Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Mike Huckabee would like to remind you that rape has created some extraordinary people   (gawker.com ) divider line
    More: PSA, Mike Huckabee, Waters, Infraction  
•       •       •

29172 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2012 at 3:14 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



591 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-21 12:17:20 PM  

Boudica's War Tampon: And I like I said above, Huckabee is not stupid. He is attacking the idea of legalized abortion in cases of rape by holding up people conceived in rape.


I keep hearing people talk about the only thing worse than a troll is an inconsistent one. That's the one thing these idiots have going for them and I think the context of this rape thing looks very different depending on which side you are on. They say that a developing zygote is life. From that position they cannot then turn around and say that just because it was from a rape it's ok to kill it. So they try and get additional soft support for the idea from people that may be on the fence about allowing abortions for rapes by telling them "Don't worry, most of the time it doesn't result in a pregnancy anyway" (bad science). Then Hucksterby steps in and follows up with "And even if there is a pregnancy, know that it can still be a wonderful thing." To try and say they are justifying rape is just some political position. This is the context from which their asinine position comes. I hope I used enough defamatory language so that you don't misconstrue this as putting a positive spin on Akin or Huckabee.
 
2012-08-21 12:17:55 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: What is "forcible" rape? Rape is rape regardless.


Maybe its the difference between "hells yeah I wanna fark (but tomorrow when I sober up and feel bad about being slutty in gonna file charges)"

and

"OMG STOP NO (etc, etc)


/just guessing
 
2012-08-21 12:18:33 PM  

Dupa: Boudica's War Tampon: Dupa: Boudica's War Tampon: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]

This is the Earth, populated by some 3.5 billion females. I'm sure Mike Huckabee is looking forward to all 3.5 billion of them being raped so he can enjoy being the wealthy rape-exploiter of 3.5 billion artistic, rape-wage slaves. Here's hoping all your rape x 3.5 billion dreams come true, Mike.

/rape x 3.5 billion

Give it a rest. We get your point, and your 3rd grade game of "How would you like it if...", and advocacy of rape, regardless of your intent, is no less vile and despicable than the words and beliefs of Akin, Huckabee, and the entire leadership of the RNC.

Let's understand exactly what Huckabee did when he said what he said.

1. He came to the defense of a fellow Republican and to the defense of his party by trying to put a positive spin on rape. If he thought he could rescue his fellow Republicans by putting a positive spin on racial discrimination, he would have done that also.

2. More importantly, this is another Republican trying to abolish abortion in this country by arguing the state should control womens' bodies so that good people could be born that otherwise would have been aborted by evil women. Any argument is fair game men--and I do mean men--of Huckabee's ilk.

Additionally, if you don't like "what ifs" about rape, ask former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis about them. The Republicans had no problem trashing him, for his reponse to rhetorical queston about his wife being raped. Also ask him about Willie Horton.

I'm clear on what Huckabee said and did, as are most people here, and if you come up with an intelligent way to address it I will back you. But, again, advocating (or qualifying, or worse committing) rape, for any purpose, is a vile and despicable act. Unless you were just joking. About rape.


Jokes about rape? Here's one of mine.

i449.photobucket.com

Now should I be ashamed of making a joke about rape? Let's see. The pictured item is a medical instrument to be used by a trained medical expert. But not for the Republican party. That item is a rape wand, to be forcibly inserted inside of any woman who wants an abortion. This insertion is not a medical procedure. It is a terror weapon, a torture device to dissuate the woman in the stirrups--and ANY OTHER WOMAN IN HER SIMILAR SITUATION--from having an abortion.

So should I feel guilty about making a joke about rape? Ask Mel Brooks whether he feels bad about making jokes about a German with a funny moustache.
 
2012-08-21 12:24:51 PM  
Didn't Santorum say; if you are raped and get preggers you should be grateful to god for the gift he bestowed upon you.
 
2012-08-21 12:25:18 PM  

stonicus: trappedspirit: Ed Grubermann: Did Dick Cheney defend rape?

Is anybody "defending" rape?


Why yes, as a matter of fact. Yes, people are trying to divide rape into two categories: "legitimate rape" and "boys-will-be-boys rape," and then defending the "boys-will-be-boys rape" as not true legitimate rape-rape.

Members of the Republican party have been doing since the 1970s at least. Whoopi Goldberg got a meme out of it. Historically it's been documented in law as far back as the 13th century. And people in this thread are trying to do it now.
 
2012-08-21 12:26:48 PM  
Can we just eliminate all conservatives from the planet and start over?
 
2012-08-21 12:30:47 PM  
The Great EZE:

Funny how the calls for bipartisan cooperation and cries of "Both sides are bad!" happen as soon as your side starts exposing themselves as abject morons.

You can decry what Akin say, you can insist that you don't agree with him at all. That may be true. But if you're even halfway as "Conservative" as you claim, you and your ilk are responsible for voting people like him into power in the first place. Somebody probably duped you one day with tough, bootstrappy language like "fiscal responsibility" and "small government." They led you to believe that they were just concerned about the economy. You didn't hear their dog whistles because, after all, they're silent, right? So you voted for them without the slightest thought of the company you would keep.

And here you are. Here we all are.

This isn't an isolated incident and this didn't just suddenly happen in 2012. Conservative Republicans have been running on a veiled platform of misogyny and bigotry for decades, with the veil only as thin as the locals in any given campaign stop require. There are reams and reams or evidence, quotes, and legislation that proves this is their platform. And for decades the people who voted for them sleep easy at night, fooling themselves into believing, "I only voted for his economic policies, that's all." Good luck trying to make friends across the aisle now that you let the horses out of the barn.


You must have just skimmed my post. As clearly stated I've probably voted for as many democrats in my life as I have republicans, though I don't keep track. This includes voting for Obama.

I have never "only voted for his economic policies, that's all". The whole point of my rant was the evil inherent in uninformed single-issue voting, regardless of party. Unlike the people you seem to mistake me for I take the time to look at a candidate's platform and record before placing a vote.

You can paint "Conservative Republicans" with the misogyny and bigotry brush as much as you want. You might even be right. It's really irrelevant to my point that any generalization so broad serves only to reinforce the idea that it has to be "us vs. them". As long as we continue to demonize groups of people and react out of fear or anger nothing is going to change.

Say what you like, but there are "good" and "bad" Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc. etc. ad nauseam. If you blindly dismiss someone simply because of a label you're definitely part of the problem. If you want to pretend that "Liberal Democrats" are perfect then you need to remove your head from wherever you put it.

We as a country need to pay less attention to the "D" or "R" next to someone's name and a lot more attention to their demonstrated policies and beliefs. I have die hard democratic friends that are deeply religious and advocate small government. I have republican friends that are stridently pro-choice and have donated and demonstrated in support of same-sex marriage. Pretending that either party is homogeneous is uninformed, misguided, and dangerous.

You appear to see politics as black and white. My position is that we need to recognize the shades of grey. Both parties have evolved and will continue to do so based on what they perceive will help them get elected and stay elected. Creating artificial divisions and creating a narrative that defines a group by any subset of their beliefs is nothing more than an attempt to control people. The sad thing is that it's very effective. Don't be naive. The Republican and Democratic parties in the United States exist for one purpose and one purpose only, to consolidate power and control. They each have committees and leadership that spend inordinate amounts of time and money orchestrating a message to manipulate people into supporting them. Politicians align themselves with one or the other because our system has evolved to make that the only viable way to get elected. It doesn't matter if someone seeks an elected office to influence policy for the greater good of mankind or to take advantage of the power and influence to make themselves wealthy, they have to pick a side.

Reading your response leads me to think that your position is Republicans Bad, Democrats Good. As long as there are intelligent, informed, passionate people like yourself that blindly align themselves with one side or the other there is no hope.

If we could somehow find a way for the majority of people to ignore the party and vote based on rational thought and exhaustive research the parties might evolve to the point where they are forced to make their platforms revolve around demonstrably sound fiscal policy and realistic national security goals. There was a time when the Democratic party was the self-described "Party of the White Man" that denigrated the Republicans as the "Party of the Negro". Now you could argue that those positions are largely reversed. Maybe in the next hundred years we can effect a similar move away from extremist positions on Women's Rights, Separation of Church and State, and other knee-jerk hot button issues to a landscape dominated by rational and intelligent discourse that includes all of the issues that effect us, our children, and our grandchildren.

In this idealistic and honestly unrealistic world people would know how the national debt affects their financial situation. We would study the health care systems around the world and adopt one that maximizes coverage and quality of care while minimizing costs. We would have a simplified and transparent tax code that allows each person to know exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. The IRS would be a fraction of its current size and largely tasked with ensuring compliance by corporate entities, nonprofits, etc.and auditing government spending to eliminate waste.

And yes, we would likely all ride flying ponies to and from our magic moon colonies.

You state that this isn't an isolated incident, that the "Conservative Republicans" have been running on this platform for decades. Even if that is the case the change that I advocate would eventually eliminate this type of institutionalized backasswardness. Instead of members of either party blindly supporting their leadership because of their party affiliation they would join with all rational people to denounce this type of abhorrent behavior.

Perhaps we would ultimately see a large number of far smaller and focused political parties each with a narrow set of policies they advocate. In such a system membership would not be confined to a single organization and you could affiliate with the "no new taxes" party while at the same time belonging to the "universal healthcare" group, the "religious freedom" group and the "Strong National Defense" party. And while I'm fantasizing I'd really like a cuddly puppy that can use the toilet, doesn't shed, and will never grow older.

As I mentioned I don't pretend to have any answers. It simply appears to me that any generalization, including the one you make, is counterproductive.

People that lurk or participate in discussions on forums like Fark should be among the most well informed and open minded people in the world. In theory this shouldn't be a circlejerk of confirmation bias like Townhall or Moveon. It's incredibly demoralizing to see the same stubborn self-imposed groupthink balkanize this community.
 
2012-08-21 12:31:03 PM  

monoski: Didn't Santorum say; if you are raped and get preggers you should be grateful to god for the gift he bestowed upon you.


Santorum says a lot of santorum. I can't keep track of it all.

I've already got him pegged as "so repugnant as to be effectively evil" on his homophobia alone. But you do bring up an interesting point. There does some to be a lot of overlap between hating gays and hating women. Maybe it's just a hating minorities in general kind of thing. I'm not sure.
 
2012-08-21 12:34:44 PM  

WorldCitizen: Irving Maimway: Holy fark he really said that.

And again with the "forcible" rape? WTF does that even mean? How can there be variations on rape?? I really don't understand this mindset, unless it's the whole "Well, she was asking for it by the way she was dressed that horrible tramp" theory.

//Don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I don't want to any way defend these farkers, but I think they are "trying" to make the distinction from statutory rape.


Or "I was drunk and didn't mean to have sex with those guys." rape. Between the military and college I've seen a lot of that going around.
 
2012-08-21 12:36:26 PM  

ciberido: stonicus: trappedspirit: Ed Grubermann: Did Dick Cheney defend rape?

Is anybody "defending" rape?

Why yes, as a matter of fact. Yes, people are trying to divide rape into two categories: "legitimate rape" and "boys-will-be-boys rape," and then defending the "boys-will-be-boys rape" as not true legitimate rape-rape.

Members of the Republican party have been doing since the 1970s at least. Whoopi Goldberg got a meme out of it. Historically it's been documented in law as far back as the 13th century. And people in this thread are trying to do it now.


I'm not saying "boys-will-be-boys" isn't rape. But it sure as hell is a lot different than ... whats the new term? ahh "forcible rape".

I'm pretty sure most victims think so too.
 
2012-08-21 12:42:57 PM  
I don't think republicans are pro-rape, they're just frustrated by not getting a receipt for consensual sex.
 
2012-08-21 12:53:01 PM  
Apparently, 'non-forcible rape' is the only way republican men can get laid.
 
2012-08-21 01:01:40 PM  

CeroX: push3r: I know I shouldn't read these threads...

As insightful as this post was... you will never see that day.

2 reasons:

1 - the right has people like Rush and O'Reilly who are professional boat rockers. They stir up the shiat and convince people, lots of people, TONS of people, that the left is out to get them and their livelihoods. What they say may sounds stupid to some, but it's gospel to a lot and regardless what we think about them, they are smart and focused. They know exactly what buttons to push in people to get them to think a certain way. The right know exactly how to schism this country.

2 - The left is too divided among themselves to effectively fight the right. You have the left trying to get people behind whatever the latest "cause": animal freedoms, organic foods, fossil fuel consumption, gay rights, politically correct speech, veganism, gun control, carbon credits... Meanwhile the few people out there trying to address Rushco and the right like Maddow, take a "higher ground" approach and do more damage control trying to correct the Right's out of context claims, lies, misinterpretations, and attacks that they seem limp and weak. Their motivations might be that if they stooped to Ruscho's levels, the US would be in a civil war before the decade is over. Meanwhile when someone on the Left does rise in the ranks of asshattery and starts making attacks like Oberman, the Right gets all butthurt whining victimy and calls for their resignation...

You have all this, and caught in the middle are normal people... Seriously, a little cultural colon cleansing would be good for this country...


What's the most frustrating is that all of the "normal" people are the ones empowering the extremist media by visiting their web sites, listening/watching their programs, and supporting their advertisers.

Sometimes I think that we, as a society, have grown too comfortable to survive. It's easier to mark the "straight party" box on the ballot than it is to actually put out the effort to become educated on the issues and where the candidates stand. That's if we even bother to get out of bed to go vote at all.

Looking at history it seems that human beings are wired for conflict. We're not satisfied with the idea that people can get along. Someone has to be wrong, someone has to be right, there has to be winners and losers. Cooperation is no longer valued, encouraged, or taught.

This same behavior shows up on every web site where someone can express their opinion. It's almost impossible to find someone ready to admit that they might not be 100% right, that there's the possibility of some kind of middle ground.

For my kids' sake I hope we're able to turn things around before we do something to permanently damage the country, if we haven't already. 

I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-08-21 01:06:16 PM  

CeroX: 1 - the right has people like Rush and O'Reilly who are professional boat rockers. They stir up the shiat and convince people, lots of people, TONS of people, that the left is out to get them and their livelihoods. What they say may sounds stupid to some, but it's gospel to a lot and regardless what we think about them, they are smart and focused. They know exactly what buttons to push in people to get them to think a certain way. The right know exactly how to schism this country.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-08-21 01:07:24 PM  

ifarkthereforiam: Apparently, 'non-forcible rape' is the only way republican men can get laid.


Or slipping some cash under the bathroom stall
 
2012-08-21 01:10:09 PM  
Its all strategy by repubs

they are making it so romney/ryan are 100% unelectable
so during the convention they have to pick someone else
 
2012-08-21 01:11:39 PM  

pippi longstocking: In a sane country this joker would not be allowed to walk the streets much less run them.


if a Canadian politician said that he'd be on the next flight to Nunavut
 
2012-08-21 01:13:54 PM  

cman: Hey Huckabee, for one in your life shut your damn whore mouth


FTFY
 
2012-08-21 01:16:03 PM  

KrustyKitten: ciberido: stonicus: trappedspirit: Ed Grubermann: Did Dick Cheney defend rape?

Is anybody "defending" rape?

Why yes, as a matter of fact. Yes, people are trying to divide rape into two categories: "legitimate rape" and "boys-will-be-boys rape," and then defending the "boys-will-be-boys rape" as not true legitimate rape-rape.

Members of the Republican party have been doing since the 1970s at least. Whoopi Goldberg got a meme out of it. Historically it's been documented in law as far back as the 13th century. And people in this thread are trying to do it now.

I'm not saying "boys-will-be-boys" isn't rape. But it sure as hell is a lot different than ... whats the new term? ahh "forcible rape".

I'm pretty sure most victims think so too.


Plus I have heard the argument that someone is incapable of consenting to sex if they have had more to drink than would allow them to operate a car. If you hold to that opinion then I think we should differentiate between rape and forcible rape.
 
2012-08-21 01:17:55 PM  

nvmac: Ambivalence: WorldCitizen: Irving Maimway: Holy fark he really said that.

And again with the "forcible" rape? WTF does that even mean? How can there be variations on rape?? I really don't understand this mindset, unless it's the whole "Well, she was asking for it by the way she was dressed that horrible tramp" theory.

//Don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I don't want to any way defend these farkers, but I think they are "trying" to make the distinction from statutory rape.

That's giving them way too much credit. I thinkt hey're TRYING to make the distinction from date rape or "woman passed out and didn't give consent" rape which isn't REALLY rape just boys being boys.

I think it is worse than all of this. What I believe is they are asserting that if a woman enjoys it, it isn't forcible rape. If she enjoys it (even tolerates it), the body reacts differently and assists the pregnancy process, so to say.

If she is 'forcibly' raped, then the lady parts don't 'assist the process' and they are less likely to get pregnant.

Something like this: About.Com, Can Female Orgasm Help You Get Pregnant

/just the messenger


You should get your science from scientists who've actually studied what they are talking about. Upsuck, doesn't happen in humans.

Here comes the science.
 
2012-08-21 01:20:43 PM  
There's rape, rape rape, and a blind date:
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-08-21 01:25:19 PM  

doglover: MythDragon: Bonus:
If you GIS 'rape' and 'Japan', you get this gem.
3.bp.blogspot.com


The green vegetable in the back of the octopi is a stalk of rape flower.

Don't know what rape flower is? Look into what "canola" really means. It will blow your mind. Also, you'll finally understand why there's 40lbs of it a box.


YOU'RE GONNA GET RAPED CANOLA OIL

/at work, too lazy to make the graphic
//seriously, Huckabee, the song's not called "Always Look on the Bright Side of Rape"
 
2012-08-21 01:25:43 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: Don't kid yourself, date rape is still just plain old rape.


That's my point. We should discourage the term "date rape". If something it's rape, it's rape. No need to sugar coat it or put it into a context that can be confusing or exploited by rapists.
 
2012-08-21 01:29:38 PM  

The Great EZE: Funny how the calls for bipartisan cooperation and cries of "Both sides are bad!" happen as soon as your side starts exposing themselves as abject morons.


Both sides are bad, pay no attention to our rape apologists.

/Vote Rapeublican.
 
2012-08-21 01:30:02 PM  

SuwonROKs: I love how Libtards bash Republicans for taking things out of context yet go and do exactly the same thing. He was obviously trying to make a point about abortion but you'll do anything to make a Republican look bad.

/not a Democrat or Republican


Your use of the idiotic term 'libtard' gives a teensy bit of a clue as to your leanings. Explain how this was taken out of context. It's an asinine argument that because he can name two people who were conceived as a result of rape that what that moron Akin said about the 'female body shutting that stuff down' makes any sense. It still doesn't. These guys want to make other peoples choices based on their religious beliefs. That's pretty solidly opposite what's in the US Bill of Rights regarding freedom of religion. They can keep their religion out of my government, thank you very much.
 
2012-08-21 01:32:25 PM  
Here's what i think of when i hear the term "Legitimate Rape" vs. "Illegitimate Rape" vs. "Forcible Rape"

Illegitimate: College girl goes to frat party, drinks to loosen up, see that hot guy she's had a crush on for the last 3 months, pulls him up to a private room and sleeps with him. It's consensual to her at the time, even though alcohol has been involved. She is conscious, willing, and it runs it's course. Later, she finds out she's pregnant, and panicking about what she's going to tell her parents. Her "out" is to cry rape. Since alcohol was involved, it becomes a "gray area" because it then becomes a he said she said issue. She's saying "i went upstairs and don't remember" and he's saying "she was all over me".

Legitimate: College girl goes to frat party, drinks heavily, flirts with hot guy she's had her eye on for the last 3 months. Drinks too much, feels like she's going to pass out. Goes up to a secluded bedroom to sleep it off. Hot guy with blue balls follows her up and rapes her while she is unconscious. She finds out later, and reports it, then finds out 2 months later she discovers she's knocked up.

Forcible: College girl goes to frat party, drinks to have fun, gets flirty with that hot guy she's had her eye on for the last 3 months. She goes upstairs to take a piss. Hot guy follows her up and gets all happy hands on her and she's creeped out by it, she says not, but she's 95 lbs and he's 210 of muscle. He ends up throwing her into a secluded room and violently rapes her. She later reports it, and again, finds out later she's knocked up.

In scenario 1 the only 2 people who know what really happened is the chick and the guy... the truth is that the chick is using rape as a weapon to save her reputation or save her from her parents wrath. There's been movie/tv scenes that portray this, and i have no doubt there's probably a case or two that made it to court like this. There's no real way of ever knowing the truth, because people are motivated to do crazy stuff when they are embarrassed or in fear of repercussions.

Scenario 2 is an actual case of rape, but again, from the outside, it's hard to tell who's being honest because eyewitness accounts probably attest that the girl was being overly flirty, and assumed the deal was going down. Since no one was there to witness the actual act, the jury or judge is again listening to a he said she said situation.

In both cases of 1 and 2, the jury will hear the same story, probably hear the same eyewitness testimonies, and see the same test results. It is up to the judge/jury to determine who is telling the truth. I think as a society, we have tended in the past to default that because men are stronger, bigger, and have a stronger sexual drive than women, that we sided with the female as the victim for either case. We gave the benefit of the doubt to the lady in question, and in turn may have put innocent men behind bars. Later, when cases like scenario 1 have the truth revealed, "liberal women" come out to defend the girl's obvious deceptive actions as innocent saying things like "well, if alcohol is involved, then the woman can't legally give consent and this is still rape"... Having liberal women come out in public and announce something like this then completely enrages conservative men who have looked at these situations and would have normally shamed the girl for being deceitful and hurtful, are now frothing at the mouth with stupidity because a liberal spoke out...

I won't address the 3rd scenario, because i believe that those cases are fairly clean cut. With testing and forensics and what have you, we are identifying violent rapes easier than scenario 1 or 2.

Now... I'm sure there are people who are going to say i'm defending rape. I want to make it clear i am not. Scenario 2 and 3 are clear cut cases of rape at the heart of the matter. The issue comes in, because there have been cases like scenario 1 that makes scenario 2 hard to ID and prosecute. The reason i know both of these types of scenarios exist is because i've had 2 ex girlfriends that, thank god i wasn't involved in, were involved in scenarios 1 and 2. One ex was very promiscuous, we were never serious and just fooled around the summer before she left for college. Later i found out she got knocked up at a frat party and claimed she was raped. She had all of of sympathizing with her and offering her support. Later it came out that she was falsely making the claim and i haven't talked to her since. That was about 11 years ago. The other ex-girlfriend of mine really did pass out at a party and some guy she was flirting with raped her. She didn't end up pregnant like the first one, but she was an emotional wreck for about 2 years. She finally found someone and got married. I bump into her about once a year and we play catch up on everything we've been doing...

So my advice in all this: Always tape your sexual encounters... it's hard for a girl to defend her reputation with a rape cry when she's asking you to blow it on her face...

/ok that last part was really a joke and meant to lighten everything above it...
 
2012-08-21 01:37:01 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: dickfreckle: Also, I agree with other Farkers about being annoyed by this whole "forcible" thing. Rape is rape, Do we say "green asparagus?"

Actually, yes, many people do exactly that, to differentiate it from white asparagus.

As for rape, "forcible rape" is a legitimate and sometimes necessary distinction - for example, a 14 year old girl who consents to sex with a 21 year old man has been raped, but it isn't "forcible" rape. The real problem is dickheads like Akin and many other Republicans who use the term to try to delegitimatize other types of rape as "not really rape" in order to pass more stringent abortion restrictions, or to protect large companies form victims' lawsuits, etc


That's what I was thinking, but didn't convey. Everyone knows the differences between statutory (creepy, but not violent) and rape rape. They are using "forcible" as though there is some other kind between two adults. For starters, it serves to devalue the rapes of unconscious victims, something so common that just in my own circle of friends, two of them have been attacked in such a manner. I'm sure that Akin and his ilk would perform all manner of mental gymnastics to claim that these really aren't rapes, but just unfortunate outcomes for women who dared to go out one night dressed to flirt.

And frankly, I didn't even know white asparagus existed, lol. I have a big bunch in the fridge which I looked at just before making the post.
 
2012-08-21 01:37:31 PM  

rocky_howard: ModernPrimitive01: Don't kid yourself, date rape is still just plain old rape.

That's my point. We should discourage the term "date rape". If something it's rape, it's rape. No need to sugar coat it or put it into a context that can be confusing or exploited by rapists.


Pretty soon, we'll need "I like you and all but just want to be friends rape".
 
2012-08-21 01:38:08 PM  

trappedspirit: Ed Grubermann: Did Dick Cheney defend rape?

Is anybody "defending" rape?


Mike Huckabee is doing quite the bangup job of it.
 
2012-08-21 01:39:04 PM  

rocky_howard: That's my point. We should discourage the term "date rape". If something it's rape, it's rape. No need to sugar coat it or put it into a context that can be confusing or exploited by rapists.


I agree, but you have to remember the context in which the term came to be before condemning so harshly.

For most of human history, if a woman was in the same room with a man by choice (ie, was on a date with him) then what happened was called consensual. "If she did not want it, then she would not have been there." "A "good girl" would not have put herself in that position." Etc. So the term served a purpose in redlining rape in the public's mind: It's rape even if they were on a date together.

Now however, yes, it is used to lessen the impact of the event. As if the person is saying, "It wasn't real rape, it was date rape."
 
2012-08-21 01:40:17 PM  

CeroX: what i think of


I think you've been thinking about this waaaayy too much.
 
2012-08-21 01:43:56 PM  

BuckTurgidson: CeroX: what i think of

I think you've been thinking about this waaaayy too much.


it took a while to write, sure... but really, that's what comes to mind...

Take the duke lacross trial as an example... that was a HUGE case of he said, she said, and look how that turned out...
 
2012-08-21 01:48:00 PM  

Dupa: Boudica's War Tampon: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]

This is the Earth, populated by some 3.5 billion females. I'm sure Mike Huckabee is looking forward to all 3.5 billion of them being raped so he can enjoy being the wealthy rape-exploiter of 3.5 billion artistic, rape-wage slaves. Here's hoping all your rape x 3.5 billion dreams come true, Mike.

/rape x 3.5 billion

Give it a rest. We get your point, and your 3rd grade game of "How would you like it if...", and advocacy of rape, regardless of your intent, is no less vile and despicable than the words and beliefs of Akin, Huckabee, and the entire leadership of the RNC.


He's not advocating rape. He's showing just how asinine Huckabee's position is.
 
2012-08-21 01:50:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Don't forget that Mike Huckabee was on of the first major speakers announced for the Republican National Convention.

This is the chosen face of the modern Republican Party. These are the views they choose to promote.


This. Most aren't quite stupid enough to say it publicly, but yeah, they all think like this. Huckabee and that other asshole just said it out loud in front of cameras.
 
2012-08-21 01:51:02 PM  

CeroX: Later, when cases like scenario 1 have the truth revealed, "liberal women" come out to defend the girl's obvious deceptive actions as innocent saying things like "well, if alcohol is involved, then the woman can't legally give consent and this is still rape"... Having liberal women come out in public and announce something like this then completely enrages conservative men who have looked at these situations and would have normally shamed the girl for being deceitful and hurtful, are now frothing at the mouth with stupidity because a liberal spoke out...


...and that's when I stopped listening.

You are not only a rape apologist that feels that the law should assume women are laying about being raped until proven otherwise (nice 18th century attitude there buddy), you couch it in political terms as if is it a pundit talking point. Christ, Rush could not have put it better.

Let me re-post this from up-thread:

Rape Statistics

False Accusations of Rape

FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that:

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]


So this whole, "She out to get me" scenario rape apologists love to talk about so much statistically almost never happens.

You want to talk about trivializing the crime? Try making it harder for women to come forward to projecting the attitude that society will assume them to be liars.
 
2012-08-21 01:52:24 PM  

mrshowrules: GOP Politicians aren't campaigning just to say abortion is bad. They aren't even campaigning to reduce abortion through sex education, birth control and health care access. They are only campaigning to make it illegal and remove this right/choice from women.


Well, first, there is such a thing as a pro-choice Republican, it's just as rare as a pro-life Democrat.

Second, again you refuse to see it from the other perspective. Those who are pro-life believe in human life begins at conception and that that human right is afforded equal protection under the law. They don't see it as removing a right from a pregnant woman. They see it as saving a life.

Thirdly, birth control and abortion are two separate subjects. You will find far fewer people support banning birth control than those who support banning abortion. There are certainly plenty of people who's religious convictions see sex as a method of procreation an a stable household as the foundation of healthy children, and as such see birth control and sex out of wedlock as anathema to the their idea. But only a small subset of those would look to outlaw contraception. They just don't want to pay for it in the same way as you would likely object to your taxes going towards pro-life counseling.


Every person has a right to think abortion is immoral. You even have a right to think abortion after rape is immoral. I will not agree with you but I will not think you are human garbage (e.g., Akin).


Nor do I think most pro-life people see pro-choice people as human garbage. But, when you believe that abortion is ending the life of a unique individual the idea of choice becomes secondary. Pro-life applies the same moral logic to the unborn that they do the newborn.


mrshowrules: When you want to legislate your morality on me and the people close to me, that is where a person (politician) crosses the line.


And again, when you come to believe that abortion is the killing of another human being your position changes somewhat and the lines are different.
 
2012-08-21 01:57:10 PM  

ciberido: RolandGunner: The pro-choice argument presumes that a human being does not exist until it is born -- though I guess the fact that the majority of people oppose partial birth abortion yet are evenly split on abortion in general would indicate that most people believe that a human being begins sometime before birth, but sometime after conception. As long as the definition of what is and isn't a human being isn't agreed on you can't really judge others as if they agree on your definition of when life starts.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as agreeing on when a fetus is a human being. Even if somehow we all DID agree that "Life begins at X" for some value of X, there would still be arguments about abortion.


Oh, I agree. Killing people for sake of convenience is the second oldest profession.
 
2012-08-21 01:59:13 PM  
It is hard enough to come forward, to go through the investigation, girls have killed themselves after going through the grilling on the stand (rape is the one crime in which the victim is on trial as much as the perpetrator)...

Lindsay Armstrong committed suicide shortly after the trial in which she had to hold up the underwear she was wearing when she was raped

and focusing on all these ""I knew the friend of this dude's cousin who's ex accused him of rape" anecdotal B.S. just makes it harder for those who need to come forward to report the single most under-reported violent crime.

RAINN Rape Reporting Statistics
 
2012-08-21 01:59:20 PM  
When most pepole hit rck bottem, they stop digging.
Republicans get out the explosives.
 
2012-08-21 02:05:57 PM  

KiplingKat872: CeroX: Later, when cases like scenario 1 have the truth revealed, "liberal women" come out to defend the girl's obvious deceptive actions as innocent saying things like "well, if alcohol is involved, then the woman can't legally give consent and this is still rape"... Having liberal women come out in public and announce something like this then completely enrages conservative men who have looked at these situations and would have normally shamed the girl for being deceitful and hurtful, are now frothing at the mouth with stupidity because a liberal spoke out...

...and that's when I stopped listening.

You are not only a rape apologist that feels that the law should assume women are laying about being raped until proven otherwise (nice 18th century attitude there buddy), you couch it in political terms as if is it a pundit talking point. Christ, Rush could not have put it better.

Let me re-post this from up-thread:

Rape Statistics

False Accusations of Rape

FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that:

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be ...


you should really finish reading the post... i am NOT apologizing for rapists... and i make it CLEAR that these scenarios are rare. But they have happened, and to ignore or deny it is defending a deceitful woman who was abusing the system to defend her reputation...

I was trying to point out that because there have been some instances like this not only in the news, but on TV and in the movies, that it sets an impression among CERTAIN people. And there ARE people who come out and try and say that any amount of alcohol involved immediately excuses a cry of rape. There are people who make that claim in THIS THREAD. And that has a profound effect on people who are extremist in their political views, people like Atkins for example.

How DARE YOU claim i assume the worst in women... Had you read the rest of the post you'd know i had an ex that WAS raped. I was there, sitting on couch while she curled up in her best friends arms and balled her eyes out telling what happened the week before. It's something i hope i NEVER have to see or hear in person again... I have a daughter, and when i think about something like that happening to her when she grows up, it makes me rage with anger...

Pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what you say...
 
2012-08-21 02:06:19 PM  
[Load gun]
[Shoot self in foot]
Ow! That didn't work. Let's try again.
[Load gun]
[Shoot other foot]
Ow! That didn't work. Let's try again.
[Repeat]
 
2012-08-21 02:09:32 PM  
And as a additional note to this sub-discussion wthh CeroX (most of this thread has been discussion about women because of the pregnancy issue) the crap "rape victims be lyin'" attitude does not help male victims of rape (even more unreported than for women) to come forward through the social attitudes that "real men are not victimized like that" and "gay men can't be raped."

Link

Maybe we should just let the justice system work it out and not make assumptions about who was raped and who is lying (promiscuous women can be raped too) and how to redefine rape.
 
2012-08-21 02:13:05 PM  

RolandGunner: mrshowrules: GOP Politicians aren't campaigning just to say abortion is bad. They aren't even campaigning to reduce abortion through sex education, birth control and health care access. They are only campaigning to make it illegal and remove this right/choice from women.

Well, first, there is such a thing as a pro-choice Republican, it's just as rare as a pro-life Democrat.

As there are some pro-life Democrats, this is automatically false.

Second, again you refuse to see it from the other perspective. Those who are pro-life believe in human life begins at conception and that that human right is afforded equal protection under the law. They don't see it as removing a right from a pregnant woman. They see it as saving a life.

Thirdly, birth control and abortion are two separate subjects. You will find far fewer people support banning birth control than those who support banning abortion. There are certainly plenty of people who's religious convictions see sex as a method of procreation an a stable household as the foundation of healthy children, and as such see birth control and sex out of wedlock as anathema to the their idea. But only a small subset of those would look to outlaw contraception. They just don't want to pay for it in the same way as you would likely object to your taxes going towards pro-life counseling.


Every person has a right to think abortion is immoral. You even have a right to think abortion after rape is immoral. I will not agree with you but I will not think you are human garbage (e.g., Akin).


Nor do I think most pro-life people see pro-choice people as human garbage. But, when you believe that abortion is ending the life of a unique individual the idea of choice becomes secondary. Pro-life applies the same moral logic to the unborn that they do the newborn.

You know by literal definition, it is not an individual. Look up the word and you will see where you went wrong on that one.


mrshowrules: When you want to legislate your morality on me and the people close to me, that is where a person (politician) crosses the line.

And again, when you come to believe that abortion is the killing of another human being your po ...


When you believe a woman cannot have control of her own body, you are asking the Government to prioritize your own morality over someone else. In the end you won't win. The only Governments that win these pro-life issues are the one's that treat women as sub-human.
 
2012-08-21 02:15:45 PM  

KrustyKitten: I'm not saying "boys-will-be-boys" isn't rape. But it sure as hell is a lot different than ... whats the new term? ahh "forcible rape".

I'm pretty sure most victims think so too.


Get back to me when you actually find a rape victim who thinks that.
 
2012-08-21 02:23:47 PM  
KrustyKitten: I'm not saying "boys-will-be-boys" isn't rape. But it sure as hell is a lot different than ... whats the new term? ahh "forcible rape".

I'm pretty sure most victims think so too.


pdee: Plus I have heard the argument that someone is incapable of consenting to sex if they have had more to drink than would allow them to operate a car. If you hold to that opinion then I think we should differentiate between rape and forcible rape.


That's nice.

I guess it's too much to ask you two to get "rape apologist" tattooed on your foreheads, so I've got another idea, thanks to modern technology. I'll set up a website, maybe call it "Boys Will Be Boys." You can register, maybe upload a photo, and then check a little box next to "I would have sex with a drunk woman and then deny it was rape when the police question me later."

Let the women who might date you know (if they check the website) what you REALLY think about rape first. That's all I ask.

I'm sure all those rape victims who agree with KrustyKitten won't mind.
 
2012-08-21 02:24:05 PM  

CeroX: you should really finish reading the post... i am NOT apologizing for rapists... and i make it CLEAR that these scenarios are rare


Yeah, that is what ALL rape apologists say who then go on to make arguments that sex while drunk is not rape and lots of women lie about being raped for pregnancy and morning after regrets. Your post focused mostly on women who lied about being raped. I can't tell you the number if times I have seen rape apologists say the exact same damn thing. "Rape is horrible, but let me tell you about women who have lied and ruined men's lives by falsely accusing them of rape."

It's exactly like, "I'm not racist but..."

Does it happen? Yes. Does focusing on it solve anything, or even have anything to do with this discussion? No.

Atkins spoke out of sexist ignorance. Don't try to blame "liberal women" for what he said. He's a congressman legislating on science and access to birth control and abortions. He should be educated of the scientific realities of reproduction. What we have here is a legislator who believes that if a woman got pregnant from rape, then it wasn't rape. A rationalizing form of blaming the victim.

Huckabee thinks that there is a difference from "focible rape" (a redundancy) and other types.

If the person has been drinking over the legal limit of impairment for their state, they are legally not able to give consent. That's it. That's the law. Deal. This is why hooking up with drunk strangers is a bad idea. Go have a soda or a coffee before taking her home.
 
2012-08-21 02:29:28 PM  

KiplingKat872: And as a additional note to this sub-discussion wthh CeroX (most of this thread has been discussion about women because of the pregnancy issue) the crap "rape victims be lyin'" attitude does not help male victims of rape (even more unreported than for women) to come forward through the social attitudes that "real men are not victimized like that" and "gay men can't be raped."

Link

Maybe we should just let the justice system work it out and not make assumptions about who was raped and who is lying (promiscuous women can be raped too) and how to redefine rape.


that was the whole point of my original post to begin with...
in the hypothetical scenarios i wrote down, WE cannot assume what happens because no one was there for those. And it makes it hard on the jury to decide because there HAVE been instances, albeit rare ones, where a woman cried rape falsely. The statistics you posted are low, but anything above 0% means that at some point, some where, someone cried rape when they weren't. TV and Movies have also done their part in protraying the false rape accusations. This leads to a problem of people (like atkins for example) being biased and influeced by the media and entertainment industry. And as such, leads to idiot polititions saying "legitimate rape" on a political show... It then assumes there's "illegitimate rape" which one can only associate to the rare cases of false rape accusations...

let me be clear, in those cases where the woman cried rape and it wasn't the case, it is on THAT woman, and makes HER a deceitful and despicable woman. I also believe that something like that hurts the chances of real cases of rape. A small percent of rape criers, especially ones that make national news, will have a profound effect on people and does as much to diminish the seriousness of rape as using terms like "date rape"

Look at it this way... No matter how many cases of rape are tried per year, have ever been tried per year, it only takes a single, high profile, nationally televised, media circus case of false rape accusation to bring the chances for rape victims getting justice and retribution way down. The news and entertainment industry is more harmful in these cases to women, then any defense attorney could be. You only need to plant 1 seed of doubt in people's minds, and mistrust WILL grow roots.

I'm not saying i mistrust women when they claim rape, but i'm also realistic about certain cases. When there are no witnesses, and you only have the word of the people involved, it takes a lot of hard work to get to the truth.

I should remind everyone that even though rape is a serious crime, and a serious case to try and judge, it is still the American value that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It is not up to me, or you, or anyone to assume the worst from either party, but to hear each case as it is presented and try, as civil patriots, to perform due diligence and make the call based on the facts at hand.

If you take anything away from my statement about as a society we sided with women, is that as a society, we have failed our duty to make judgement calls in a neutral, unbiased manor...

Something i hope we as a society will one day overcome

And when people like Atkins and Whoopi make stupid remarks on shows that reach millions of people... it sets us back as a society and prevents us from making those unbiased calls...
 
2012-08-21 02:31:27 PM  

SuwonROKs: I love how Libtards bash Republicans for taking things out of context yet go and do exactly the same thing. He was obviously trying to make a point about abortion but you'll do anything to make a Republican look bad.

/not a Democrat or Republican


He's asked about abortion in cases of rape, and says that the female body won't allow pregnancy in the case of rape. Pretty cut and dried.

Do you know what "out of context" means?
 
2012-08-21 02:34:15 PM  
When a society demonizes science and education, this is what you end up with. Ignoramuses like Akin and Huckabee are allowed to have influence over policies that they have no business sticking their noses in. Farking idiots. I am now more enraged and disgusted by their party, and their moronic supporters, than ever before. Keep farking that chicken, unless y'know it's a "legitimate" chicken rape.
 
2012-08-21 02:34:19 PM  

Irving Maimway: Holy fark he really said that.

And again with the "forcible" rape? WTF does that even mean? How can there be variations on rape?? I really don't understand this mindset, unless it's the whole "Well, she was asking for it by the way she was dressed that horrible tramp" theory.

//Don't want to live on this planet anymore.


"Forcible" rape is a rhetoric flourish which indicates that the conservative who uses it is stuck in the XVIIth century with traditional English Jurisprudence and Puritan religion, or else in the XIIth century with Medieval Sharia Law. The argument is that a woman who does not cry out or risk her life resisting a rapist consents and is thus a slut, and that sluts can not be raped (they're like gamblers, who can not use the courts to sue for payment of gambling debts). It's a doctrine that is commonly espoused by prosecutors who are up for re-election on the law and order ticket.

Like this eggrevious pseudo-scientific claptrap about women being able to prevent conception when raped, it is designed to support the conservative ideological position against 1) the idea a man can rape a woman, except under exceedingly eggregious circumstances, such as when a black man has intercourse with a white woman, or a lower class man has intercourse with a society matron or her daughter and 2) the case for abortion in instances of rape.

Using legalistic claptrap, the conservatives are making a forensic case against women, claiming that if they get raped it is their own fault and not the rapist's fault and that if they have a baby by rape they are whores rather than victims, and thus should expect no pity, support or quarter given.

As for the logical fallacy involved, I will lay Huckabee's fallacy before you:

X is a good person/thing (actually, X is a black woman--Huckabee is setting you up for a specious charge of racism and gynophobia if you maintain that the rape which produced her was a crime).
Rape produced X.
Therefore rape is good thing.

Now, in the real world, properties such as "good" are NOT transferable from one object or person to another, regardless of how significant the role the first object or person had in the creation of the second.

The sins of the fathers may be visited upon the children, but the children are NOT guilty of the sins of the father, nor is person a responsible for the actions, criminal or otherwise, of their father or any other person. At the limit, there may be some liability to pay their debts if you inherit their wealth before the debts are settled, but that is because the debts are attached to the estate, and the estate to the debts.

This shows common features of conservative ideology and rhetoric. They LOVE to set up liberals for nonsensical charges of racism, because this transferance (in the psychological and psyhanalytical sense of the word) absolves them and transfers their crimes and errors to their opponents. Naturally, it is not only conservatives who do this. Any human being can exploit this logical and moral weakness. But conservatives are conspicuous among those who do by their number and their persistance.

The defenders of this eggregious display of pseudo-science, ideology and rhetoric (first by the defendant, then by Huckabee, then by the defenders of Huckabee and the defendant, then by the defenders of conservative partisan pettyfoggers and ergoteurs, etc.) exhibt pretty much all the familiar traits of the Fark Conservative or Fark Liberal (as separate classes of logician from mere conservatives and liberals of sincere truthfulness).

Anybody remotely familiar with American politics knows that the partisans of all parties, sects, and factions frequently employ the same techniques.

Rape has indeed resulted in the birth of some extraordinary people. Then again, Islam has produced some extraordinary people: scientists, astronomers, poets, artists, mathematicians, physicians--for centuries a much higher level of culture and science flourished under Islam until fundamentalist twits brought that culture low by insisting on eggregious interpretations of the Quiran and law. The same is true of Christiandom.

Sadly, there is no transfer from the righteousness of the lady who wears the Scarlet Letter to the Puritanical SOBs that make her wear the Scarlet Letter.

REDEMPTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, DAMMIT!

Many of the great artists were themselves criminals--rapists, murderers, prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, obese SOBS, etc. Whatever redemption that is found in their genius and their art does not redeem their crimes or sins or failings as human beings. It may redeem their soul in some way, but that is a mystery known only to mystics perhaps, or God, le cas échéant.

All in all, the popular misconception that art requires suffering does NOT redeem suffering. I do not accept the fallacious arguments of Job's Comforters. The author of the Book of Job was NOT putting them forward as models, but as examples of erroneous theology. I have my reservations about the BS that God Himself talks. It's a wonderful sound and light show, but it seems to me He evades the question of what the theologians call the Problem of Evil.

It's bullying, not logic, not science, not fact, not even a proper legal defence. So God can stuff it unless he can come up with something better.
 
Displayed 50 of 591 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report