It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: beansidhe


violence ˈvʌɪəl(ə)ns/ noun noun: violence 1. behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.


Exactly!

Hurt, damage, kill. Those are measurable in regards to the body.

Your claim was that the physical violation of another's body is the very definition of violence. Then you post a definition that includes physical force, i.e., the key to determining violent acts.

According to your first claim, my grandmother pinching my cheeks against my will is an act of violence. According to that definition, my Grandmother's actions required no physical force on her part, so the action itself isn't violent.


Oh please. Claiming that a man is too aroused and can't help himself is possibly the lowest argument you could have used.


What on Earth are you talking about? I was highlighting a specific instance of rape. I said nothing regarding the man's intentions in that scenario. Please point to the spot where I said that "a man is too aroused and can't help himself" is an acceptable defense of rape?

If that is what you took away from what I said: read slower.

The point was that there are varying degrees of severity in rape cases. How you took my argument to mean that "a man can't help it" is beyond me.


If I tell him to stop and he doesn't, is he doing me harm or good?


He isn't doing you physical harm, emotional harm perhaps, but not physical.

You have completely sidestepped my argument:


Say for instance, you have a boyfriend. You go to a party. You meet a guy you like, your flirting, before you know it--you're both naked and shagging.

He's inside you, your in the missionary position. You've been at it for some time now. You start feeling guilty, you decide to you can't go on with it and tell him to stop. He doesn't, and 10 seconds later he reaches climax.

IF the above scenario is rape because the man continued after you took away your consent, then this case of rape is logically less severe than others. Is it still rape? Yes. Is it violent? No.

You cannot compare the above scenario to a girl whose father forced her to have sex with him for years. Or to a woman who was violently gang-raped by strangers who broke into her home. By doing so, you are taking away from the severity of the extreme cases, by grouping a less extreme scenario in with them and declaring them all to be the same.

Three different cases of rape. Three dynamically different situations. Three varying degrees of the same crime.


How can you take the above three instances of rape and declare "they are all the same degree of severity"?

You said:

There is no such thing as 'degrees of rape'.


Which means that the above three scenarios are exactly the same in terms of severity.

They're not.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


Let me explain to you how this works. Rapists are pathetic little worms who are unable to stand toe to toe with a mature man. They either hate men, or are trying to exert power over men. They are too inadequate to do so, in a normal way. So although they might not beat them up, or injure them in other ways, such as with their fists, they are using their gargantuan, vaginal cavities as weapons. I suppose it makes them feel powerful, because their bodies are naturally weaker than a man's and it makes them feel inferior, so they need to feel powerful. They can force him down with weapons while they inflict their pathetic form of violence. The gaping, vaginal cavities becomes the instrument of violence used to smother the unwilling.


Hm. I've never considered this aspect of it.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew



You have completely sidestepped my argument:


Can you blame her? You are locked in a box of your own choosing, and you are very much mistaken. Your arguments don't hold water. Sorry. It's kinda sad when someone feels they must define the word "violence" for you. But I can see what the prompts were.
Something's not right.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew



Hm. I've never considered this aspect of it.








posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Reminds me of this guy a little.

edit on 5-2-2016 by starfoxxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


Can you blame her?


Yes, I can blame her, figuring that her emotional state is no just excuse for poor debate tactics, intentional or not.

My claims that:

1. Not all rapes are violence
2. That there are degrees in the severity of rape cases
3. Truth is discovered as opposed to invented
4. Advocacy for crime is free speech
5. Rape laws should be abolished (along with all laws)

Are all separate arguments, and just because one or some combination of them may emotionally upset her, is no good reason for side-stepping someone's argument with strawmen, red herrings, and character attacks.


You are locked in a box of your own choosing, and you are very much mistaken.


That's a wonderful statement about me, but gives nothing of substance to anything I've said.


Your arguments don't hold water.


Well, no, they're words.

But, you mean my arguments are invalid. That remains to be seen.


Sorry. It's kinda sad when someone feels they must define the word "violence" for you. But I can see what the prompts were.


Her initial definition of violence was pretty bad.


Something's not right.


How alarming.
edit on 5-2-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


Can you blame her?


Yes, I can blame her, figuring that her emotional state is no just excuse for poor debate tactics, intentional or not.

My claims that:

1. Not all rapes are violence
2. That there are degrees in the severity of rape cases
3. Truth is discovered as opposed to invented
4. Advocacy for crime is free speech
5. Rape laws should be abolished (along with all laws)

Are all separate arguments, and just because one or some combination of them may emotionally upset her, is no good reason for side-stepping someone's argument with strawmen, red herrings, and character attacks.


You are locked in a box of your own choosing, and you are very much mistaken.


That's a wonderful statement about me, but gives nothing of substance to anything I've said.


Your arguments don't hold water.


Well, no, they're words.

But, you mean my arguments are invalid. That remains to be seen.


Sorry. It's kinda sad when someone feels they must define the word "violence" for you. But I can see what the prompts were.


Her initial definition of violence was pretty bad.


Something's not right.


How alarming.


1. Not all rapes are violence
Yes they are, just some also involve additional violence.

2. That there are degrees in the severity of rape cases
Yes with the important word being case.

3. Truth is discovered as opposed to invented
Not sure how that is relevant to the topic?

4. Advocacy for crime is free speech
Not under any reasonable definition of Free Speech.

5. Rape laws should be abolished (along with all laws)
Very much doubt you would actually like that as much as you think you would.

edit on 5-2-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


Let me explain to you how this works. Rapists are pathetic little worms who are unable to stand toe to toe with a mature man. They either hate men, or are trying to exert power over men. They are too inadequate to do so, in a normal way. So although they might not beat them up, or injure them in other ways, such as with their fists, they are using their gargantuan, vaginal cavities as weapons. I suppose it makes them feel powerful, because their bodies are naturally weaker than a man's and it makes them feel inferior, so they need to feel powerful. They can force him down with weapons while they inflict their pathetic form of violence. The gaping, vaginal cavities becomes the instrument of violence used to smother the unwilling.


Hm. I've never considered this aspect of it.



Lady didn't say that:




Let me explain to you how this works. Rapists are pathetic little worms who are unable to stand toe to toe with a mature man. They either hate men, or are trying to exert power over men. They are too inadequate to do so, in a normal way. So although they might not beat them up, or injure them in other ways, such as with their fists, they are using their gargantuan, vaginal cavities as weapons. I suppose it makes them feel powerful, because their bodies are naturally weaker than a man's and it makes them feel inferior, so they need to feel powerful. They can force him down with weapons while they inflict their pathetic form of violence. The gaping, vaginal cavities becomes the instrument of violence used to smother the unwilling.


Lady said this:




Let me explain to you how this works. Rapists are pathetic little worms who are unable to stand toe to toe with a mature women. They either hate them, or are trying to exert power over them. They are too inadequate to do so, in a normal way. So although they might not beat them up, or injure them in other ways, such as with their fists, they are using their tiny little tallywhacker as a weapon. I suppose it makes them feel powerful, because their arms are stronger than a woman and they can hold her down while they inflict their pathetic form of violence. The little penis becomes the instrument of violence.


But you've shown us your mature, rational debating skills, so well done. If it makes you feel better about yourself to call me over emotional, fill yer boots.
You clearly aren't able to discuss this sensibly, so don't expect anyone else to bother trying.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


Rape is ALWAYS an act of violence.


And we have determined this isn't true.



As it has been pointed out to you by other posters


And it has been pointed out that they were in error.


just because there are no visible external indications of a beating, or harm, does not in any way negate the fact that it's a violent act.


Nobody made any claims regarding physical indications of harms.



I don't know how you've managed to convince yourself otherwise.


Logic.


You have blundered in your thought processes, and definitions, apparently stuck on your own definition of the word "violent", and applying it to these events, in a way that is clearly NOT fitting.


And there are, logically, some instances where violence isn't a factor of rape.


Let me explain to you how this works. Rapists are pathetic little worms who are unable to stand toe to toe with a mature women. They either hate them, or are trying to exert power over them. They are too inadequate to do so, in a normal way. So although they might not beat them up, or injure them in other ways, such as with their fists, they are using their tiny little tallywhacker as a weapon. I suppose it makes them feel powerful, because their arms are stronger than a woman and they can hold her down while they inflict their pathetic form of violence. The little penis becomes the instrument of violence.


This whole paragraph is skewed for a number of reasons.

1. It is implies that only men are rapists, which is a completely absurd notion.

2. It implies that you know the exact motivations of all individual rapists (an impressive feat might I add).

The motivations for rape are as varied as any other aspect of human behavior. It could be dominance that motivates. It could be hedonism that motivates. It could be any number of factors that motivate.


Some women have been taught not to fight, in order to avoid other injury, so they lie quietly and still as a strategy to survive the assault. This does not mean it is not a violent act. If she is drugged and unconscious, it is still a violent act,


The question of: is rape an intrinsically violent act, is completely debatable. I have already provided a scenario when it wouldn't be a violent act.


and the rapist is aware of that. It is a part of the intended consequence of the assault. The motive is to injure, to humiliate, to control, to gain a momentary sense of power, as the rapist sees himself as powerless to stand toe to toe with a mature woman. To seduce her, to gain her willingness. That's not what he's after.


And you are, again, implying that you know the motivations of all individual rapists. In the scenario I provided, the rapist in question had already seduced his partner.


As I have stated, the penis itself is viewed by the perpetrator as "a weapon" (how pathetic is that), and each thrust offers the beating and violence you are so looking for. It's like beating someone up with your penis. There are sometimes internal bruises and tears, as occurs when sex is unwanted. Women are not sexually aroused or responsive during these vile acts. These are the lowest terms in which I can reduce my explanation for you.


And you are only considering the extreme severe end of what constitutes rape.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: beansidhe


But you've shown us your mature, rational debating skills, so well done. If it makes you feel better about yourself to call me over emotional, fill yer boots.
You clearly aren't able to discuss this sensibly, so don't expect anyone else to bother trying.


So I change the nouns around to highlight certain abusrd implications in her argument, and I am the childish one? Lol.

I literally just switched it from the rapists being men to the rapists being women, and used a less-than-flattering phrase to the describe the vagina, in the exact same manner she did with male members.

I literally just mirrored what she said, but I'm the "childish" one.

I see.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Go back a few pages and read the other posts.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Think you need to improve your game. I never personally attacked you. I associated your argument with being one of Roosh V's fan boys, as you are continually extolling his "logical reasoning " ..then my association makes sense. What you are spouting comes straight off of his forum..or maybe his books.

You are so overwhelmed with your own verbosity ( still not an attack but an observation ) that it takes you almost a whole page to attempt to make some kind of point, be it rape is not rape if she is drunk, non violent rape, abolition of rape laws, feminists are trying to stitch blokes up, no such thing as a rape culture etc etc ad nauseum.

Perhaps you are just way too clever for the rest of the members posting here ? I apologise if my debate skills fall short of your standards.
You have not answered any points I put you almost 4 pages back. But it doesn't matter now.

Lastly taking a member's quote and editing it....really? Juvenile

If you really think you have a handle on this topic, why not start your own thread about consent / non violent rape / and the abolition of rape laws ? I am sure that you could do it better than an emotional feminist, with your logic and debate skills.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: ScepticScot

Go back a few pages and read the other posts.


a willing 30 year old female teacher has sex with a more then willing maybe asking for it 16 year old male..

its consider 'rape' but by no means is it.. the females also usually receive no jail time.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: ScepticScot

Go back a few pages and read the other posts.


a willing 30 year old female teacher has sex with a more then willing maybe asking for it 16 year old male..

its consider 'rape' but by no means is it.. the females also usually receive no jail time.


Exactly.

If a 16-year-old girl has sex, willingly, with a 35-year-old male, it is defined as rape. It is the perfect example of non-violent rape.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cosmickat


Think you need to improve your game. I never personally attacked you. I associated your argument with being one of Roosh V's fan boys, as you are continually extolling his "logical reasoning " ..then my association makes sense. What you are spouting comes straight off of his forum..or maybe his books.


But that's my point. Everyone here dislikes Roosh V. So you are associating him with me, to make it so that any argument I make is "poisoned" from there on out.

I have already stated that some of Roosh V's arguments can be true, and some can be false, and I can defend the true ones without being a "fanboy."

Just like some feminists arguments are true, and some are false, and I can defend the true ones without being a sjw, or a feminist, or a "cuck."

And why would I do such a thing? Because truth is more important than associations.


You are so overwhelmed with your own verbosity ( still not an attack but an observation ) that it takes you almost a whole page to attempt to make some kind of point, be it rape is not rape if she is drunk, non violent rape, abolition of rape laws, feminists are trying to stitch blokes up, no such thing as a rape culture etc etc ad nauseum.


But what argument have I made that is flawed?


Perhaps you are just way too clever for the rest of the members posting here ? I apologise if my debate skills fall short of your standards.





You have not answered any points I put you almost 4 pages back. But it doesn't matter now.


I will find them and answer them, it is difficult to keep track of multiple arguments.


Lastly taking a member's quote and editing it....really? Juvenile


Using the law of identity is juvenile?


If you really think you have a handle on this topic, why not start your own thread about consent / non violent rape / and the abolition of rape laws ? I am sure that you could do it better than an emotional feminist, with your logic and debate skills.


Most likely, yes.
edit on 5-2-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Not in this country.
Not in other countries.
Probably in your country.

Fail
Rape is an act of violence. Quit the pedantic nonsense, you will be getting emotional next



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew



But what argument have I made that is flawed?


Sigh. What argument have you made that is not?

~Oh, so you'll know-= 'Statutory rape' is called 'statutory' because it involves one's legal 'statue'. You are in a different area with that one, and it has no bearing on your argument. So, next?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Not in this country.
Not in other countries.
Probably in your country.

Fail
Rape is an act of violence. Quit the pedantic nonsense, you will be getting emotional next


I'm starting to think we've got a troll. Nobody can be this dense?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Is the Toronto Newsgirls boxing club intimidating outside of the boxing ring? You betcha.

After Return of Kings, an anti-feminist website whose founder wrote that raping women in private should be legalized and considered "learning experiences," was planning a meet-up, the Newsgirls wanted to meet them, too.

"The photos of us will show women that being powerful is an option," Newsgirls founder Savoy Howe told Toronto Metro News. "And I think that's what needs to happen against this douche bag."

Daryush Valizadeh, the Return of Kings founder who calls himself "Roosh V," has since decided to cancel the meet-ups because, in his words, "I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6."


espn.go.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Not in this country.
Not in other countries.
Probably in your country.

Fail
Rape is an act of violence. Quit the pedantic nonsense, you will be getting emotional next





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join