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 594
    More: PSA, Mike Huckabee, Waters, Infraction  
•       •       •

29141 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2012 at 3:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



594 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 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.
 
2012-08-21 02:37:12 PM

CeroX: 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.


Also *exact* same argument used by rape apologists casting aspirations on rape victims honesty.

You are "helping" as much as Atkins and Whoopi are.

It is hard enough for victims to come forward without people like you amusing she is lying just because she had a drink.
 
2012-08-21 02:37:54 PM

KiplingKat872: 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.


I'm not saying it isn't the law... and since you seem to want to paint me as some sort of rape defender, let me remind you that, in a lot of states, having 4 ounces of beer, aka .025 BAC is over the legal limit, and by those accounts, someone who had 4 ounces of beer is in no mental state to make decisions of any kind...

I'm going to purposely stop defending myself and start attacking you:

Remember the next time someone calls you a cock-juggling thunder coont after they had a few sips of beer, it's not them talking, because they legally have no coherent judgement in some states...

I'm out for the day... have fun with this...
 
2012-08-21 02:42:31 PM
CeroX:

I'm sorry, but I have just had this argument far too many times on Fark, and I just have no tolerance anymore. *Far* more rape victims do not step forward because they fear they will not be believed than women who pull the crap you speak of.

And Atkins has no one to blame but himself. Not "liberal women," not the media. No one.
 
2012-08-21 02:43:42 PM

KiplingKat872: CeroX: 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.

Also *exact* same argument used by rape apologists casting aspirations on rape victims honesty.

You are "helping" as much as Atkins and Whoopi are.

It is hard enough for victims to come forward without people like you amusing she is lying just because she had a drink.


Assuming...damn.
 
2012-08-21 02:45:23 PM
Abortion is clearly an injustice in America. It is only available to the rich and well-connected in many states. Access is not distributed equitably between the privileged few of the minority of the majority and various minorities which comprise the majority, including the one real majority, women (class, race, the mentally retarded, etc., are treated in a partial and discriminatory manner by Church and State alike, let alone the medical market place).

Once again Huckabee and other conservatives make a solid case for my contention that the only way to ensure fair and equitable delivery of abortion services in America is to make it universally available through state medical insurance, AND TO MAKE IT MANDATORY IN ALL CASES OF CONCEPTION.

And the more I consider the shenanigans of the so-called Pro-Life haters, the more I think Mrs. Cartman of South Park was right and it should be retroactive or at least available in very late term cases, for example to people like U.S. Senators, even in the 400th trimester. Or later. After seeing that evil DNA spill, Senator Strom Thurmond nearly reach 100, I think we should hedge a bit and make it possible to obtain an abortion in the 500th trimeter, just in case any of the bastards slip through, so to speak.
 
2012-08-21 02:47:28 PM

ciberido: 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.


*waves hand*, right here you farkwit who automatically assumes I'm talking out my ass because you disagree....

I have been sexually assaulted while unable to give consent and I have been violently raped behind a bar in a dark alley between a FARKING DUMPSTER and cement block wall (it's weird the details that never leave you) while sober enough to know what was going on and fighting for all I was worth just to make it stop, then submitting because it was the only way to get his forearm off my neck so I could draw a breath and because I honestly believed that if I passed out, he'd just kill me. Living, not protecting my vagina, was what I knew was most important - even then.

Not a CSS, but I stand by my original comment.

Having experienced both these situations at a relatively young age (both instances before I was 17), I have a difficult time understanding how one could equate the 1st with the 2nd.

I know, anecdotal evidence.....
 
2012-08-21 02:52:55 PM

CeroX: KiplingKat872: 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.

I'm not saying it isn't the law... and since you seem to want to paint me as some sort of rape defender, let me remind you that, in a lot of states, having 4 ounces of beer, aka .025 BAC is over the legal limit, and by those accounts, someone who had 4 ounces of beer is in no mental state to make decisions of any kind...

I'm going to purposely stop defending myself and start attacking you:

Remember the next time someone calls you a cock-juggling thunder coont after they had a few sips of beer, it's not them talking, because they legally have no coherent judgement in some states...

I'm out for the day... have fun with this...


Not only are you sexist (classy, very classy), you are wrong:

Legal Limits By State

0.8, which is one of the highest in the world.

BAC Effects
 
2012-08-21 02:57:41 PM

KrustyKitten: I have been sexually assaulted while unable to give consent and I have been violently raped behind a bar in a dark alley between a FARKING DUMPSTER and cement block wall (it's weird the details that never leave you) while sober enough to know what was going on and fighting for all I was worth just to make it stop, then submitting because it was the only way to get his forearm off my neck so I could draw a breath and because I honestly believed that if I passed out, he'd just kill me. Living, not protecting my vagina, was what I knew was most important - even then.

Not a CSS, but I stand by my original comment.

Having experienced both these situations at a relatively young age (both instances before I was 17), I have a difficult time understanding how one could equate the 1st with the 2nd.

I know, anecdotal evidence.....


We're all thinking it... so I will go ahead and ask it... what the fark were you doing in an alley behind a bar when you were under 17? And by "sober enough", can we imply that means you were indeed under the influence of something?
 
2012-08-21 03:00:13 PM

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


There are also pro-choice Republicans. Scott Brown and Olympia Snoewe, of the top of my head, are pro-choice Republican Senators. But a google search will turn up websites, stories and PACs for pro-choice Republicans.

mrshowrules: 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.



Yes, I know the definition.

For instance, the fertilized egg meets all 7 criteria that define life, and the DNA test of that life would return the expected results that it's a human life that is a unique mix of parental genetics.

Therefor it is a unique and individual human life.
 
2012-08-21 03:00:25 PM
CeroX:

Sorry, I meant .08

And for the record, .08 is three (regular) beers for a 140 lb person.

BAC Calculator
 
2012-08-21 03:04:07 PM

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

There are also pro-choice Republicans. Scott Brown and Olympia Snoewe, of the top of my head, are pro-choice Republican Senators. But a google search will turn up websites, stories and PACs for pro-choice Republicans.

mrshowrules: 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.


Yes, I know the definition.

For instance, the fertilized egg meets all 7 criteria that define life, and the DNA test of that life would return the expected results that it's a human life that is a unique mix of parental genetics.

Therefor it is a unique and individual human life.


How does a zygote respond or adapt to it's environment or reproduce? Cellular division is not reproduction.

Actually, using these criteria, fire is a living thing.

Does that mean we should have let Colorado burn rather than murdering that poor fire?
 
2012-08-21 03:04:56 PM

RolandGunner: There are also pro-choice Republicans. Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe, off the top of my head, are pro-choice Republican Senators. But a google search will turn up websites, lists and PACs for pro-choice Republicans.


FTFM
 
2012-08-21 03:09:19 PM

KiplingKat872: RolandGunner: mrshowrules: As there are some pro-life Democrats, this is automatically false.

There are also pro-choice Republicans. Scott Brown and Olympia Snoewe, of the top of my head, are pro-choice Republican Senators. But a google search will turn up websites, stories and PACs for pro-choice Republicans.

mrshowrules: 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.


Yes, I know the definition.

For instance, the fertilized egg meets all 7 criteria that define life, and the DNA test of that life would return the expected results that it's a human life that is a unique mix of parental genetics.

Therefor it is a unique and individual human life.

How does a zygote respond or adapt to it's environment or reproduce? Cellular division is not reproduction.

Actually, using these criteria, fire is a living thing.

Does that mean we should have let Colorado burn rather than murdering that poor fire?


Fire fits 6 of the 7 he listed, but it isn't made of cells.
On an individual basis, reproduction isn't needed. A fertile male is still alive. But as a generic property of the majority of the species, reproduction must be a trait. And true, cellular division is not reproduction. But the organism has potential to. If we have to say something isn't alive until it can reproduce, then we were all walking around lifeless for the first decade or so of our lives.
 
2012-08-21 03:16:04 PM

stonicus: Fire fits 6 of the 7 he listed, but it isn't made of cells.


Oh yeah. Missed that one.

Reproduction is just one point, but a zygote does not adapt or respond to it's environment as well. In fact the opposite occurs, the mother's body adapts to the zygote. If it does not, the pregnancy usually miscarries (which is very common). The Zygote can't adapt itself in order to suit the mother's body.

There is also the argument that well kill million of animals in city animal shelter every year that have more awareness than a zygote has.

And of course very few pro-lifers give a damn what happens after the kid after they are born since they want to cut welfare, medicare, education, etc.

So this is not about life. This is about a half-arsed (since they do not follow Christ's teaching about caring for the poor) Christian morality.
 
2012-08-21 03:18:49 PM

Ed Finnerty: Gyrfalcon: Ed Finnerty: Gyrfalcon: These fools actually believe in that old lawyer joke about a woman being able to run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down.

That's crazy. Everyone knows men are more aerodynamic especially with a malicious erection.

What if it's just a negligent erection?

Then the man is a flip-flopper.


I'm so sorry when I leave here early.
 
2012-08-21 03:22:37 PM

stonicus: KrustyKitten: I have been sexually assaulted while unable to give consent and I have been violently raped behind a bar in a dark alley between a FARKING DUMPSTER and cement block wall (it's weird the details that never leave you) while sober enough to know what was going on and fighting for all I was worth just to make it stop, then submitting because it was the only way to get his forearm off my neck so I could draw a breath and because I honestly believed that if I passed out, he'd just kill me. Living, not protecting my vagina, was what I knew was most important - even then.

Not a CSS, but I stand by my original comment.

Having experienced both these situations at a relatively young age (both instances before I was 17), I have a difficult time understanding how one could equate the 1st with the 2nd.

I know, anecdotal evidence.....

We're all thinking it... so I will go ahead and ask it... what the fark were you doing in an alley behind a bar when you were under 17? And by "sober enough", can we imply that means you were indeed under the influence of something?


Oh my. Without too much of a bad story, that was my teenage years.

I was a little bad ass. Yes i snuck out of my parents house, drank all over town in the middle of the night with my friends. I picked up a couple drug habits my freshman year in HS and some equally bad ass friends. A (girl) friend of mine, her "step dad" hung with these biker guys and we used to hang with him and his buddies. I started "dating" this one dude (me at 16, him at about 28-30) and we used to party with step dad and his pals. By this time I had completely "run away" or "just stopped going home" so it's not like my parents knew about all this or where to find me (of course they were worried sick, had the cops looking for me, etc).
Yes, I was in a bar, yes I was drinking, yes I was doing coke with these people, yes I had a sexual relationship with the man I was "dating". My rapist was someone who had an issue with the guy I was with. I, of course, didn't know this, so when rapey guy asked me if I wanted to cruise outside to the car for a quick rail.......

You can see how things went downhill from there. I did not call the cops. I lay out there for what seemed like hours hiding from the world. Then I walked a down the street to a dark spot and curled up in a bush for the rest of the night.
Life went on and eventually I was picked up on some outstanding juvenile warrants and taken to juvie. End story: 3 months in juvie, 6 months in rehab, worked a 12 step program for the next 3 years. Long enough to repair my relationship with my incredibly awesome family, graduate from HS and develop a firm belief in who I am, and if not where I'm going - where I will never be again.

I can see how people come off as "blaming the victim" in cases like this. Was it my fault that guy was a violent drugged out psycho who raped me? Of course not. Was I a farking idiot for repeatedly putting myself in those types of situations? Yes. Was a lucky that scenario only happened once? Very.

/wow - too much emotion for a tuesday. probably good for me to get that all out once in a while. so..... thanks for asking.
//going to call my parents for a quick ILY at lunch time.
 
2012-08-21 03:36:36 PM

KiplingKat872: CeroX:

Sorry, I meant .08

And for the record, .08 is three (regular) beers for a 140 lb person.

BAC Calculator


allllright... i'm home because i couldn't just leave this conversation of our alone yet...

OK, admittedly, i didn't look up any actual bac values for the states... So, on that i will man up and say i was wrong. It is .08 here in Ohio.

Also, I will apologize for something...

I'm sorry you were raped. I don't wish that on anyone, like i said, an ex of mine was raped after she passed out at a party a few years back and I sat with her and her best friend all night one night as she blamed herself, she balled her eyes out, she felt worthless, thought no one would ever want her again, she was "tainted" in her own words... It took a while for her to come to grips and she eventually married a nice guy, even had a kid.

She was passed out drunk when that happened, but there is no excuse for what he did to her. NONE.

I hope you at least got justice, but given how angry you are at the system, my guess would be no.

The system isn't perfect Kat, but it's the system we have. We can't go locking up every guy who ever had sex with a girl just because she is claiming rape. The law might state that the legal impairment limit is .08 BAC, but the law also presumes a person innocent until guilt is proven... and it was written that way for a very good reason. Had we not had that law in place, many more innocent people would be imprisoned than guilty people walk free.

And you might not want to hear this, but someone has to: you will never be able to serve on a jury in a rape trial. You know that right? You know you can't look at a rape trial objectively the way our system requires you to.

I don't want you to be pissed at me for pointing out that some women have used rape to make false claims. I want you to be angry at them. They trivialized your real trauma. It's not all women, just a select few, and just enough to make it into the public eye. I'm not an apologist for stating facts. Facts are facts, they speak for themselves. I made no claim anywhere about statistics, or anything else.

I made some anecdotal statements trying to point out the view that assholes like Atkins would see it. The reason i put quotes around the word "liberal woman" is because i'm doing just that, quoting what i think they would say about someone coming on TV and making the statement that alcohol is an excuse to claim rape. It CAN be, sure, but it shouldn't always be assumed that sex between 2 people is rape if alcohol is involved... if that were the case, then every person who has ever dank alcohol and had sex is a rape victim. I can't accept that, it trivializes rape too much. It would also mean that every person who ever went to a club for the purposes of drinking and having a one night stand is purposely getting raped... i don't accept that either. It would also mean that every MAN who has ever drank over the legal limit and had sex is a rape victim, even those who really got drunk and really raped other people... I can't accept that...

So no, alcohol + sex does not always equal rape. It can and does lead to cases of rape, but it's not an automatic pass. And i won't apologize for my view on that.
 
2012-08-21 03:37:50 PM
KiplingKat872:How does a zygote respond or adapt to it's environment or reproduce? Cellular division is not reproduction.


Interacting with and adapting to it's environment: Upon fertilization the zygote responds to it's environment immediately by creating a protective barrier that prevents all other sperm from entering the egg. Soon thereafter the new life begins emitting human chorionic gonadotropin to signal the the mother's corpus luteum to continue secreting progesterone in order to maintain the uterus in a state suitable for implantation. From there, once it implants, it will grow the umbilical so that it can feed off the mother, and once the umbilical is formed and the placenta is completed it stops sending the hormonal signal.

Reproduction: The reproduction characteristic is judged over the existence of the thing. So if it matured long enough it would be able to reproduce. It's right there in the description.

Did you sleep through sex ed class or something?



Actually, using these criteria, fire is a living thing.


That is why there are seven characteristics and not just one.


Does that mean we should have let Colorado burn rather than murdering that poor fire?


No, it means that you don't seem to understand that meeting one characteristic doesn't meet the requirement that all seven be met. 

Also, the 7 criteria of life is a well established scientific classification process... why do you hate science?
 
2012-08-21 03:39:47 PM
shiat... I just realized i was talking to 2 different kat like people...

So... whoever was raped i'm addressing you... shiat balls
 
2012-08-21 03:43:29 PM

KrustyKitten: I can see how people come off as "blaming the victim" in cases like this. Was it my fault that guy was a violent drugged out psycho who raped me? Of course not. Was I a farking idiot for repeatedly putting myself in those types of situations? Yes.


It's a very fine line, that sadly a lot of rape apologists do not see.

If someone leaves their car unlocked in a crappy neighborhood, that doesn't mean that one iota of responsibility is taken from the the thieves who steal it.

Yes, you made stupid decisions, but that does not take one iota of responsibility from the guy who raped you. There were tons of guys around you, even in those rotten situations, that did not do that. Most guys, no matter how drunk and drugged up they are, their mind just does not go there. If it was you behavior that was responsible, then they all would have...but it was just that one guy.

So no, you are not repsonsible for what happened.

The hardest thing in the world for me to get over was blaming myself (I was dating the guy, I was in his apartment, "shiat happened you stupid biatch" that is what I thought for years, I couldn't even name it for years.), and then blaming god/the universe/fate. It was actually difficult for me to realize that this horrendous, life altering thing, thing had been done *to* me by a horrible man with with ego and control issues. That is was his fault, not mine.
 
2012-08-21 03:50:59 PM

mrshowrules: 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.



Oh, I forgot this bit... so I guess you count Brazil, Ireland and the Philippines to be countries that treat women as sub-human?
 
2012-08-21 03:52:33 PM

RolandGunner: KiplingKat872:How does a zygote respond or adapt to it's environment or reproduce? Cellular division is not reproduction.


Interacting with and adapting to it's environment: Upon fertilization the zygote responds to it's environment immediately by creating a protective barrier that prevents all other sperm from entering the egg. Soon thereafter the new life begins emitting human chorionic gonadotropin to signal the the mother's corpus luteum to continue secreting progesterone in order to maintain the uterus in a state suitable for implantation. From there, once it implants, it will grow the umbilical so that it can feed off the mother, and once the umbilical is formed and the placenta is completed it stops sending the hormonal signal.

Reproduction: The reproduction characteristic is judged over the existence of the thing. So if it matured long enough it would be able to reproduce. It's right there in the description.

Did you sleep through sex ed class or something?



Actually, using these criteria, fire is a living thing.


That is why there are seven characteristics and not just one.


Does that mean we should have let Colorado burn rather than murdering that poor fire?


No, it means that you don't seem to understand that meeting one characteristic doesn't meet the requirement that all seven be met. 

Also, the 7 criteria of life is a well established scientific classification process... why do you hate science?


hey man... i checked out what your link and all... insects are life, and we stamp it out every day. Just because something is alive, doesn't make it a person. Every life is unique genetically unless it was cloned. Doesn't make them people either.

I have no right to have an opinion of pro-choice or pro-life, i'm not a woman, it's not my call. But i am pro-death... I like the idea of capital punishment, i will kill to defend my family without hesitation. I would've been a Marine had i not mangled myself in a car accident. They don't train you to give the enemy flowers in the Marines.

So i have no feelings one way or the other... But i will say this... Leviticus 17:14

And according to this government website it's 6-7 weeks before there is blood present. "The cells of the embryo now multiply and begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation. It leads to the various cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells)."

So by the bibles definition of life, you've got a couple of months...
 
2012-08-21 03:53:20 PM
what the

why'd fark throw away my link???????


anyway, copy paste, stupid fark:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
 
2012-08-21 03:53:23 PM

CeroX: frat party,
frat party,
frat party,


While one may be forgiven for thinking otherwise, not all rapes happen at frat parties. Rape occurs under a vast variety of circumstances with countless forms and degrees of coercion and/or inability to consent.

It's hard to figure out what purpose you think you're serving with all this taxonomy and parsing.
 
2012-08-21 03:59:18 PM

BuckTurgidson: CeroX: frat party,
frat party,
frat party,

While one may be forgiven for thinking otherwise, not all rapes happen at frat parties. Rape occurs under a vast variety of circumstances with countless forms and degrees of coercion and/or inability to consent.


I know that... jesus, what would you have me do, list every possible rape scenario... i'd be here all day, i pulled one out of my mental hat, and replicated the scenario 3 times to show what one scenario would look like under the microscope with 3 terms being used today...

It's hard to figure out what purpose you think you're serving with all this taxonomy and parsing.

to point out what I think of when i hear those 3 terms being used...

anything else?
 
2012-08-21 04:00:57 PM

CeroX: We can't go locking up every guy who ever had sex with a girl just because she is claiming rape.


I know that, that's is why we have the justice system to investigate these crimes.

But we also can't assume that everyone women that says she has been raped is a liar, which is what you seemed to be encouraging. Especially when you leapt in with the stupid, "Liberal women" B.S.

You did not make clear that was Atkin's possible POV, not your own.

And you might not want to hear this, but someone has to: you will never be able to serve on a jury in a rape trial. You know that right? You know you can't look at a rape trial objectively the way our system requires you to.

Why am I supposed to care about that? Do you think it is fun for someone who has been through it to read KrustyKitten story? Do you think I like watching rape victims get dragged over the coals like they do in rape investigation? As I posted above, one girl had to hold up the panties she was wearing in court. You think someone who know how it feels, that remembers, wants to sit through that?

The assumption that someone who stands up for rape victims is out for revenge (or as people who do so have been repeatedly accused of here "a man hating feminazi") is B.S.

It CAN be, sure, but it shouldn't always be assumed that sex between 2 people is rape if alcohol is involved... if that were the case, then every person who has ever dank alcohol and had sex is a rape victim.

I never said it was. Of course people have drunken "no harm, no foul" hook ups. But it should *not* be assumed that every woman who comes forward saying that a man who took advantage of her intoxicated state raped her, that the man should get a pass because she was drunk.

And please stop talking about "trivializing rape" Every single rape apologist I have met uses that phrase to excuse certain situations where rape is involved. Every. Single. One.

We're the rape survivors, we'll decide what trivializes it or not.
 
2012-08-21 04:17:51 PM
The fact is sleeping with drunk strangers is risky. You don't know what they are going to do the next morning becuase they don;t know what they are going to do. Fark sober, it solves a lot of ambiguity.

Someone here had a great way to make sure you get consent: Just keep asking them what they want you to do to them. "Tell me what you want..." Very sexy, very reaffirming that you have consent.
 
2012-08-21 04:21:27 PM

CeroX: hey man... i checked out what your link and all... insects are life, and we stamp it out every day. Just because something is alive, doesn't make it a person. Every life is unique genetically unless it was cloned. Doesn't make them people either.


Yes, bugs are living. Amazing bit of deduction there! But if you did a DNA test on an insect it would most certainly not come back as being human, whereas if you did the DNA test with the unborn human it would come back as being human. So, that life that we established using the 7 criteria of life is further defined as a human life using DNA.

Science!

Will you need needing pictures?
 
2012-08-21 04:22:37 PM

RolandGunner: Will you need be needing pictures?


FTFM again.
 
2012-08-21 04:24:05 PM

Theaetetus: rdu_voyager: // Discuss

You blamed the victim in number 3. And you trotted out a stale trope in number 4. And frankly, number 5's title is wrong given the classification you're using.


I did not blame the victim in number 3. I just mean that the rapist is not responsible for the victim being unable to consent. To me, there's a very slight difference between giving someone rohypnol and then raping them and two people passed out at a party then one wakes up and starts assaulting the other. They're both wrong and both deserve jail time, but probably not the same length of sentence or maybe the first has no parole, but the second might.

You say "stale trope", I say plausible scenario. Might even be punishable in some instances.

For number 5, I'm thinking situations that are close, but not quite within the realm of the normal Romeo/Juliet exceptions. Say a 20 year old boyfriend and a 16 year old girlfriend where AOC is 18 and R/J exception is only three years. Yes, a statutory rape has occurred, but how severely should it be punished.
 
2012-08-21 04:24:38 PM

KiplingKat872: The fact is sleeping with drunk strangers is risky. You don't know what they are going to do the next morning becuase they don;t know what they are going to do. Fark sober, it solves a lot of ambiguity.

Someone here had a great way to make sure you get consent: Just keep asking them what they want you to do to them. "Tell me what you want..." Very sexy, very reaffirming that you have consent.


That's still just he said/she said. Video is the way to go.


And please stop talking about "trivializing rape" Every single rape apologist I have met uses that phrase to excuse certain situations where rape is involved. Every. Single. One.

We're the rape survivors, we'll decide what trivializes it or not.


Fair enough. But if you want those of us who don't have personal experience in the area to take it as seriously as it needs to be taken, don't come of sounding like if a guy sleeps with a girl, there's a 50/50 chance it counted as rape.
 
2012-08-21 04:26:31 PM

RolandGunner: CeroX: hey man... i checked out what your link and all... insects are life, and we stamp it out every day. Just because something is alive, doesn't make it a person. Every life is unique genetically unless it was cloned. Doesn't make them people either.

Yes, bugs are living. Amazing bit of deduction there! But if you did a DNA test on an insect it would most certainly not come back as being human, whereas if you did the DNA test with the unborn human it would come back as being human. So, that life that we established using the 7 criteria of life is further defined as a human life using DNA.

Science!

Will you need needing pictures?


They can pull DNA from a mummy, and it will be the DNA of a human. Is it alive?
 
2012-08-21 04:30:55 PM

KiplingKat872: rdu_voyager: 4) Morning After Regret Rape:
- One person could have said "no", but didn't say "no" and regrets it later

This "she's out to get me" scenario happens a LOT less than some men make it out to be.


I don't mean the "out to get me" scenario. I'm probably getting at a scenario where the consent isn't clear cut. In one version of the Julian Assange case, he woke up, started having unprotected sex with the woman (after being told no unprotected sex), she woke, reminded him about no unprotected sex, but then relented saying "you better not have an STD". Here, the consent isn't clear cut, and this may or may not be some form of sexual assault. Still probably doesn't happen that much.
 
2012-08-21 04:35:03 PM

KiplingKat872: KrustyKitten: I can see how people come off as "blaming the victim" in cases like this. Was it my fault that guy was a violent drugged out psycho who raped me? Of course not. Was I a farking idiot for repeatedly putting myself in those types of situations? Yes.

It's a very fine line, that sadly a lot of rape apologists do not see.

If someone leaves their car unlocked in a crappy neighborhood, that doesn't mean that one iota of responsibility is taken from the the thieves who steal it.

Yes, you made stupid decisions, but that does not take one iota of responsibility from the guy who raped you. There were tons of guys around you, even in those rotten situations, that did not do that. Most guys, no matter how drunk and drugged up they are, their mind just does not go there. If it was you behavior that was responsible, then they all would have...but it was just that one guy.

So no, you are not repsonsible for what happened.

The hardest thing in the world for me to get over was blaming myself (I was dating the guy, I was in his apartment, "shiat happened you stupid biatch" that is what I thought for years, I couldn't even name it for years.), and then blaming god/the universe/fate. It was actually difficult for me to realize that this horrendous, life altering thing, thing had been done *to* me by a horrible man with with ego and control issues. That is was his fault, not mine.


I bear my own responsibility for putting myself in a blatantly unsafe situation (unlike yours). No I didn't deserve what happened to me. No amount of booze or drugs or poor judgment can change that I am not responsible for someone elses actions. And no, the vast majority of guys are not like that. I never seemed to have the issue that some women do after the fact - fear of all men, etc. What I saw during those years should have resulted in some major disillusionment with the world at large. Luckily, that didn't happen til I found the FARK politics tab a couple years ago.

Thanks for the kind words. This was a long time ago (early 90's) and I refuse to let the things that I did and were done to me during that period in my life rule who I am today. As for your own attack, I am sorry for it and hope you've learned to celebrate the discovery of your inner strength. Without sounding too preachy, I believe that's the gift that adversity gives us.
 
2012-08-21 04:35:30 PM

KiplingKat872: CeroX: We can't go locking up every guy who ever had sex with a girl just because she is claiming rape.

I know that, that's is why we have the justice system to investigate these crimes.

But we also can't assume that everyone women that says she has been raped is a liar, which is what you seemed to be encouraging. Especially when you leapt in with the stupid, "Liberal women" B.S.

You did not make clear that was Atkin's possible POV, not your own.

And you might not want to hear this, but someone has to: you will never be able to serve on a jury in a rape trial. You know that right? You know you can't look at a rape trial objectively the way our system requires you to.

Why am I supposed to care about that? Do you think it is fun for someone who has been through it to read KrustyKitten story? Do you think I like watching rape victims get dragged over the coals like they do in rape investigation? As I posted above, one girl had to hold up the panties she was wearing in court. You think someone who know how it feels, that remembers, wants to sit through that?

The assumption that someone who stands up for rape victims is out for revenge (or as people who do so have been repeatedly accused of here "a man hating feminazi") is B.S.

It CAN be, sure, but it shouldn't always be assumed that sex between 2 people is rape if alcohol is involved... if that were the case, then every person who has ever dank alcohol and had sex is a rape victim.

I never said it was.


Actually, yeah you did:

KiplingKat872: 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.


Maybe that was a heated response, i dunno, but there it is...


Of course people have drunken "no harm, no foul" hook ups. But it should *not* be assumed that every woman who comes forward saying that a man who took advantage of her intoxicated state raped her, that the man should get a pass because she was drunk.

I'm not saying they should. But I'm also not going to lock him up and throw away the key just yet either... IF the day ever comes that i have to serve on a jury of a rape case, it is my civic duty to presume innocence until guilt has been proven and I will ALWAYS represent that. They don't get a pass unless the prosecution has rested their case and there is not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict. Just because I'm not lining up to shoot every man (or woman for that matter) in the face who is being accused of rape, doesn't mean i'm assuming the woman is lying. I'm PRESUMING innocence until guilt is proven... I hope you see that, and understand that there is a difference.

And please stop talking about "trivializing rape" Every single rape apologist I have met uses that phrase to excuse certain situations where rape is involved. Every. Single. One.

We're the rape survivors, we'll decide what trivializes it or not.



Sigh... You don't get to decide for me, that's the thing... People decide for themselves. And you don't get to decide for me what my feelings are. You want me to defend them, that's one thing, but don't tell me what i am allowed to think and feel. And i feel that false claims degrades the seriousness of rape no matter how few of them there are.
 
2012-08-21 04:40:57 PM

stonicus: They can pull DNA from a mummy, and it will be the DNA of a human. Is it alive?



I used the DNA to show that it's human and the 7 characteristics of life to prove that it was alive. I didn't use the DNA to prove that it was living.

BUT, on that same note, I can use the 7 characteristics of life and the DNA to show that the mummy is a dead human.
 
2012-08-21 04:44:32 PM

stonicus: Fair enough. But if you want those of us who don't have personal experience in the area to take it as seriously as it needs to be taken, don't come of sounding like if a guy sleeps with a girl, there's a 50/50 chance it counted as rape.


I didn't.

Though the fact that defending rape victims make you think I did makes me wonder where you head is at.
 
2012-08-21 04:46:31 PM
And to think that some of you were at one time considering voting for this sh*thead.
 
2012-08-21 04:48:33 PM
cache1.bigcartel.com

/what the fark is wrong with this nation?
 
2012-08-21 04:49:47 PM

A Fark Handle: [cache1.bigcartel.com image 450x450]

/what the fark is wrong with this nation?


also...

weknowmemes.com

/maybe rape sperm are supersperm?
 
2012-08-21 04:50:31 PM

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

There are also pro-choice Republicans. Scott Brown and Olympia Snoewe, of the top of my head, are pro-choice Republican Senators. But a google search will turn up websites, stories and PACs for pro-choice Republicans.

You said 0 Republicans were pro-choice and less Democrats were pro-life which is false. What you posted was false. Period. Just admit you were wrong

mrshowrules: 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.

Yes, I know the definition.

Obviously not.

in·di·vid·u·al (nd-vj-l)
n.
1.
a. A single human considered apart from a society or community: the rights of the individual.
b. A human regarded as a unique personality: always treated her clients as individuals.
c. A person distinguished from others by a special quality.
d. Usage Problem A person.

For instance, the fertilized egg meets all 7 criteria that define life, and the DNA test of that life would return the expected results that it's a human life that is a unique mix of parental genetics.

Therefor it is a unique and individual human life.


perhaps it is living and perhaps it is even human but it is not an individual or a person until it is born

The stuff growing on my shower curtain meets the criteria for life BTW.
 
2012-08-21 04:51:47 PM

rdu_voyager: Theaetetus: rdu_voyager: // Discuss

You blamed the victim in number 3. And you trotted out a stale trope in number 4. And frankly, number 5's title is wrong given the classification you're using.

I did not blame the victim in number 3. I just mean that the rapist is not responsible for the victim being unable to consent. To me, there's a very slight difference between giving someone rohypnol and then raping them and two people passed out at a party then one wakes up and starts assaulting the other. They're both wrong and both deserve jail time, but probably not the same length of sentence or maybe the first has no parole, but the second might.


WTF does that have to do with anything? The rapist is just as responsible for obtaining consent.

A retard, invalid, or dog is not responsible for being unable to consent. Does that mean the freak who rapes your retarded grandma and her toy poodle at the nursing home gets off easier than the roofie creep?
 
2012-08-21 04:55:01 PM

RolandGunner: mrshowrules: 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.


Oh, I forgot this bit... so I guess you count Brazil, Ireland and the Philippines to be countries that treat women as sub-human?


Let's just say they are working on it.

b>Wiki summary for Ireland
No clear result or consensus has emerged. In theory, abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the woman. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dáil Éireann to legislate on this; however, no political party has risked it, and in the meantime, while it is legal in theory, the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion. The Irish Medical Council stated: "The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct. Should a child in utero lose its life as a side-effect of standard medical treatment of the mother, then this is not unethical. Refusal by a doctor to treat a woman with a serious illness because she is pregnant would be grounds for complaint and could be considered to be professional misconduct

Far right GOP position on abortion is pretty much identical to Sharia Law.
 
2012-08-21 04:55:40 PM

KrustyKitten: I never seemed to have the issue that some women do after the fact - fear of all men, etc.


I never did either. A lot of what the rest of society assumes will be an issues, men and sex, often is not. Most of my friends have been male. I dealt with extreme depression alternating with hysteria over trivial inconveniences, an inability to focus, avoidance of anything associated with it, and emotional intimacy issues that I have to this day, twenty two years later.

Here is one that I suffered for years and then later learned is a common symptom of rape survivors: an inability to gauge time accurately. Many rape survivors, their mind ability to accurately discern the passage of time (without a clock) is broken. I had trouble with it, but had never linked it to that event.
 
2012-08-21 04:56:14 PM

ModernPrimitive01: your 1 and 2 are one in the same. Whether the threat was of physical harm or of something else, it's the same thing. Also you saying "statutory rape between an adult and child without violence" is about the most inane thing I've read in a long time. Violence defined is "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." You don't think raping a child involves physical force?

I'm not even sure what you mean by #3. Do you mean like getting someone drunk at a party then raping them? In that case, yes the person was not legally able to give consent and it's still rape. A specific kind of rape but it's not in a different category than 1 and 2. It's still rape.

Your number 4 is disgusting and really shows me you don't have any idea what you're talking about. [snip]

Number 5 is really the only one of your rape categories where there should be any discussion.


The difference between my #1 and #2 is the degree of the threat. In the first situation, there is actual violence or a threat of actual violence and the victim feels fear of imminent danger in addition to the sexual assault that's taking place.

In the second situation, the victim is coerced, badgered, seduced, promised a promotion, promised a passing grade, or otherwise pressured into not resisting. Yes it's still rape, but there is no physical harm or threat of physical harm other than the sexual assault. I see two sightly different types of forcible rape: additional physical harm versus some other type of additional harm.

As for saying "statutory rape between an adult and child without violence" i'm not talking about 40 and 8, but more like 40 and 14 where the adult has convinced the child, through seduction, that everything's "OK". There's no physical violence or threat of physical violence, but a rape has still occurred. This is more of the kind of statutory rape that any reasonable person would know is wrong and would still get punished just as bad as the first type of rape.

For situation #3, yes, that's the type of scenario I'm envisioning and as I state, yes I think it's rape. In some instances there won't be any mitigating circumstances, but there might be in others. If it's the case where it's "hey look, she's passed out, let me have sex with her" then it's just as bad as the first two. If it's "unquestionable consensual sex, fall asleep, he wakes up and penetrates her, she wakes up and says stop, he stops" then obviously something wrong happened, but should he go to jail for the rest of his life as he should for scenarios 1 and 2?

For situation #4, see my response to KiplingKat just above. I could have worded this one differently.
 
2012-08-21 04:57:10 PM

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

There are also pro-choice Republicans. Scott Brown and Olympia Snoewe, of the top of my head, are pro-choice Republican Senators. But a google search will turn up websites, stories and PACs for pro-choice Republicans.

You said 0 Republicans were pro-choice and less Democrats were pro-life which is false. What you posted was false. Period. Just admit you were wrong

mrshowrules: 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.

Yes, I know the definition.

Obviously not.

in·di·vid·u·al (nd-vj-l)
n.
1.
a. A single human considered apart from a society or community: the rights of the individual.
b. A human regarded as a unique personality: always treated her clients as individuals.
c. A person distinguished from others by a special quality.
d. Usage Problem A person.

For instance, the fertilized egg meets all 7 criteria that define life, and the DNA test of that life would return the expected results that it's a human life that is a unique mix of parental genetics.

Therefor it is a unique and individual human life.

perhaps it is living and perhaps it is even human but it is not an individual or a person until it is born

The stuff growing on my shower curtain meets the criteria for life BTW.



So you are just ignoring definition C, then?

To cut you off at the pass:

per·son
[pur-suhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child


So I established that it is a living human being via the biological definition of life, and a human being using the DNA, which establishes it as a person which establishes it as an individual.
 
2012-08-21 04:59:24 PM

stonicus: If we have to say something isn't alive until it can reproduce, then we were all walking around lifeless for the first decade or so of our lives.


Many farkers never achieve this ability.
 
Displayed 50 of 594 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 »






Report