Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-07-2019, 03:16 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I'll agree that feeling entitled to sex and supporting rape are not the same thing, as the former thinks the other person should want to have sex with them, while the latter doesn't care what the other person wants.

However, the logical conclusion of the entitlement would inherently lead to rape. If said entitlement were enforced, then one person would get to have sex with the other, regardless of whether they consented. And that would be rape.

I actually think realizing this is a big way to show that said feelings of entitlement are wrong. You know rape is wrong, and, if that entitlement were to exist, you'd have to allow rape, which is wrong. Therefore, your entitlement is also wrong.
God, this won't make any sense at all.

What if nobody's lying about rape? What if rapists genuinely (conveniently) believe it's not rape without guns? And if the woman feels terrified to speak or resist, she ain't lying, either.

I keep thinking of those two Swedish students who came across Brock Turner, and how upset they are by it, years later. And how Turner tried to argue it was "outercourse." And how his dad described it as "20 minutes of action." And how his friend said it couldn't be rape because there was no van, no gun.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #52  
Old 12-07-2019, 03:35 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Do you find debating is easier for you when the other person isn't saying anything?
No, I find it easier when they're not spewing crap.
Quote:
None of them call for the legalization of rape or report on people calling for that. Which is the claim you were making back at the start of this debate.
Was I? Care to quote me saying that, rather than just addressing the man's attitude? "Rape should be legal" is a specific desired policy, not an attitude. The attitude is rapey incel entitlement.

Now stop attacking the person attacking the wannabe-rapist, and get back to attacking the wannabe-rapist. Or fuck off, whichever you prefer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Unfortunately, our last encounter proved to me that you are gleefully uncharitable in your interpretations of other peopleís posts. You positively enjoy interpreting other peopleís posts in the worst possible light. So thatís how Iíll be with you.
I'm as charitable as I believe my opponent deserves.

Known racist shitstains like you deserve no charity.

And there's "charitable", and then there's "just plain ignoring subsequent posts because I'm a RW arsehole simpleton who thinks he can score points off someone even though I'm very much mistaken as to my ability to debate without drooling on my keyboard"
Quote:
You said that the idea of legalising rape was ďtypicalĒ (I wonít accept your substitution of Ďnot unusualí because they arenít synonymous). Your blizzard of cites donít prove that.
You might want to look up all the dictionary definitions of "typical" before you go mouthing off on what it is and isn't.

And then reread what I actually said in my first post, which didn't mention anything about legalizing rape and only speaks to his attitude.

And I totally believe you read all my cites, anyway.
Quote:
the charge that you were talking about Indian men, specifically.
I love it when racists think they've caught a glimmer of hypocrisy in an anti-racist and pounce on it with all the ferocity and dexterity of a blind, deaf, three-legged, microcephalic, mangy kitten chasing a mouse.

You really fucking suck at it, and you look like shit while doing it, is what I'm saying.

I said outright who I was talking about. Trying to make this about me singling out Indian men is just laughable.

Ha.

There, see, I laughed.

Now fuck off back to Clown School, Bozo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
Feeling some amount of entitlement toward sex isn't the same as genuinely believing rape should be legal.
Characterising the attitudes in my cites as just "some amount of entitlement" is such a misguided reading that I have to believe you've not actually read them.

In which case (I think you know where this is going):

Fuck off!
Quote:
Well aren't you a ray of sunshine...
Not while dealing with Rape Culture apologists, I'm not.
  #53  
Old 12-07-2019, 04:33 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dibble
I'm as charitable as I believe my opponent deserves.
You quite clearly enjoy being uncharitable. Itís a pretty consistent subtext across nearly all your posts, and not just in the Pit. You fling accusations of bigotry and racism around with a kind of gleeful irreverence.

Face it, youíre a poster child for the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. So I strongly suspect your assessment of what your ďopponentĒ deserves is heavily influenced by your deep-seated need to be a fuckwad to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dibble
Known racist shitstains like you deserve no charity.
Hey, youíre the one who said the typical Indian man wants rape to be made legal, not me. No matter how hard you back-pedal from your initial post and try to move the goalposts so you donít have to admit you fucked up, that was what your original post actually said, in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dibble
And there's "charitable", and then there's "just plain ignoring subsequent posts...
I didnít ignore it. I noted that it didnít say what your original post said and that you were artlessly moving the goalposts and covering your tracks with a blizzard of irrelevant cites and gratuitous ďfuck yousĒ so you didnít have to admit that you said a very fucking racist thing in your initial post.

I then noted that, if our positions were reversed, you would mercilessly hold me to the wording of that initial post because to do otherwise would cost you an opportunity to be a cunt to someone on the internet, and youíd rather cut your own throat than do that.
  #54  
Old 12-07-2019, 05:41 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 43,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
What if nobody's lying about rape? What if rapists genuinely (conveniently) believe it's not rape without guns? And if the woman feels terrified to speak or resist, she ain't lying, either.
That was the argument of the defense in the Manada rape (and in so many others): "she didn't claw and kick and fight, therefore it wasn't rape."

I will let Javi Ruiz de Arcaute answer for me. Twits can be found complete here; translation of the extract mine.

"When I was 20 years old I was robbed... he didn't even show me a weapon... as I wasn't carrying enough, he had me take money from the ATM... nobody doubted that it was 'robbery with threats'... But when something much worse, a rape, takes place, we investigate the victim and everything they've done before or since."

If I do not file taxes because I did not realize I had to, whichever IRS-type agency is involved will still want their taxes, the fine and the interest. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse. And how the fuck does someone not know that someone frozen like a mannequin is very much NOT enjoying it, is beyond me. It speaks of a level of retardation that should be under legal tutelage of the courts for life.
__________________
Some people knew how to kill a conversation. Cura, on the other hand, could make it wish it had never been born.
  #55  
Old 12-07-2019, 06:38 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
You fling accusations of bigotry and racism around with a kind of gleeful irreverence.
Funny how it almost always is at actual fucking racists, like yourself.
Quote:
Hey, youíre the one who said the typical Indian man wants rape to be made legal, not me.
There's nothing racist in my initial post, and all your mindless flailing isn't going to put it there. But flail away, I have no fear anyone with half a brain actually buys the bullshit you're selling.
  #56  
Old 12-07-2019, 07:21 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Funny how it almost always is at actual fucking racists, like yourself.
As I said in our last encounter, no sane person familiar with your posting history takes accusations of racism from you seriously. Itís like being called a commie by Ron Paul or something. It means nothing. Iím sure you think the people you call racist are racist, but since the only evidence you can bring to the table to back up your accusations are posts which you deliberately and determinedly interpret in the worst possible light, it hardly makes the accusations fair. Especially since itís so obvious from the tone of your posts that you actively enjoy the unfairness of it all, as well as the inevitable slanging matches that follow. You get off on it.

Quote:
There's nothing racist in my initial post, and all your mindless flailing isn't going to put it there. But flail away, I have no fear anyone with half a brain actually buys the bullshit you're selling.
Isosleepy said only crazy people think rape should be legal, and that in India, with its large population, youíre inevitably going to have more crazies than you would in a country with a smaller population. Thatís fine. Thatís just basic math.

In response to that post and that post only you said this attitude was ďtypicalĒ.

Itís perfectly fair to read that post as saying a typical Indian man thinks rape should be legal. If you wanted to communicate something else then you did a really shitty job.

Now, I could, if I were so inclined, overlook this and assume the point you were making was more general. But that would involve being charitable. And since I know from our last encounter that youíd never in a million years extend that sort of charity to anyone else, Iím not going to extend it to you. You obnoxious, dishonest, partisan, race-baiting piece of shit.

So yeah. As far as Iím concerned, all youíve done in this thread is out yourself as a racist bigot who thinks Indian men want to legalise rape, and then further out yourself as a goalpost shifting liar when called on it. You think itís unfair? Tough shit. Iím only doing what you wouldíve done.

Feel free to have the last word, Reply Guy.
  #57  
Old 12-07-2019, 07:30 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
As I said in our last encounter, no sane person familiar with your posting history takes accusations of racism from you seriously.
They don't need to go on my say-so.

They can go on you calling people race traitors.


And still trying the hypocrite tactic, I see. Well, if there's one thing racists like you have going for yourselves, it's never letting go of a dumb idea. It's literally a foundational requirement.
  #58  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:29 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,921
It's funny in a psychotic way that these people seem to want community ownership of vaginia and female sexuality, to be open and free to anyone which is sort of a socialist/communist viewpoint those many of these people are hard right conservatives. Though I guess they would argue that only the 'real' men, those with power, would enjoy such access.
  #59  
Old 12-07-2019, 11:07 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
That was the argument of the defense in the Manada rape (and in so many others): "she didn't claw and kick and fight, therefore it wasn't rape."

I will let Javi Ruiz de Arcaute answer for me. Twits can be found complete here; translation of the extract mine.

"When I was 20 years old I was robbed... he didn't even show me a weapon... as I wasn't carrying enough, he had me take money from the ATM... nobody doubted that it was 'robbery with threats'... But when something much worse, a rape, takes place, we investigate the victim and everything they've done before or since."

If I do not file taxes because I did not realize I had to, whichever IRS-type agency is involved will still want their taxes, the fine and the interest. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse. And how the fuck does someone not know that someone frozen like a mannequin is very much NOT enjoying it, is beyond me. It speaks of a level of retardation that should be under legal tutelage of the courts for life.

My point, badly-made, was maybe that that realization would somehow indicate a better angle of attack. I had an encounter with a guy who really, really believed that he wasn't trying to commit sexual assault. Lying to himself created this wonderful fantasy world where he was a great husband and platoon sergeant who was constantly beset by lying seductive harpies. To protect that fantasy world I really think he would have----or might have since-----killed anyone who posed a threat.

I wonder how many predators like him are out there.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #60  
Old 12-07-2019, 11:28 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,497

It's not comparison


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
Feeling some amount of entitlement toward sex isn't the same as genuinely believing rape should be legal. Far more men are in the former category rather than the latter. The latter you hear more from anyone identifying as an 'incel', and even though, a lot of the times it comes up they aren't actually arguing in 'good' faith. It's part of their venting, which doesn't make it okay (before you freak out at me, too), but is NOT the same thing as promoting rape.

It's like comparing leering or sexualized comments to assault and rape. Neither are okay, but they do not equal each other.



Well aren't you a ray of sunshine...

Leering and sexual harassment and rape are proof of the same mindset and exhibit hatred toward women. Each of the smaller things makes it easier to get away with the more violent acts on the far right of the scale. So at the left you'd have sexist beliefs, then slurs, then insults lobbed at actual women, verbal attacks to womens' faces, then accidental-on-purpose-touching (that somehow the offender never accidentally does to men), and so on, all the way up to rape. People who jeer at sexual harassment are making it easier for rapists to rape and get away with it. Given what Lisak, etc., etc., found by interviewing actual rapists, when you tell a rape joke or say something sexist about a woman, if there's ten guys who hear or read either, at least one of them is an actual rapist.


I read something chilling from a woman.who spent thirty years working with victims of childhood sexual abuse. She said, "The child rapist makes the rape of adults easier" (for the rapist, because I know the righties here LOVE to nitpick and play dumb.)
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #61  
Old 12-07-2019, 12:39 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 43,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
My point, badly-made, was maybe that that realization would somehow indicate a better angle of attack. I had an encounter with a guy who really, really believed that he wasn't trying to commit sexual assault. Lying to himself created this wonderful fantasy world where he was a great husband and platoon sergeant who was constantly beset by lying seductive harpies. To protect that fantasy world I really think he would have----or might have since-----killed anyone who posed a threat.

I wonder how many predators like him are out there.
My grandfather rationalized that telling a prisoner to choose between opening up for him or for his five subordinates wasn't rape: after all, she'd chosen.

Was he sincere in his belief? Sure. As he was sincere in his belief that teaching his 5yo grandsons to masturbate in front of his pedophile friends (who would then owe him favors) was fine. After all, everybody enjoys masturbation, right?

BEING A SINCERE PIECE OF SHIT DOESN'T MAKE ANYBODY STINK LESS.
__________________
Some people knew how to kill a conversation. Cura, on the other hand, could make it wish it had never been born.
  #62  
Old 12-07-2019, 03:28 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
My grandfather rationalized that telling a prisoner to choose between opening up for him or for his five subordinates wasn't rape: after all, she'd chosen.

Was he sincere in his belief? Sure. As he was sincere in his belief that teaching his 5yo grandsons to masturbate in front of his pedophile friends (who would then owe him favors) was fine. After all, everybody enjoys masturbation, right?

BEING A SINCERE PIECE OF SHIT DOESN'T MAKE ANYBODY STINK LESS.
This. For example if such a "sincere" piece of shit ever had ever made such advances on say my sister, he'd be dead. He'd be - as they sang in the Wizard Of Oz, SINCERELY DEAD.
  #63  
Old 12-07-2019, 11:03 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Was I?
Yes, you were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Now stop attacking the person attacking the wannabe-rapist, and get back to attacking the wannabe-rapist. Or fuck off, whichever you prefer.
I can multi-task. I have no problem attacking what Daniel Shravan said while also pointing out that you're making a very poor argument.
  #64  
Old 12-08-2019, 12:27 AM
don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
It has been tried.



He got 40 years.
From the link:
Quote:
The case gained national attention in September when a Travis County grand jury declined to indict Valdez, sparking community protests from womenís groups and the victim, who denied that her request for a condom meant she consented to sex.
This was in "liberal" Austin, no less.

It was more than 25 years ago, so there's that.
  #65  
Old 12-08-2019, 12:34 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
My grandfather rationalized that telling a prisoner to choose between opening up for him or for his five subordinates wasn't rape: after all, she'd chosen.

Was he sincere in his belief? Sure. As he was sincere in his belief that teaching his 5yo grandsons to masturbate in front of his pedophile friends (who would then owe him favors) was fine. After all, everybody enjoys masturbation, right?

BEING A SINCERE PIECE OF SHIT DOESN'T MAKE ANYBODY STINK LESS.
Okay, you DO realize that A. this guy tried to attack ME; and B: if you face a guy like that, it might help you to escape him or interrogate him. Jesus fucking Christ.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #66  
Old 12-08-2019, 01:32 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, you were.
I notice you ignored the followup :
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Was I? Care to quote me saying that
... because of course you can't.

Fuck off.
  #67  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:38 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post

Fuck off.
No, U.
  #68  
Old 12-08-2019, 02:47 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 17,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgyn View Post
Sadly, Snopes reports that while it's been invented, it's never been marketed or available for purchase. Too damn bad, sez I. Rapists deserve this and worse.
And what is preventing me from making my own version =)
__________________
"Rammstein might not be the most sophisticated band there is, but who doesn't like the smell of napalm in the evening air"
  #69  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:54 AM
the_bing is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SE England, UK
Posts: 9
Just read the link in the OP...

How do these people walk among us?
I'd like to know how on earth he came to his viewpoint and - AND - is comfortable enough to express this view in public
At any rate, I suspect none of the females in his life have had to suffer such a fate...

(and if they have, that's just even more f**ked up...)
  #70  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:42 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58,651
However, aborting a pregnancy resulting from rape should be illegal, because "the baby didn't do anything wrong." Apparently tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life is not "wrong."
  #71  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:09 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
However, aborting a pregnancy resulting from rape should be illegal, because "the baby didn't do anything wrong." Apparently tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life is not "wrong."
I think the root of the argument to include rape/incest fetuses in anti-abortion proposals is that the wrongness of the situation (the relationship between the adults, from which the pregnancy was not universally desired) is less wrong than the wrongness of taking the life of a child because it is expedient to do so.

If killing an otherwise viable fetus is a bad thing sometimes, it should always be considered a bad thing. I find that argument to be refreshingly honest about its intentions, although I do not agree with it.
  #72  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:39 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
However, aborting a pregnancy resulting from rape should be illegal, because "the baby didn't do anything wrong." Apparently tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life is not "wrong."
I don't think the abortion issue plays the same role in Indian culture and politics that it plays here. I don't see any reason to believe that this guy is anti-abortion.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #73  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:53 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
And what is preventing me from making my own version =)
Aside from the fact that it would require the woman to be raped and considering that society hasn't changed enough at all, do you really think any woman would be believed? There's also the danger of an enraged, injured rapist----and his friends.

Here's a clear-cut case where a man attacked a woman and SHE got 20 years for firing a warning shot----in the state where George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood and claimed self defense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case

Although I'm sure our brave Repubs will try and nitpick it to death.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roosh_V

Another pro-rape dude.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Last edited by margin; 12-10-2019 at 10:56 AM.
  #74  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:33 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I notice you ignored the followup :

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Was I? Care to quote me saying that
... because of course you can't.
I was assuming you read your own posts and were aware of what you had written. Apparently not.

So here's the whole dialogue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You're incredibly naive if you think he's some crazy outlier, rather than exhibiting a fairly typical attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You think that feeling rape should be legalized is a fairly typical attitude? I certainly don't think that's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, the attitude that men are entitled to women's bodies. Expressing it as "rape should be legalised" is just a new take on a very old idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm seeing a pretty significant difference between the attitude that men are entitled to women's bodies and the attitude that rape should be legalized. And I don't think either attitude is as typical as you believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Are you fucking joking? Hell no, there's no real difference.
And as a bonus, here's a collection of you demonstrating your skills as a debater:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Now, kindly fuck off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
shut the fuck up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Fuck off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Now fuck off back to Clown School, Bozo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Fuck off!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Fuck off.
  #75  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:36 AM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Ö
Here's a clear-cut case where a man attacked a woman and SHE got 20 years for firing a warning shot----in the state where George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood and claimed self defense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case
...
She should have emptied the gun in his face and then invoked "Stand Your Ground".


Hopefully in the very near future, SOMEONE will. Because rapists don't just decide one day to stop.
  #76  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:25 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 18,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post

Here's a clear-cut case where a man attacked a woman and SHE got 20 years for firing a warning shot----in the state where George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood and claimed self defense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case
That one doesn't seem that clear cut. Or maybe it is just badly written.

The links says he threatened to kill her via text, not that he attacked her. It also says that she was in his house. It doesn't say when she got the texts. Then she went to her car to grab a gun and came back into his kitchen. That is not standing your ground.
She then fired 'a warning shot'.
Quote:
Alexander fired a "warning shot" towards Gray with his children nearby, which hit the wall near Gray at the height of his head, then deflected into the ceiling
Quote:
Corey has defended herself by saying that she believes Alexander fired the weapon out of anger and not fear, and that she endangered the lives of Gray's two children in the process. Corey said, "She discharged a gun to kill them."[21]
That doesn't seem as much of a warning shot as it does evidence that someone needs to spend some time at the firing range to work on her aim.

In any event, she did three years and is now out.

We will now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
__________________
"Just love everybody. I'll sort 'em out later"

-God
  #77  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:41 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
That one doesn't seem that clear cut. Or maybe it is just badly written.

The links says he threatened to kill her via text, not that he attacked her. It also says that she was in his house. It doesn't say when she got the texts. Then she went to her car to grab a gun and came back into his kitchen. That is not standing your ground.
She then fired 'a warning shot'.



That doesn't seem as much of a warning shot as it does evidence that someone needs to spend some time at the firing range to work on her aim.

In any event, she did three years and is now out.

We will now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
It's badly written. Other sources state she fired a warning shot into the ceiling. He had a history of violence towards her, and she had just given birth nine days earlier. In addition, she had both a restraining order and a license to carry. She is five feet two, while her husband weighs 245 lbs.

Jeez, I fucking hate my goddamned phone. It loads so slow you'd think it was fucking dial up.

And Jesus fucking Christ, it tells me I'm logged in when I'm about to post, then says, "Psych! No you're not!"
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #78  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:41 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
So here's the whole dialogue
Like I said - nowhere in that first post do I say anything about legalization, and only about attitude.

So: bullshit lies from you as to what "claim" I was making. Thanks for quoting it.
Quote:
you demonstrating your skills as a debater
This is you demonstrating your shitty skills at knowing what forum you're in (not that you're not also wrong about the facts)

So, I say again: Fuck Off.
  #79  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:51 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
This is you demonstrating your shitty skills at knowing what forum you're in (not that you're not also wrong about the facts)

So, I say again: Fuck Off.
I am aware this is the BBQ Pit. But I don't feel the need to swear at people in frustration. I'm capable of winning an argument and showing them to be fools, which is much better.

You may not understand that I won this round. But the evidence is there and everyone else can see it.
  #80  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:52 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roosh V
. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesnít want to sleep with.
So basically, these legalize rape proponents want women's lives to be circumscribed by their dependence on men.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #81  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:25 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I am aware this is the BBQ Pit.
Are you? because you seem to have it mixed up with GD.
Quote:
But I don't feel the need to swear at people in frustration.
I don't need to, nor am I frustrated.

I want to.
Quote:
I'm capable of winning an argument
I've seen exactly zero evidence of that here.
Quote:
You may not understand that I won this round.
You're confident, I'll give you that. Still idiotically wrong, but, you know, at least you were scrappy about it.
Quote:
But the evidence is there.
You mean the quote that doesn't remotely say what you said it does? That "evidence"? Suuuure it is, lil' buddy. Sure it is.

Sure, bud, "everyone else" believes you. It's not just such obvious fucknuts as Iso and UM. It's "everyone else". Uh-huh.

Fuck off.
  #82  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:57 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Fuck off.
I could throw in another “No, U” - but I am tired of descending to your intellectual level of discourse. So I guess in that sense, you win.
But the rest of us all lose. Telling those you interact with to fuck off all the time makes it hard to focus on, or even give much of a shit about, whatever the fuck point you are trying to make.
I guess it saves time: seeing the “fuck off” at the end of yet another post of yours makes it clear it cannot possibly be of any value, and saves us the effort of wading through whatever other tedious shit you decide to vomit up.

Last edited by Isosleepy; 12-10-2019 at 03:58 PM.
  #83  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:03 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Telling those you interact with to fuck off all the time
Not all the time. Only to tedious fucks. Pedants, racists and idiots.

Idiots like you, apparently.

You know the drill...
  #84  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:15 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,334
Could you assholes please knock off your hijack?
  #85  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:17 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,519
Aw yeah! WOOOOOT!

Daniel Shravanís mother says she is ashamed of her sonís comments, he should apologise to all women with folded hands

Way to go, Mrs. Sharan!
  #86  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:24 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,519
I'm good at spelling names.
  #87  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:30 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
Key excerpt:

Quote:
It is notable here that after his comments created a massive controversy and social media users started demanding action on Shravan, he had deleted the comments and had shared a statement that the statements were not his opinion but rather a villainís dialogues from one of his upcoming projects.
Riiiiiiiiight
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #88  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:56 PM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
You can practically hear her yelling at him from the top of the basement stairs to get off the computer already.
  #89  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:17 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,806
Quote:
It is notable here that after his comments created a massive controversy and social media users started demanding action on Shravan, he had deleted the comments and had shared a statement that the statements were not his opinion but rather a villainís dialogues from one of his upcoming projects.
If you had told me a year ago that the stupidest excuse I would hear in 2019 would come from somebody other than Donald Trump, I wouldn't have believed you. But here we are.
  #90  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:00 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,738
And I wonder exactly when Shravan began his "upcoming project". (Actually, I don't wonder even a teeny weeny itsy bit at all.)
  #91  
Old 12-11-2019, 12:38 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 53,049
The classic: "it wasn't ME saying that, it was for a movie/play/book I was writing!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Aside from the fact that it would require the woman to be raped and considering that society hasn't changed enough at all, do you really think any woman would be believed? There's also the danger of an enraged, injured rapist----and his friends.

Here's a clear-cut case where a man attacked a woman and SHE got 20 years for firing a warning shot----in the state where George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood and claimed self defense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case

Although I'm sure our brave Repubs will try and nitpick it to death.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roosh_V

Another pro-rape dude.
I imagine you could also injure yourself with something like that, if you're not careful. That's what I would be concerned with the most.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 12-11-2019 at 12:40 AM.
  #92  
Old 12-11-2019, 12:42 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I am aware this is the BBQ Pit. But I don't feel the need to swear at people in frustration. I'm capable of winning an argument and showing them to be fools, which is much better.

You may not understand that I won this round. But the evidence is there and everyone else can see it.
Not for me. Your argument comes off as needless nitpicking of the guy who is angry about rape and the attitudes around it. He's ultimately right--those who believe in sexual entitlement ultimately support rape, whether that is intentional or not. Both are about removing consent--saying someone shoild be required to consent is effectively removing consent. And sex without full, enthusiatic consent is rape. (See my previous post for the full argument.)

He's also right that sexual entitlement and approving of rape are common, because rape and incels are common. Common doesn't mean majority.
__________________
sig for testing purposes only
  #93  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:57 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Not for me. Your argument comes off as needless nitpicking of the guy who is angry about rape and the attitudes around it. He's ultimately right--those who believe in sexual entitlement ultimately support rape, whether that is intentional or not. Both are about removing consent--saying someone shoild be required to consent is effectively removing consent. And sex without full, enthusiatic consent is rape. (See my previous post for the full argument.)

He's also right that sexual entitlement and approving of rape are common, because rape and incels are common. Common doesn't mean majority.
I still disagree (although I appreciate being able to discuss the issue without being repeatedly sworn at). I feel that both ideas are wrong - but I see them as distinct.

Incels and other people who believe in sexual entitlement have the mistaken idea that women are obligated to have sex in certain situations. For example, if they go on a date with a man who spends money on the date or if they dress in a manner that a man finds revealing or if they engage in flirtation. This is wrong; a woman (or a man for that matter) has the right to behave any way they want without feeling obligated to agree to sex as a consequence.

But in the end, these sexual entitlement people still recognize some limited form of consent. They feel a woman still has the right to refuse to have sex. They just feel that the woman must exercise that right by not entering into situations which create the entitlement. Their belief system can be summed up as "She shouldn't lead me on if she's not going to follow through with it."

Rape advocates like Daniel Shravan go far past this. They feel that a man has a right to have sex with any woman he wants without the woman having any say in the matter. They see women as having no agency at all. Their belief system can be summed up as "It doesn't matter whether she leads me on or not. I'll have sex whenever I want it."

Both belief systems are bad. But I think it's clear the latter is substantially worse.
  #94  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:25 AM
epbrown01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But in the end, these sexual entitlement people still recognize some limited form of consent. They feel a woman still has the right to refuse to have sex. They just feel that the woman must exercise that right by not entering into situations which create the entitlement. Their belief system can be summed up as "She shouldn't lead me on if she's not going to follow through with it."
The flaw in this argument lies in what this group thinks constitutes "leading me on." I think you'll find the definition distressingly broad.
  #95  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
They feel a woman still has the right to refuse to have sex
You clearly haven't heard what incels really think, then. There was lots of rape advocacy in their (now mercifully deleted) subreddits, /r/incels/ and /r/braincels/.

They, themselves, see no difference between "entitled to sex" and "entitled to rape".

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-11-2019 at 07:53 AM.
  #96  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:20 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,680
Incels believe that women exercise their sexual choices unjustly and irrationally. They want to eliminate men’s ability to withhold their consent based on their own preferences. They believe that women that meet their personal preferences owe them sex. There’s little difference between that and belief in entitlement to rape.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 12-11-2019 at 08:21 AM.
  #97  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:40 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
They want to eliminate men’s ability to withhold their consent based on their own preferences.
I think you mean "women's ability" there, no?

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-11-2019 at 08:40 AM.
  #98  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:41 AM
JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
They feel a woman still has the right to refuse to have sex. They just feel that the woman must exercise that right by not entering into situations which create the entitlement. Their belief system can be summed up as "She shouldn't lead me on if she's not going to follow through with it."

Rape advocates like Daniel Shravan go far past this. They feel that a man has a right to have sex with any woman he wants without the woman having any say in the matter. They see women as having no agency at all. Their belief system can be summed up as "It doesn't matter whether she leads me on or not. I'll have sex whenever I want it."
Problem is that the step from one to the other is too easy in practice. If the valid refusal needs to happens before the "situation" arises, then what makes you have to listen for it after you're in the situation.

The position Shravan expresses (and he's just a current face to it) is especially offensive due to its assumption of the inevitability of rape, as some sort of incidental hazard like carpal tunnel syndrome or sunburn or chipping a tooth on an ice cube.

And oh, yeah: "it's the voice of my character" COME ON!!!
  #99  
Old 12-11-2019, 09:15 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I think you mean "women's ability" there, no?
Yea, I meant "women."
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017