0
   

Rape: What is it?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:12 pm
Quote:
You are probably unaware of this (using the noun "scholarship" when what was wanted was a adjective--in this case, i'd suggest "scholarly"--suggests this to me) that you are quoting an abstract, and not the paper itself. An abstract will not tell you the extent to which the author considers that the legal profession and legal scholars have examined the issue of consent, nor in what contexts and with what conclusions
I am aware and I don't care what the author says in the paper, the point is that an abstract can be written in 1997 with the words that this area has been examined very little. Abstracts are reviewed and seen by so many experts that a bold faced lie will never make it into one. The words in the abstract support the point that I said that they do.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:16 pm
Rockhead wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Quote:
If the one who is violated is in enough fear that they can't fight for themselves then they need to be in front of a professional


What?

Seriously. What?



Let's come back to this one, Louie....

Defend this or walk, fool.


Tick tick tick...


Once more ...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:17 pm
Quote:
You certainly do love melodrama and love to cast yourself as the heroic and righteous crusader for the righting of social wrongs, don't you? What evidence do you have that there are any "masses" prepared to agree with your point of view? You certainly can't prove it by the response in this thread, or in any other thread in which you have attempted to ride your rape hobby horse. In fact, were there truly masses who believed that there has consistently been an injustice perpetrated such as you allege, you wouldn't need a revolution to accomplish an appropriate change in the law--politicians would fall all over themselves to kiss your @ss and sponsor appropriate legislation. Had any calls from the statehouse lately? No? Why am i not surprised . . .
how many people agree with me right now (or ever) has no bearing on the validity of my point. You made a claim, I showed you why it was wrong based upon the theory of revolution, how successful the efforts are at revolting against the abuse of mens rights by rape law is a specific struggle that has no relevance to the point.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:18 pm
Happy 4th of July, Battery boy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYENO6r5vVo

Cool

(night is young)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:22 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
No, my links do not only show that sometime perps do not understand consent, they also show the professionals have a poor understanding of consent, as I said when I originally linked to them. This was refuted by you when you used the word "only", you said that my lionks did not say what I said that they did. This is a false statement. I agree that perps aften fail to undertand consent but so what? Nobody understands consent, experts, perps, you, me.....


It is a true statement. Your quotation of an abstract does not show that "professionals" (pretty vague term there, Bubba, professional what? Professional exotic dancers? Professional cow chip throwers?) have a poor understanding of consent, whether you say it did or not. The abstract only states that feminist researchers and activists may have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the subject of sexual consent. You'd actually have to read the paper to know whether or not the author contends that legal professionals and legal scholars have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the concept of sexual consent--but, you've already said that you don't care what the paper has to say, so i guess you'll never find out. And, as i have pointed out, without reading the paper, it is impossible to determine if the author has an agenda related to feminist polemics. It seems that you have poor reading comprehension skills.

Just because you're willing to say that no one understands consent doesn't make it so. But that is the burden of your "proof" of anything on this topic, bald assertions that your opinions are fact.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:30 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
how many people agree with me right now (or ever) has no bearing on the validity of my point.


When you state that you advocate a revolt by the masses, how many people agree with you is very much to the point.

Quote:
You made a claim, I showed you why it was wrong based upon the theory of revolution, how successful the efforts are at revolting against the abuse of mens rights by rape law is a specific struggle that has no relevance to the point.


No, you did not demonstrate that i was wrong. I stated that a reference to dictatorship when the matter i had raised was the legal system is a failed attempt at analogy, because the two are not analogous. You completely failed to adequate address the charge the your attempt at analogy fails because a legal system and a dictatorship are not analogous.

Furthermore, the point of your drivel in this thread and others is to attempt to prove that men's rights are abused by rape law. To now assert it as though it were fact is the most basic and dull-witted of logical fallacies. It is called begging the question.

Just more two-bit melodrama on your part--we've seen a lot of it from you.

************************************************

When i was in the army, i twice found people in possession of personal items of mine which i had missed. On both occasions, the sneak thief attempted to offer in mitigation the excuse: "I didn't know it was yours, man." To which i replied on both occasions: "You knew it wasn't yours!"

If there is ever any doubt about consent, than no decent individual would proceed to attempt sexual congress. If you don't know that you have the explicit, informed consent of an adult, don't do it--it's that simple.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:30 pm
wondering how many a2k members are avoiding even reading a2k recently because of the child porn/rape threads.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:31 pm
Hackoff, here is one more for you and your pathetic buddy

Hell is for children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKASV2Effoo

I'm not done...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:35 pm
Setanta wrote:
The abstract only states that feminist researchers and activists may have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the subject of sexual consent.


You got that from "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept despite its importance to feminist researchers and activists interested in sexual violence."??? It does not say that feminist researchers and activists have understudied and undertheorized, is says that everyone has. The words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept " were never qualified to a specific sub population as you claim that they were. MAY...where the hell did you get that?? Made it up did you?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:38 pm
Methinks thou doth protest too much, Uncle Pervy...

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:39 pm
dyslexia wrote:
wondering how many a2k members are avoiding even reading a2k recently because of the child porn/rape threads.


are you feeling responsible for what other people do?? You might want to see someone about that. I did not know that a2kers do not know about not clicking on threads so that they don't need to read them....maybe an educational program is in order.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:40 pm
I'm still here Jagoff Junior...

Cool
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:44 pm
Hello...

A little more music maybe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUphbx-Tu0

Cool

Night is young, sicko...
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:47 pm
Laughing
Oh my god.
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:51 pm
Hey Wolfie, here is my rendition of Hackoff...

Super Helmet Head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JUDStCVzI&feature=related

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:54 pm
I can't title this one, but it is appropo nonetheless

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98D3_JW4Hzo&feature=related

Hack, where'd ya go, this IS yer thred and all...

Cool
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 07:59 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The abstract only states that feminist researchers and activists may have "understudied" and "undertheorized" the subject of sexual consent.


You got that from "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept despite its importance to feminist researchers and activists interested in sexual violence."??? It does not say that feminist researchers and activists have understudied and undertheorized, is says that everyone has. The words "Sexual consent is an understudied and undertheorized concept " were never qualified to a specific sub population as you claim that they were. MAY...where the hell did you get that?? Made it up did you?


Your reading comprehension skills are for ****, and so is your understanding of what constitutes reliable evidence. People write abstracts to describe what they intend to study, and unless they are playing rhetorical games, they are not describing the conclusions which they intend to reach. Therefore, the subject may have been "understudied" and "undertheorized" by feminist researchers and activists. You can't know unless you read the paper, and make an informed decision about the quality of the evidence the author presents. You've got nothing in this quote of an abstract.

Furthermore, it nowhere says that "everyone has." You are the one who is saying that, and you're attempting to twist this one sentence from an abstract to say as much--and you're doing your typically piss-poor job of it, too. This abstract is for an article published in a new journal, "Feminism and Psychology." The author's entire point is to discuss this topic in the context of what she describes herself as "feminist researchers and activists." The abstract does not comment on the author's opinion on the perspicacity of the study of this topic by legal scholars, and makes no reference to whether or not the legal system is confused or dysfunctional about the subject of consent, which is my statement that you were attempting to, and failing to refute.

Finally, without reading the article, there is no way to determine if the author has a valid basis for her claim that the subject is "understudied" and "undertheorized," and whether or not she would apply that judgment to legal scholars, or to "everyone else"--she has only referred in the abstract to feminist researchers and activists with regard to that allegation.

You're not very good at this at all.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 08:04 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
That's a rather odd position; it's clear that the law does not follow it in other circumstances. A person, for instance, can steal money from a bank just as much through embezzlement as through armed robbery. Are you saying that you would require an element of physical force to be present in all crimes, or just in the case of rape? And if you would require it just for rape, how do you justify that exception?
it is very common to have rigid lines of demarcation between various levels of transgressions. The having a gun during a crime or not, the use of force, the level of premeditation. The using of force/no force to distinguish between criminal sexual transgression/relationship dysfunction is perfectly in keeping with tradition.

Quote:
I'm not sure how you can square that with your statement that an unconscious person can be raped. Surely you're not suggesting that an unconscious person must put up a struggle before the law can charge her attacker with rape, are you? And if you're not, then aren't you contradicting yourself? Or is there an exception for unconscious people in your requirement for the victim to resist?

if a person in unconscious then they are not consciously at the event. likewise if a person is asleep and there is no prearrangement for sex then when the sex started the sleeping person was not consciously at the event. both rape and what I would qualify as a lower level possible transgression assume that we are dealing with an encounter between two or more people.

Quote:
You also state that you want to redefine "rape." What definition do you propose?
rape: an encounter between two or more people where one or more are penetrated by force. The force requirement is met after the one violated physically demonstrates lack of consent, and the resistance is overcome by physical force.

Lessor level sexual transgression and/or relationship dysfunction: An event where one or more of the persons involved feel that they have been sexually violated, but where the requirements for rape have not been met. These events are not criminally punished, but the individuals can be required to seek counseling with relationship professionals. Those who refuse to do so after being ordered will be subject to criminal justice.



Please let me get this clear.



Are you seriously advocating that if a man has sex with a woman who is unconscious that he has not raped her?


No spiels...no vague references to heart...just a yes or no.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 08:04 pm
This one is much closer to the bone...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uLS5SlfZg&feature=related

Shocked
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 08:41 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2lZsmrFT4g&feature=related
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rape: What is it?
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 08:37:23