think of in the sense of an assassination) enters into it on even an uncommon basis (though perhaps it does rarely occur, not that I would know of any such instances. Perhaps serial rapists?) even enters into it, even though they likely know they are causing 'harm' to the one they are raping.

I do not understand why a rapist would rape with the intent to harm unless they were sadistic.

I am only talking about people who get off on sadistic desires and who carry it out in real life. A friend sometimes likes to use the expression 'the difference between bad and evil is that bad is just thinking about it, while evil is doing it'. Everyone has a variety of 'bad' thoughts, which I don't even personally think should be called 'bad', as long as they are never carried out. Murder is a good example. I'm pretty sure that everyone has at some time had the desire to murder someone knowing full well that whatever has pissed them off really isn't bad enough to deserve killing in revenge/defense. With rapists, it is obvious that this must be similar. I doubt they are thinking that they better rape someone because society will think less of them if they don't.

I personally can only maintain being horny around people who are definitely either horny about me too, or at least where it's unknown yet. If I see any sign that they are repulsed by me, or even disinterested, my horniness about them vanishes. I am lucky that way, and I suspect most people are also. If I wasn't so lucky, then I would hope that I would be a good enough person to not actually carry it out, or even pester/harass them. There are many 'bad' desire thoughts people don't carry out in real life due to empathy because they would cause harm if actually done. I have to assume that for rapists, sex with someone who's not enjoying it is one of those.

Are you serious???

When I said that? Yes. Quite serious. I even did the little emoticon to make myself clearly serious. I'll repeat: "I see it both as causing harm. Also, the self is not necessarily consenting to what it does (ie: reflex, impulse). Further: how does consent enter into it? " (And edited a small mistake I just noticed too, how quaint ^_^)

Even after coffee and my um, thought enhancement ciggy, I still don't know the words to make what I mean any clearer.

I missed the word 'might' in the original sentence of yours that I was replying to. Sorry about that. Huge 'ooops' on that one, for sure!!!

How frightening ^_^ Someone briefly thought that one so silly as I would rape someone? ^_^ Nobody can say no to Saerules... she's far too lovable, cute, sexy, and caring to be resisted!

---

---

I want to give you another huge apology on that one. That was a really shitty mistake for me to have made. I am also very against false accusations of such things, and the nasty stigma that can result. I thought you were actually brave enough to publically admit such a desire and not a vile person since you wouldn't actually do it in real life due to not wanting to hurt someone for real.

I think that it likely keeps at least some attacks from happening. If the guy is all spent from wanking, he won't be raping at least until he is horny again. Each wank = one less rape.

I rather notice that the more I masturbate, the higher my libido seems to grow, if only temporarily Men (and women...) can 'get horny again' rather quickly... especially when encouraged by things they find sexually attractive v_v

In the same way, a rapist with a prisoner will very likely repeatedly rape them. I really don't think porn CAUSES the desire. It is merely yet another opportunity to get off on whatever desire the porn viewer has, including for those who like things that would be harmful in real life, such as rape.

[Autumnlicious]

Yes. I have had my Saturday morning Wake 'N Bake, which is a combo of very strong coffee and a nice joint of fine Canadian tokables (Ontario bud is every bit as good as the famous BC bud). A weekend morning ritual.

Hurrah! Another kindred fiend of the best of plants!

[Dotard]

Count me in that kindred spirit group.

[Paul the Human]

Me, too.

[Scented Nectar]

Ah, you guys just made me feel all warm and fuzzy, now knowing of yet more fellow cannabis fans. Then again, it might just be the smoke.

Re the following video, to avoid real life trouble, I'd like to say that maybe the following is just a tobacco stage prop, and I am a total internet fraud, so there, ha.
[youtube]Pe7cw9GPovg[/youtube]

[Violet]

Here's my response written three days ago, not posted because my internet died (or perhaps it was Safari?) and fishing season started

Yes. I have had my Saturday morning Wake 'N Bake, which is a combo of very strong coffee and a nice joint of fine Canadian tokables (Ontario bud is every bit as good as the famous BC bud). A weekend morning ritual. I was talking about the basic survival instinct most life forms have, and how I don't have an opinion of that instinct as vile. I don't have much of an opinion on it at all morally speaking, it just exists, sometimes with pleasant results (for the eater in the case of a carnivorous meal), or with unpleasant results (for the eaten). The intention of harm/negligence, or that sort of thing is not there.

Are you suggesting that you can eat without doing harm to what you are eating (and perhaps also yourself)? Negligence is often what we call 'not caring' (or failing to observe), which was likely not intended, and 'just exists' (as you put it). I suppose then, that considering 'vile' to mean 'with the intention to harm another'... I should be considered positively vile for intending to cripple an attacking foe (perhaps to halt their attack, perhaps to put them on the defensive). I should also be called vile for intending to kill and eat anything what might be killed and eaten. Now... I'm fairly certain that you mean for 'vile' to not be used so gaily... perhaps you would like to redefine in a better sense? If you're having difficulties coming up with a workable definition for 'vile' (that follows your intent with the word), you could try outlining several scenarios which you consider to be 'vile', and following their common roots to your likely definition of 'vile'. This is, of course, only a suggestion if you are having difficulties.

It's only important when it comes to self defense. A leader must not be so overly pacifist that they don't fight back to the fullest necessary extent. But that's where it must end, in my opinion.

Context is vital when it comes to leading nations. At times, a terrifyingly brutal military annexation and genocide is a very good answer... perhaps the 'best' decision one can make. In other circumstances... doing so will cause other nations around you to form together and rally against you in a force that you are incapable of defeating (or that you would be unwilling to waste as many resources as would be necessary for the endeavor...). It may be from a video game, but I see that it applies in every real world case I can think of (ie: the Aztecs, the Roman Empire/Republic, Napoleon's France, Nazi Germany), and that is this quote

Finally, there will come a time when one empire recognizes its superior position and will attempt to eliminate all weaker competitors to win the game.

While it notably refers to the game... it is easily adapted to real world application by removing 'win the game', and inserting 'rule without worry about powerful foreign attack' (or similarly intended sentences)... or perhaps simply leaving it hanging.

If a leader does not consolidate and press their advantage while they have it... they may find that other leaders are not so forgiving There is also something to be said for how much more fear can be (though not necessarily that it will be) pressed upon an enemy facing potential genocide. v_v To explain what I mean further... you suggest that a leader should fight back the amount that is 'necessary', and that once there they must stop (in your opinion of course). However... if one can decimate their forces with few enough losses to take their opponent's resource claims: they can not only gain further resources for their nation's power... but also remove an enemy for a great period of time (if not forever). The only rational reason I can think of at this time to not do this is what might arise diplomatically with other nations as a result of such action. But even then... if the gain is great enough, and one feels secure in their ability to defend their newly extended borders against significant assault (and perhaps population)... it is a tantalizing option. An option no leader should not consider should they ever be in such a situation.

Boulder disasters are not vile. Rape always is. I can't think of any situation where it wouldn't be. The only way it wouldn't be, is in some sort of weird situation where the rapist really doesn't think it's nonconsentual, but that is not what I've been talking about.

If boulder disasters are not vile... I cannot see how a fair number of rapes, murders, robberies, and what have you are 'vile' either. Explain how one is vile and the other not, and we can evaluate further, without needing me to present superfluous examples under either the definition you sort of gave above, or my definition(s). ^_^

I'm referring to people who carry out their horniness about nonconsent on real life nonconsenting people, and who know full well that doing so causes them harm, but do it anyways. I am assuming they are not as fully unthinking as your example, on some sort of 'must fuck any warm hole' mode without even noticing that they are doing it an unwilling one.

And I'm referring to normal people... either unable to resist a certain thing (often pleasures such as sex, money, fame, and adrenaline rushes... and also often revenge, among other things), or not caring to resist such... who then perform actions such as rape, theft, doing stupid or reckless things in public, and even murder. There are many reasons they might do these things... anger, desire, an identified opportunity, easy target(s), attempting to improve public image, and what have you. And the interesting thing is that I think very little of it is done with the intent of hurting others. Why does the thief steal? Not likely because he is a robin hood who hates the rich and wants to hurt them in their pocketbooks. Why does the rapist sexually molest others? Not likely because they are violently sadistic bastards what simply wish to beat people up (and if they are... it's a whole lot easier to just beat people up). These are things done for the self... and even vandalism and trolling likely aren't trying to hurt others: they are trying to get thrills.

I was not attempting to cast them as unthinking... I was trying to cast them as emotional beings that often get lost in a moment and act without thinking about the consequence, or recognizing them and still performing it because of the strength of their fear/anger/desire/etc. In fact... i rather think that most (reported v_v) rapes occur in the home, with family or friends, because it is these people who are more likely to firstly: be at said home with the person in question, b: be trusted enough that they might be left alone for enough time that a rape can be the culmination of events between the two or more bodies in said room (which can be a 'slow' process), and c: family/friends rapists are likely more easily recognizable by the rape victim.

I would think it vile for someone to forceably cut your hair, and vile for them to forceably prevent you from cutting your own hair. It would also be vile for you to force someone else to cut your hair for you.

And why would that be? Now we see a possibly different definition of 'vile' (one somewhat more akin to my own, but not there yet)... where apparently a vile thing is a thing that is forced.

Of course, the haircut example is probably a lot less traumatic and harmful as what rape victims go through, especially when you can't catch AIDS or get pregnant too easily from a haircut. There also wouldn' t be the social stigma that you must have been somehow asking for your hair to be cut forceably, etc.

Not a lot less for me... I think they'd be about the same, depending on the presentation for each. But it was intended as an alternate argument that people are only raped who were not adequately protected. The unguarded treasure behind the curtain is a magnet to opportunity... the hefty safe surrounded by two security dogs with radio backup is perhaps the end of opportunity.

Is the red lover forcing the red hater to be in a brightly lit room with their eyelids glued open and where everything is flourescent red? We are not talking about one person liking sex and one person not. I'm not talking about that, anyways.

Observe:

A is different than B.

A is different than C.

A is different than D.

B ≠ c ≠ D.

You can't get more different by changing A + B to A + C. You will likely get a different value... but B and C are not more different to A than D is to A. Just as you cannot become any more the same by such a method. There is no grey area v_v

I am only talking about people who get off on sadistic desires and who carry it out in real life. A friend sometimes likes to use the expression 'the difference between bad and evil is that bad is just thinking about it, while evil is doing it'. Everyone has a variety of 'bad' thoughts, which I don't even personally think should be called 'bad', as long as they are never carried out. Murder is a good example. I'm pretty sure that everyone has at some time had the desire to murder someone knowing full well that whatever has pissed them off really isn't bad enough to deserve killing in revenge/defense. With rapists, it is obvious that this must be similar. I doubt they are thinking that they better rape someone because society will think less of them if they don't.

Jesus would disagree with that viewpoint. Just thought I'd throw it out there v_v

I do not think that thinking about anything is bad (unless they can hear our thoughts now... ). Nor do I thin murder, rape, and the like are necessarily evil. In fact... I can see many a situation for murder where it is absolutely positive from my point of view (unlike rape, which although I don't see anything that it can be used for (outside of the rare occurrence).

I personally can only maintain being horny around people who are definitely either horny about me too, or at least where it's unknown yet. If I see any sign that they are repulsed by me, or even disinterested, my horniness about them vanishes. I am lucky that way, and I suspect most people are also. If I wasn't so lucky, then I would hope that I would be a good enough person to not actually carry it out, or even pester/harass them. There are many 'bad' desire thoughts people don't carry out in real life due to empathy because they would cause harm if actually done. I have to assume that for rapists, sex with someone who's not enjoying it is one of those.

I'm a proud pesterer, and manipulator. Anyway.... I wouldn't be so sure about these people not carrying it out... as perhaps the truth is simply that they haven't been subjected to a situation where they wouldn't do so. Yet.

It is indeed possible that all rapists share that characteristic... and I can't see anything to argue about it through my sleep and drug-addled brain. Do you know how difficult it is to stay awake after sleeping pills? ^_^

Even after coffee and my um, thought enhancement ciggy, I still don't know the words to make what I mean any clearer.

Perhaps you need more sleep, like me

I want to give you another huge apology on that one. That was a really shitty mistake for me to have made. I am also very against false accusations of such things, and the nasty stigma that can result. I thought you were actually brave enough to publically admit such a desire and not a vile person since you wouldn't actually do it in real life due to not wanting to hurt someone for real.

Don't apologize ^_^ I found it rather humorous! ^_^

In the same way, a rapist with a prisoner will very likely repeatedly rape them. I really don't think porn CAUSES the desire. It is merely yet another opportunity to get off on whatever desire the porn viewer has, including for those who like things that would be harmful in real life, such as rape.

Well why would they have made them a prisoner if not to do so? v_v I rather think such cases are in the minute minority, but i definitely would agree with you here in declaring said rapist 'vile' ^_^

I wasn't trying to imply porn causes, or even necessarily enhances the desire. More things used to be vandalized before video games were around. Now it is more a social thing that ever before... and it is fairly rare (for me anyway) to see vandalism done by a single person v_v

*Saerules falls asleep after setting her forum status to away once more*