Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberalism and Rape Culture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    'Ran with it' - it is a clear example of a rape and he is excusing it, as did someone else. And you have run with reacting to me, yet again, rather than to the person who has said that a woman saying no or stop is an ambiguous message or another person blaming someone in that position. Why is asking the person who points out that a person has the right to say no at any point more important to you than questioning someone who is excusing certain types of rape?

    As usual it seems to be about trying to get a reaction for you. Enjoy yourself and come back when you have something meaningful to discuss.


    I enjoy your wriggling when caught saying something stupid, S.

    Exactly which penal code are you quoting when you make the claim:

    it is a clear example of a rape
    ?

    British law? A specific one of the 52+ US codes?

    They don't all say the same thing.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #77
      This whole debate about stopping in the middle of intercourse only illustrates how divorced from practical application the feminist narrative has become. Rape is only rape if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a civilized nation.

      Feminists desperately want to deconstruct the dimorphic nature of the human species. Feminists have wondered into the philosophical black hole where objective reality does not exist. It should come as no surprise that in this void of rationality discredited ideologies such cultural Marxism and multiculturalism have found fertile soil.

      The poor training that students receive has left them with no immunity to bad philosophy. Worse still is the construction of robotic activists in social "science" classes. Many of our social justice movements have taken on the worst attributes of religious cults.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #78
        Hell, at least in THIS country they don't need four witnesses to prove it happened, or take a chance on going to prison just for having been attacked.
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
          Hell, at least in THIS country they don't need four witnesses to prove it happened, or take a chance on going to prison just for having been attacked.
          So what standard of evidence will you accept. I don't find the feminist narrative that a woman should be believed appropriate for a civilized nation. It is more the narrative of a supremacy movement.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            So what standard of evidence will you accept. I don't find the feminist narrative that a woman should be believed appropriate for a civilized nation. It is more the narrative of a supremacy movement.
            I don't think that the woman, OR the accused, should be assumed to be lying.
            Good enough?
            Crimes get investigated, and the people we have doing that are pretty good, you know.

            Let them both know that the investigation is serious, and soon a remarkable percentage of women making a false claim will fess up. Dig a little deeper, and you find that most rapists have a trail of similar crimes in their past.
            It isn't Rocket Science.
            "Why is the Rum gone?"

            -Captain Jack

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              So what standard of evidence will you accept.
              In the USA, pretty much the same level as with any other crime.

              The difficulty is in 'he said, she said' cases where both agree that sexual contact occurred, and there is a plausible reason for the physical conjunction.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                In the USA, pretty much the same level as with any other crime.

                The difficulty is in 'he said, she said' cases where both agree that sexual contact occurred, and there is a plausible reason for the physical conjunction.

                It's not good enough because equality under the law is not the feminist narrative. Just as there is no objective reality in feminist philosophy there are no objective egalitarian legal standards. In a civilized nation there is no place for identity politics especially in matters of law.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post


                  I enjoy your wriggling when caught saying something stupid, S.

                  Exactly which penal code are you quoting when you make the claim:

                  ?

                  British law? A specific one of the 52+ US codes?

                  They don't all say the same thing.
                  Consent is defined by section 74 Sexual Offences Act 2003.
                  Someone consents to vaginal, anal or oral penetration only if s/he agrees by choice to that penetration and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
                  Consent to sexual activity may be given to one sort of sexual activity but not another, e.g.to vaginal but not anal sex or penetration with conditions, such as
                  wearing a condom. Consent can be withdrawn at any time during sexual activity and each time activity occurs.
                  In investigating the suspect, it must be established what steps, if any, the suspect took to obtain the complainant’s consent and the prosecution must prove
                  that the suspect did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting.
                  https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/...consent_v2.pdf

                  The CPS clearly states that under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that consent can be withdrawn at any point. Other countries have also passed such concepts into law.

                  America has a different approach to the issue in that different states recognise different definitions. Some have caught up and changed things, others have not. Perhaps you lot will catch up with the rest of us eventually. If you genuinely want information on it then here you go.

                  http://scholarlycommons.law.northwes...8&context=jclc

                  http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/v...earch_projects

                  Look we all know that your persona on this forum is based on trying to wind people up and a get reaction from them. The clearest example is here - someone else comes up with a scenario, defends what in many countries around the world actually would be rape and yet you repeatedly 'run with' questioning someone else rather than them.

                  After a point on any issue you are best simply ignored. That point is long past. Last word to you so enjoy yourself.
                  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                  G.B Shaw

                  "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                  Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    Hell, at least in THIS country they don't need four witnesses to prove it happened, or take a chance on going to prison just for having been attacked.
                    Can always count on you to drag Muslims into any conversation. Nothing to say to those of your countrymen defending certain types of rapists?
                    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                    G.B Shaw

                    "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                    Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                      https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/...consent_v2.pdf

                      The CPS clearly states that under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that consent can be withdrawn at any point. Other countries have also passed such concepts into law.

                      America has a different approach to the issue in that different states recognise different definitions. Some have caught up and changed things, others have not. Perhaps you lot will catch up with the rest of us eventually. If you genuinely want information on it then here you go.

                      http://scholarlycommons.law.northwes...8&context=jclc

                      http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/v...earch_projects

                      Look we all know that your persona on this forum is based on trying to wind people up and a get reaction from them. The clearest example is here - someone else comes up with a scenario, defends what in many countries around the world actually would be rape and yet you repeatedly 'run with' questioning someone else rather than them.

                      After a point on any issue you are best simply ignored. That point is long past. Last word to you so enjoy yourself.
                      +10
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                        They were indicted, but the DNA testimony came out in a pre-trial hearing.

                        They got a out-of-court settlement of $20 million.
                        I consider indicted to be charged...I know there is a legal difference. But in my book it's the same thing.

                        The documentary made it seem as if that was the actual trial, not a pre-trial hearing.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X