An Advocate for Rape? or just exercising his right to Free Speech ? You decide

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
If a person decides to commit a crime, regardless of how they arrived at their decision, that individual person is the one responsible.

Unless you are drinking.

Bars have been under fire for something illegal that someone else does.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Many laws, perhaps. Not these ones though.

So you don't believe that there is evidence that these laws have caused damages to innocent individuals? Or that they have the propensity to do so?

You are literally just basing your opinion on your feelings.

"Rape laws are good because I say they are! To hell with any of the people who may have been falsely accused and had their lives ruined!"

But that would insist that you remained in a state of capacity for critical thinking. I should point out that at the moment, and quite rightly, the law does not insist that a person remain chemically neutral and unaugmented by chemical preparations like alcohol and mood modifiers of other sorts. Nor should it. It absolutely should punish those who take advantage of the addled, whether they happen to be born incapable of reason, or simply end up that way and the end of an evening.

How is it possible, that in one instance when a person is intoxicated they are not responsible for their actions, while in another instance they are?

As I said, I agree with you on principle, a human has the right to remain secure in their person. I simply disagree with the manner in which we go about trying to eradicate abhorrent behavior. We wind up committing immoral acts ourselves in the process, while defending systems that uphold irrational inconsistencies in beliefs.

A person who gets drunk and has sex "does not have the capacity to be making such decisions, and is, therefore, not responsible and was raped." While a person who gets drunk and decides to go for a drive is prosecuted "because they had the capacity to make the decision not to drive."

But, this reasoning is only applied to protect women. If a man and woman are both drunk, and have sex, the man is still a rapist.

Again, it is wrong to engage an inebriated person in intercourse,

No it's not. How presumptuous can you be to tell me that it is wrong for others to engage with me in intercourse if I'm inebriated?

I don't need your permission to have sex with sober people when I'm inebriated.

because they may be incapable of giving a reasonable answer to the suggestion of intercourse,

Honestly, I've never actually explicitly asked someone if they wanted to have sex, it usually just happens. You flirt and then one thing leads to another.

and if there is any question what so ever, it IS necessary that people not take advantage of that state of affairs, to get whatever they are after at that persons expense.

Like, if someone is passed-out and can't possibly give consent because they're not even conscious?

Duh.

That happens. It shouldn't. The factor that is wrong is not the drunkenness, but the immoral assault which happened afterward. That is the way to observe it. You CAN look at it another way, but only if you want to be completely wrong, about absolutely everything from that point forward.

I'm not arguing the immorality of doing a thing without a person's consent. You're fighting a strawman. I'm arguing our attitudes, our laws, and the peculiarities that arise from them.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
If a person decides to commit a crime, regardless of how they arrived at their decision, that individual person is the one responsible.

Unless you are drinking.

Bars have been under fire for something illegal that someone else does.

They certainly have, but that doesn't make the decision to prosecute them right and true.

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
If a person decides to commit a crime, regardless of how they arrived at their decision, that individual person is the one responsible.

Unless you are drinking.

Bars have been under fire for something illegal that someone else does.

They certainly have, but that doesn't make the decision to prosecute them right and true.

I gave no opinion on whether I thought it was a right thing to do.

Rape is Bad

a reply to: CharlestonChew

yep a video with a lot of blurb about campus statistics and some crazy state laws regarding what or what doesn't constitute consent.....
I fail to see the connection between your student themed video and a group of misogynistic neanderthals who wish to make the occurrence of violent sexual assault / rape solely the woman's responsibility.
Yes. False claims of rape are made.
Yes. Men can misread signals and make mistakes.
No still means no.
Decriminalisation of rape opens the door for sexual predators to " take their chances " and puts a lot of women at risk. Not just victims of date rape, but anyone who happens to be in a private residence with a man who decides he wants sex.
That is about as plain as I can state my opinion and the reason that in my mind Roose V is not a satirist at all but is on a par with any hate preacher you care to mention.
Posting a YouTube video is a major fail in challenging my views on this subject.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

You may not require my permission to allow sober people to get their thing on with you while you are drunk, but the issue is broader than that is it not?

The fact of the matter is this. There is a cadre of people out there, a non-networked collective of individuals who believe it is their right to do as they please with the bodies of unwilling participants in whatever perversion those individuals might get up to. Because they exist, there must be law to constrict the worst of them, so that the horrific damage they do to others can be curtailed, so that they do not ruin entire lives, damage people on a sexual level, and create victims out of otherwise happy and vibrant individuals.

It should be the desire of every person walking the world to see victims of sexual assault become a thing of the past, and the way to achieve that is not to change the law so that there is even less of a method of getting sexual predators off the streets. The way to achieve a reduction in the capacity of evil individuals to do evil things, is to make sure that offenders are identified as early as possible in the evolution of their predatory nature, and to make custodial sentencing so harsh that when a genuinely predatory individual is caught, they are kept out of society for as long as possible.

There are bad drivers out there. If there were not, there would be little need for drivers liscences and insurance, and airbags and abs breaking, or seat belts for that matter. And yet every car has belts these days, and every driver has to have papers identifying them to the vehicle, and to their record as a driver. The laws as they stand on matters pertaining to rape, stand as they do because there are people who do not understand the give way lines in the road toward sexual congress, and as long as those people remain a threat to the mental and physical health of innocent human beings, those laws must remain.

If, and only if, the particular strain of mental illness which results in predatory sexual behaviour is wiped from the world over time, will there ever be a point where abolishing the whole of the law on matters pertaining to rape, will ever be required, or beneficial to more people than it would aid in the destruction of.

a reply to: cosmickat

yep a video with a lot of blurb about campus statistics and some crazy state laws regarding what or what doesn't constitute consent.....
I fail to see the connection between your student themed video and a group of misogynistic neanderthalso who wish to make the occurrence of violent sexual assault / rape solely the woman's responsibility.

It all stems from the same place: critical theory.

What do you mean they want to make the issue of rape solely the responsibility of women?

I could easily walk into the private property of a gay man, so the same rule would apply to me.

It would also apply to men in the reverse of the scenario.

If you're referring to making yourself secure: the existence of a law doesn't make you any more safe than you would be without the law. A law, as I said previously, is a statement of "if you do X, Y will happen." It is remedial after the fact, after a crime has already taken place. So, even with a law, your security is your responsibility.

Psychos are going to be psychos regardless of what laws we create, or what laws we abolish, and no matter how much we "teach them not to be psychos."

Yes. False claims of rape are made.
Yes. Men can misread signals and make mistakes.

Wonderful. Then maybe we could see how our current system exacerbates these issues?

No still means no.

Has anyone claimed otherwise? No one has claimed that it's OK to rape, so you're making a strawman.

Decriminalisation of rape opens the door for sexual predators to " take their chances " and puts a lot of women at risk.

Why doesn't it put men at risk? Why just women?

And the existence of the law neither saves a person from being raped, nor does it compel rapists to stop raping.

Not just victims of date rape, but anyone who happens to be in a private residence with a man who decides he wants sex.

So gay men and women of various sexual orientations wouldn't also take advantage of the situation?

Just straight men?

That is about as plain as I can state my opinion and the reason that in my mind Roose V is not a satirist at all but is on a par with any hate preacher you care to mention.

Because you prefer emotion over reason?

Posting a YouTube video is a major fail in challenging my views on this subject.

Ah yes, the "Messenger" fallacy. Where if Y information is communicated via messenger X, Y must be false or invalid.

It's a clever attack against the means of information exchange, as opposed to a critique of the information itself.

Tell me, a reputable University uploaded a number of videos presenting information on Calculus I and Calculus II. Am I to assume that, because the information was posted on YouTube, that the Calculus information was wrong because of it?

Or should I assume that attacking the means of information exchange is another way of saying: "I will not entertain ideas that challenge my beliefs"?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

A woman has the right to say no at ANY time, before, or DURING intercourse. Ever been with a man you thought was nice, only to have him disregard your safety during sex? It's terrifying. Rape sympathisers shouldn't be tolerated.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

yes, I am talking about men raping women as opposed to male on male rape ( which by the way can be and is perpetrated by heterosexual men not just gay men ) simply because the OP concerns Roose V and his planned " Return of the Kings " events, which were only open to heterosexual males who wanted to get some of Roosh V 'so tactics on how to get sex with women.
Being as we are..some 5 or so pages into the thread I would have thought you'd have got the general gist of it.
Again on being emotional. ..am I ? what makes you say that.
You tube references...I don't usually mind, but on this topic, a lighthearted buzz about a crime such as rape is inappropriate. You may as well throw up a quick meme. ..same effect.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You may not require my permission to allow sober people to get their thing on with you while you are drunk, but the issue is broader than that is it not?

Of course. Which was my point: that it isn't as black and white as we make it out to be. It is extremely varied, and there are many avenues to explore to arrive at the truth of this matter.

The fact of the matter is this. There is a cadre of people out there, a non-networked collective of individuals who believe it is their right to do as they please with the bodies of unwilling participants in whatever perversion those individuals might get up to. Because they exist, there must be law to constrict the worst of them, so that the horrific damage they do to others can be curtailed, so that they do not ruin entire lives, damage people on a sexual level, and create victims out of otherwise happy and vibrant individuals.

And the whole of my argument was that the law does nothing to protect anyone anyway. Which, might I add, is a demonstrable fact.

The law simply grants power to a select few to act after an otherwise happy and vibrant individual is turned into a victim. This discussion is wonderful because it presents an opportunity for us to discuss these things, so that they may be brought into our awareness.

It should be the desire of every person walking the world to see victims of sexual assault become a thing of the past, and the way to achieve that is not to change the law so that there is even less of a method of getting sexual predators off the streets.

Much easier to do with guns, fyi, and costs the taxpayer less, too. Win-win in my opinion.

The way to achieve a reduction in the capacity of evil individuals to do evil things, is to make sure that offenders are identified as early as possible in the evolution of their predatory nature, and to make custodial sentencing so harsh that when a genuinely predatory individual is caught, they are kept out of society for as long as possible.

Harsh sentencing does nothing. In Saudi Arabia they behead people who are caught with marijuana. People watch the public executions, and then people are still caught with marijuana.

Puzzling.

There are bad drivers out there. If there were not, there would be little need for drivers liscences and insurance, and airbags and abs breaking, or seat belts for that matter. And yet every car has belts these days, and every driver has to have papers identifying them to the vehicle, and to their record as a driver.

We're comparing separate things now, apples and oranges and all that.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, licensing tests are laughably easy. They hardly teach you "safe driving." Car accidents are fairly common.

The whole point of licensing, is government granting you permission to use your own property (while simultaneously profiting off of you). Not to encourage, or instill, or enforce safe driving. That's what engineers and insurance companies do--something we can get without government.

The laws as they stand on matters pertaining to rape, stand as they do because there are people who do not understand the give way lines in the road toward sexual congress, and as long as those people remain a threat to the mental and physical health of innocent human beings, those laws must remain.

And, as I have stated, those laws stop nothing.

If, and only if, the particular strain of mental illness which results in predatory sexual behaviour is wiped from the world over time, will there ever be a point where abolishing the whole of the law on matters pertaining to rape, will ever be required, or beneficial to more people than it would aid in the destruction of.

It would require evidence to claim that, without the government's laws, innocents would be destroyed. I see it happening already, and I see the laws simply exacerbating the amount of human suffering, by granting a monopoly to a select few.

I was part of the so-called "Pick Up" community at one time. A sleezeball bachelor notorious for a whorish past and I don't regret one minute. I've done outlandish stuff with outlandish people in outlandish places.

But this guy...

Really? Rape? If you have to rape women, you're not doing it right. I wouldn't let this dude get within 100 feet of any woman I know.

P.S....rumor has it from some people in the 'community'...this guy is marked for aggression.

He'll see the light one day soon.

But you didn't hear that from me.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Rapists and serial sex pests are put away with regularity, and every night that they are off the street, they are not causing harm to an innocent individual.

Would you explain to me, how that does not defend people from harm?

If you can't get to a place, where if you CARE about true seduction, and you want to succeed, if you default to rape then that's natures way of saying you DO NOT belong in the gene-pool.

Rape is the ultimate "Beta" action. Even those that think about it, fantasize about it are damaged people. Rape is your way of saying to the world you belong in a cage and are the ultimate FAIL with women.

The last bite of a pathetic dog

a reply to: cosmickat

yes, I am talking about men raping women as opposed to male on male rape ( which by the way can be and is perpetrated by heterosexual men not just gay men )

Don't forget female on male rape, unlike us, you can actually get away with it even with the laws.

There's also female on female rape, but what's important is that we perpetuate the notion that men must be taught not to rape.

simply because the OP concerns Roose V and his planned " Return of the Kings " events, which were only open to heterosexual males who wanted to get some of Roosh V 'so tactics on how to get sex with women.

I thought it was about Roosh V's arguments for getting rid of rape laws.

Again on being emotional. ..am I ? what makes you say that.

Your arguments are obviously driven by emotion.

You tube references...I don't usually mind, but on this topic, a lighthearted buzz about a crime such as rape is inappropriate.

Ah yes, the lady made no good arguments. We can just divert attention away with an appeal to appropriateness (subjective, subjective, subjective, subjective).

You may as well throw up a quick meme. ..same effect

A meme can't point out a logical inconsistency?

Is this guy being sponsored by the authentic "Return of Kings" group/website. Or is that just the name they gave? I REALLY hope not the former.

What a scumbag.

Return of the kings? Aren't those the buffoons that were going to boycott star wars because Rey was the main character instead of a man?

These Pick up Artists and Men's rights Advocates are pathetic.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Rapists and serial sex pests are put away with regularity, and every night that they are off the street, they are not causing harm to an innocent individual.

Yes, and a well-armed individual is capable of even more.

Would you explain to me, how that does not defend people from harm?

Well, I suppose all those non-violent offenders who wind up in prison with them don't count.

Not to mention that our current system organizing society is obsessed with punishment that turns the criminal into a victim

Tell me, why do you or I or anyone else have the right to kidnap and cage someone else?

The most a person should be required to do, is to pay reparations to their victim's estate, with the intended goal being to restore the victim to their previous state before the crime took place. If, and only if, the victim requires restoration.

Restoration > punishment

Two wrongs don't make a right.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

You cannot offer reparation for a rape!

The sort of damage done to rape victims is not something you can correct with money, or even enough therapy to fix that Trump fellow. We are talking about the total collapse of a persons ability to accept the presence of other individuals in their personal space, sometimes for years at a time, denying them the ability to even receive a simple hug, something which in any other situation would be good for a person, taking on terrifying post traumatic stress related dimensions.

You either have no idea about the psychology involved, or are deliberately skirting the issue because you understand that to engage with the full, horrific reality of what rape is, and what it does to people, would invalidate your position entirely. There is no way you could make such an outrageous statement otherwise...reparations...laughable.