Who is on your ignore list?

[RockstarChris]

I ignore my posts and read all of Rex's

 

[Gandhi]

I know, that's why I am.


Recognizing and rejecting an oxymoron is not making light of rape. It's understanding what it is, a sexual assault on someone whose consent one does not have.


I explained why: in many Muslim marriages the bride does not enter it voluntarily. She has literally no say in the matter and therefore cannot consent at all.


Along with some Hindus and others who marry their daughters without their approval.

Missed the word "not"

You are trying to narrow the scope of a legally defined term, call it what you want but you are closer to the "making light of it" POV than I am.

Of your try to strip the bigotry out of it for a second you'll see your Islam stance is based on the same principal, power imbalances. You just don't acknowledge their existence historically in the west. Of course it's wrong to assume that all marriages in Islam are like that as well.

I'd definitely fire you for making a Doctor Who allusion. I can't have people like that in my life

I asked him the next day if he got it , and he said well "tardis" is Spanish for tomorrow, so he knew I would get it to him tomorrow. I explained it meant time machine, but did not provide the reference. I mean he knew more about the word than I did. LoL.

 

[Gandhi]

Well now that we have taqqyia this threat is almost complete. Somebody get a tranny in here.

 

[Thurisaz]

That doesn't mean that at all.

It has to, for the reasons I gave. If marriage does not grant an ongoing consent, that means each and every time a husband and wife have sex, there has to be written or verbal consent. Otherwise there is no consent and the act is rape. Unless you want to make a case for nonconsensual sex that is not rape.

You've demonstrated, however, that you're logically challenged, so I'll clarify the issue with a couple of syllogisms for those who can follow.

Premises, of which we all probably agree:
- The question is whether marital rape is possible, and thus a legal one in nature.
- Consent, to be legally binding, has to be verbal or written.
- Rape is defined as a sexual act of any sort with a non consenting partner.

Then we apply logic to both positions, the one that being married grants ongoing consent and its alternative.

First my position:
a) In marriage both spouses grant each other ongoing consent by entering the contract.
b) The only way to revoke consent in marriage is to take a divorce.
Therefore
a+b = There can be no rape, as defined in the premise, within marriage, since both have granted ongoing consent.

Note that nowhere does anything in my position imply that one gets the right to assault anyone.

Then your position:
a2) Being married grants no consent.
b2) Consent is each individuals own to give or take at a whim, just as in outside marriage.
Therefore
a2+b2 = There is no right to have sex within marriage. There is literally no reason to expect ever having sex with one's spouse.

Since practically every married couple has regularly sex without either one granting verbal or written consent for the act, every one of those people are rapists. To have sex with a drunk spouse or initiating foreplay while the spouse is asleep is rape. I'm pretty damn sure that if you're consistent with your position, you believe you are a rapist too, being married 7+ years.

All of this is the direct, logical result of your position. The thing here is that your position is not based on reason or logic. It's based on feelings.

There is also a third syllogism which you claim to be logical:

If
c) one has a right to have sex with one's spouse
and
d) one's spouse refuses to cooperate
then
c+d = One has the right to force sex by any means necessary from one's spouse in that situation.

You've twice made this argument, in the link to your comment I quoted and your comment on it. You're essentially arguing that two wrongs make a right. The logical fallacy of your position here is to forget that we're talking about a legal matter. Nowhere does the right to sex give the right to use force to pursue it. To aggressively use force against your spouse is assault, whether to pursue sex or otherwise.

So tell me, are you a rapist?

 

[Thurisaz]

You are trying to narrow the scope of a legally defined term, call it what you want but you are closer to the "making light of it" POV than I am.

No, I'm trying to erase an oxymoron from those law books it exists in.

I quote, again:
"Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce. This isn't a religious issue, although many on both sides will attempt to view it that way, it's a simple matter of when consent is revocable and the specific form that revocation must take. I invite those who believe that consent may always be granted and revoked at will to consent to join the U.S. Army, then attempt to withdraw their consent. That should serve to clarify the matter for them; one hopes they will enjoy their extended holiday in Afghanistan. The attempt to create a legal concept of "marital rape" is no less than an attempt to destroy the basic concept of marriage. If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse's body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended."

There is no escaping the above.

You just don't acknowledge their existence historically in the west.

Within Christendom marriages being arranged against the will of the participants generally speaking didn't happen. In that ours is an exceptional civilization.

Of course it's wrong to assume that all marriages in Islam are like that as well.

Are you illiterate?

 

[Gandhi]

No, I'm trying to erase an oxymoron from those law books it exists in.

I quote, again:
"Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce. This isn't a religious issue, although many on both sides will attempt to view it that way, it's a simple matter of when consent is revocable and the specific form that revocation must take. I invite those who believe that consent may always be granted and revoked at will to consent to join the U.S. Army, then attempt to withdraw their consent. That should serve to clarify the matter for them; one hopes they will enjoy their extended holiday in Afghanistan. The attempt to create a legal concept of "marital rape" is no less than an attempt to destroy the basic concept of marriage. If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse's body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended."

Great how you used employment as an example and when that got destroyed you are now going one step closer to servitude to make your example. But unlike the marriage issue, in the Army people could just walk, and they would at the time when the army most needed them. ie train then quite at war time. There is no such rational to restrict consent in marriage. Because that is what you are doing, replacing individual consent with a blanket one. Its akin to agreeing to be a slave for a period of time, which is not legal in our society, absent exceptional circumstances like the military. Simply put you have not made the case that we need to remove the right to individually consent. You have just repeated an opinion that ever lasting consent it is the cornerstone of marriage. Plus in the army you cant even ask for a divorce, you can only spend your remaining term in the boot and then be discharged.

Within Christendom marriages being arranged against the will of the participants generally speaking didn't happen. In that ours is an exceptional civilization.


Are you illiterate?

Other forms of power balances have existed though and its obv that you are turning the clock back here to recreate them.

No I am not illiterate I can read where you said that your rape consent exception would not apply to islam. I can see that you later hedged it, but it still warranted the clarification.

 

[Thurisaz]

Great how you used employment as an example and when that got destroyed you are now going one step closer to servitude to make your example.

The function is to provide proof for idiots who can't think for themselves the fact that there are several contracts one can consent to from which one cannot revoke that consent on a whim. If the fact that marriage is one of those, are work and enlisting similarly evil?

There is no such rational to restrict consent in marriage.

Except the function of the institution. Do you know why marriage exists in the first place?

I find it odd that people here are doing their best to remove full moral agency from the woman freely entering a marriage contract and expect the stipulations to change according to her whims. You're reducing women to a child or a retard, denying her full responsibility as a participant in the marriage contract.

Other forms of power balances have existed though and its obv that you are turning the clock back here to recreate them.

I have no need to do that. When daddy state goes bankrupt that which has no means of sustaining itself collapses. Denial of reality has one nice feature: it's really hard to do for a long time.

No I am not illiterate

Why the hell would you need to point out the implied and obvious, then?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I find it odd that people here are doing their best to remove full moral agency from the woman freely entering a marriage contract and expect the stipulations to change according to her whims. You're reducing women to a child or a retard, denying her full responsibility as a participant in the marriage contract.

Thats a strange view, unlike you i ( and i suspect most others ) see women as equals, i have no rights my wife does not , are you not of the opinion that the man is the head of the household and all decisions in the end are his to make ? Because that to my mind is reducing women to a child or a retard, denying her full responsibility as a participant in the marriage contract.


Have you not previously stated that that the consent marriage provides regarding sex goes both ways , that it is the same for the man and the women , and if that is true then could you not replace the word woman with man in your paragraph?

 

[Teen Wolf]

The function is to provide proof for idiots who can't think for themselves

Funny you say this considering you use the bible to think for you.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'd like to see terms defined here then. What are you appropriating as left wing economic policies if not centralized resource allocation?

I've been using the classic definitions of left and right throughout. Right and left wing have specific meanings broader than just economic policies. The person to whom I was responding was using personal definitions, specifically a very narrow personal definition of right and a very broad personal definition of left based on one aspect of economic policy. It was a rhetorical tactic to allow the poster to obfuscate and avoid addressing other points. A transparent tactic at that.

 

[Final Rehab]

It has to, for the reasons I gave. If marriage does not grant an ongoing consent, that means each and every time a husband and wife have sex, there has to be written or verbal consent. Otherwise there is no consent and the act is rape. Unless you want to make a case for nonconsensual sex that is not rape.

You've demonstrated, however, that you're logically challenged, so I'll clarify the issue with a couple of syllogisms for those who can follow.

Premises, of which we all probably agree:
- The question is whether marital rape is possible, and thus a legal one in nature.
- Consent, to be legally binding, has to be verbal or written.
- Rape is defined as a sexual act of any sort with a non consenting partner.

Then we apply logic to both positions, the one that being married grants ongoing consent and its alternative.

First my position:
a) In marriage both spouses grant each other ongoing consent by entering the contract.
b) The only way to revoke consent in marriage is to take a divorce.
Therefore
a+b = There can be no rape, as defined in the premise, within marriage, since both have granted ongoing consent.

Note that nowhere does anything in my position imply that one gets the right to assault anyone.

Then your position:
a2) Being married grants no consent.
b2) Consent is each individuals own to give or take at a whim, just as in outside marriage.
Therefore
a2+b2 = There is no right to have sex within marriage. There is literally no reason to expect ever having sex with one's spouse.

Since practically every married couple has regularly sex without either one granting verbal or written consent for the act, every one of those people are rapists. To have sex with a drunk spouse or initiating foreplay while the spouse is asleep is rape. I'm pretty damn sure that if you're consistent with your position, you believe you are a rapist too, being married 7+ years.

All of this is the direct, logical result of your position. The thing here is that your position is not based on reason or logic. It's based on feelings.

There is also a third syllogism which you claim to be logical:

If
c) one has a right to have sex with one's spouse
and
d) one's spouse refuses to cooperate
then
c+d = One has the right to force sex by any means necessary from one's spouse in that situation.

You've twice made this argument, in the link to your comment I quoted and your comment on it. You're essentially arguing that two wrongs make a right. The logical fallacy of your position here is to forget that we're talking about a legal matter. Nowhere does the right to sex give the right to use force to pursue it. To aggressively use force against your spouse is assault, whether to pursue sex or otherwise.

So tell me, are you a rapist?

Sorry I'm pressed for time right now hero, thought I'd cut to the chase.

 

[Thurisaz]

Thats a strange view, unlike you i ( and i suspect most others ) see women as equals, i have no rights my wife does not , are you not of the opinion that the man is the head of the household and all decisions in the end are his to make ?

How do you think a democracy of two works when they are of different opinions and there can be no compromise?

Because that to my mind is reducing women to a child or a retard, denying her full responsibility as a participant in the marriage contract.

She has full responsibility in her role, just as man does in his. A man can't opt out or revoke consent from financial responsibility, often even after divorce. So the current society holds men doubly responsible and women not at all. That's why a non-religious man getting married today has to be batshit insane - he's begging for trouble.

Have you not previously stated that that the consent marriage provides regarding sex goes both ways , that it is the same for the man and the women , and if that is true then could you not replace the word woman with man in your paragraph?

Marital right to sex goes both ways, neither of them can revoke consent except by way of divorce. The thing just is that precisely none of my opponents have argued against specifically male parts of the marriage contract at all and even on the subject of sex all they've done is talked about the woman like she is some sort of victim on whom the contract she possibly can't understand or agree upon is forced through trickery. You clearly do not think women as equally capable of making their choices to the extent that you think men are.

The way you imagine marriage sounds like a blanket approval for women to do whatever they wish and have a man to slave for them for absolutely no compensation at all.

 

[Thurisaz]

Sorry I'm pressed for time right now hero, thought I'd cut to the chase.

Cut the crap and answer the question. No one cares about whether you approve of correctly applied logic. If your answer is that no, you're not a rapist, you have one hell of a job making your case for it without ditching your own position. You can't escape or dismiss logical inevitabilities.

 

[machidafan99]

is there a limit or could you add everyone

 

[ripskater]

is there a limit or could you add everyone

Then I could pretend to be the only member of Sherdog.

 

[JDragon]

is there a limit or could you add everyone

Please try

 

[Bagatur]

I dont have anyone. I dont see the point.
I do turn off signatures though, if the forum allows the option to.

 

[machidafan99]

Please try

but I would miss your brilliant insights.

 

[Greoric]

I've been using the classic definitions of left and right throughout. Right and left wing have specific meanings broader than just economic policies. The person to whom I was responding was using personal definitions, specifically a very narrow personal definition of right and a very broad personal definition of left based on one aspect of economic policy. It was a rhetorical tactic to allow the poster to obfuscate and avoid addressing other points. A transparent tactic at that.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me what we label the Nazis, because they're apart of the same common denominator responsible for the lion's share of humanity's plight; centralization. Perhaps its just convenience then that the left leaning posters on here share that common denominator to empower a central authority. I'll grant you that's also a unifying characteristic behind Trump's message, his supporters, and broadly the neo-cons, but let's not pretend most resolutions on the opposing side don't involve adding more coercion from the federal government.

Anyway, I'd just like to read what you define as classic right/ left. It's pretty silly that a semantic argument has gone for ten pages, and all we really have to do is define our terms.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me what we label the Nazis

If I recall correctly, it was the labeling of NAZIs as left wing that started the discussion and the fact that this label is utterly contradictory of historical definitions of left and right and pretty much every historians characterization of the NAZIs. I could be wrong but I don't see why it would come up unless there were some boneheaded ahistorical argument being made.

because they're apart of the same common denominator responsible for the lion's share of humanity's plight; centralization. Perhaps its just convenience then that the left leaning posters on here share that common denominator to empower a central authority.

Lol, never change.

I'll grant you that's also a unifying characteristic behind Trump's message, his supporters, and broadly the neo-cons, but let's not pretend most resolutions on the opposing side don't involve adding more coercion from the federal government.

Anyway, I'd just like to read what you define as classic right/ left. It's pretty silly that a semantic argument has gone for ten pages, and all we really have to do is define our terms.

If you're going to complain that it's a silly semantic argument, levy that complaint against the person using their own personal definitions, not those of using the general and classic definitions. The general definitions that others are using are pretty easy to find, as is the history of the terms.

Also, you're wrong about centralization being particularly left wing.