Answering old threads thread

[Stripe]

His scenario was lame

His scenario has no force.

A person should only be convicted of rape if they're guilty of it.

Then retract your assessment.

 

[ok doser]

His scenario has no force.

 

[Arthur Brain]

His scenario has no force.


Then retract your assessment.

Nope, no need as anyone without some childish little axe to grind will well be able to see.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you're pretty much admitting that it's a crime without a criminal--except for the very rare case, like Hunter Biden, where they videotaped themselves doing some kind of onerous activity, like sadomasochism or bondage. You know, "something else". For someone who disagrees with me so virulently, you seem to come to the same conclusions--though you don't admit it.

Of course it has a criminal. If a husband forces sex onto his wife he's a rapist - ergo a criminal. Your bizarre ramble about Hunter Biden has nothing to do with rape so no, I don't in any way come to anything resembling your warped conclusions at all.

 

[Stripe]

Nope, no need

You're determined to believe that Fred said something that he didn't.

You're a liar.

 

[Derf]

You're determined to believe that Fred said something that he didn't.

You're a liar.

Or unwilling to admit he was wrong.

 

[ok doser]

Or unwilling to admit he was wrong.

Lack of consent or unwillingness to engage in what is appropriately known as marital relations necessarily equals brutal rape.

 

[Derf]

Lack of consent or unwillingness to engage in what is appropriately known as marital relations necessarily equals brutal rape.

I'm not so sure. You've essentially accused King David of brutal rape.

 

[ok doser]

I'm not so sure. You've essentially accused King David of brutal rape.

And myself
And my wife

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're determined to believe that Fred said something that he didn't.

You're a liar.

Nope, not at all. I addressed his scenario, lame as it was and you're bringing nothing but the same tired stuff as per usual.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Or unwilling to admit he was wrong.

There's some more irony but Stripes accusations as well as yours associated are unfounded. Addressed all ends up and all the posts are there. I sure ain't editing them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Never said it did. But even if it happens, it's not rape.

Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces her to file rape charges because she wasn't feeling up to sex that day. What should the judge's verdict be, and what should be the punishment, if he's found guilty?

Heck, maybe this stuff does need to be spoonfed to the likes of you and Stripe.

If the wife complains to her friend that she wasn't happy about Tuesdays "tryst" because she didn't feel like sex but her husband forced it on her anyway then her friend is right to call that rape. Given the vagueness of your hypothetical she could be complaining that the sex just wasn't that great or whatever in which case it's not rape. The whole scenario lacks any sort of cogent detail as to specifics and is therefore lame.

Clear now?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then respond honestly to the scenario that he presented.

There was no force involved.

You made it up.

I've responded to this once again with baby steps so the pair of you might be able to keep up. In the scenario presented it was too vague as to what the wife was unhappy about as outlined in my last. What isn't vague is your asinine nonsense about stating that I consider it rape if a woman has regrets after sex. If you repeat that garbage then it's an outright lie as I've never come close to stating such, ya got that?

Yay.

 

[Stripe]

Heck, maybe this stuff does need to be spoonfed to the likes of you and Stripe.

Hello there, Stupid.

I'm not advocating Fred's ideas.

You judged a man guilty in the hypothetical situation where a woman had regret.

You can't edit the posts. They are right there.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hello there, Stupid.

I'm not advocating Fred's ideas.

You judged a man guilty in the hypothetical situation where a woman had regret.

You can't edit the posts. They are right there.

Why hey there you...strange person.

Good for you cos they're indefensible.

Nope, sure didn't as any honest reading would establish and especially after having to walk you through it all and everything and no reason to edit my posts anyway.

If you perpetuate the same asinine nonsense about how I consider it to be rape if a woman has regrets after sex then you're a liar. Was monumentally dumb of you to assert such to begin with but to repeat such would just be lies and you don't want that, do you?

 

[ok doser]

Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces her to file rape charges because she wasn't feeling up to sex that day. What should the judge's verdict be, and what should be the punishment, if he's found guilty?

The wife complains to a friend
The friend gets incensed

Clearly the wife was the victim of a brutal rape that left her bruised and emotionally and psychologically broken. Clearly the husband should be summarily executed.

Just as clearly the wife should be executed for consensually engaging in sex on Wednesday with a brutal rapist. Her willingness to engage in sex on Wednesday makes her an accessory after the fact.

The friend should be executed just for being an annoying pain in the neck

Hello there, Stupid.

 

[Stripe]

They're indefensible.

He presented a scenario that had no force.

You called the man guilty.

 

[Idolater]

The wife complains to a friend
The friend gets incensed

Clearly the wife was the victim of a brutal rape that left her bruised and emotionally and psychologically broken. Clearly the husband should be summarily executed. ...

The difficulty in convincing a jury that a rape occurred, is cosmically, in one sense (and it's an important one), in the defense of justice, because you're absolutely right, it is the only thing that defends innocent people against felony perjurers like this one.

It doesn't have anything to do with our absolute, inalienable right against being raped as people. Even if you can't ever prove a murder, still murder is absolutely wrong, and our right against being murdered is still just as absolute.

 

[Derf]

The difficulty in convincing a jury that a rape occurred, is cosmically, in one sense (and it's an important one), in the defense of justice, because you're absolutely right, it is the only thing that defends innocent people against felony perjurers like this one.

It doesn't have anything to do with our absolute, inalienable right against being raped as people. Even if you can't ever prove a murder, still murder is absolutely wrong, and our right against being murdered is still just as absolute.

The difference, of course, is that a person is dead whether a murder is proved or not, which is something God didn't want. But in the marital rape case, what happened was supposed to happen--God wanted it--just someone didn't like the timing.

 

[Derf]

He presented a scenario that had no force.

You called the man guilty.

He knows he's guilty--and he can figure out the antecedents in several ways.