Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[CabinetMaker]

only in your imagination



again, only in your imagination


you've completely missed the fact that my statements were made in the context of the new USDoJ definition of rape


let me give you an example

i assume you are a man

if you go out to dinner with your wife and you are the designated driver and your wife enjoys a few glasses of wine and you go home and have sex, you are guilty of raping her by the USDoJ definition of rape because her incapacitation due to inebriation makes her unable to consent


doesn't matter if she enjoyed it

doesn't matter if she initiated it

she can't consent

None the less, you have claimed that you were raped by your wife and you have claimed that you raped your wife. The difference between your example of a couple of glasses of wine shared by a married couple and you is that you are claiming that you have been raped and that you raped another in turn. You are claiming rape. Based on your statements here, legal proceedings could be initiated if it is within the statute of limitations. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

In our Politically Correct environment, only women are incapacitated by alcohol to the point that they are unable to consent.

Men, on the other hand, are presumed to have the ability to consent no matter how drunk they get.

By the time a prosecutor is able to apply the principles of consent to both men and women equally, that prosecutor has lost so much Political Correctness that he/she quits being a prosecutor.

I made no assumptions about incapacitation by either party due to alcohol. I specifically addressed his claims that he has been raped and that he raped in turn. That's it. He made the claims and if he walked into a police station and made these claims it would trigger an investigation.

So I'm guessing you are not going to look for a prosecutor to take this case. I kind of figured you would decline.

 

[ok doser]

None the less, you have claimed that you were raped by your wife and you have claimed that you raped your wife. The difference between your example of a couple of glasses of wine shared by a married couple and you is that you are claiming that you have been raped and that you raped another in turn. You are claiming rape. Based on your statements here, legal proceedings could be initiated if it is within the statute of limitations. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

ok, i tried :idunno:

i'm done playing with retards

go away and find somebody else to drool on

 

[ok doser]

note to self

list of retards to avoid:

cabinetmaker
elohiym
lifeisgood
1peacemaker
town heretic

 

[genuineoriginal]

So I'm guessing you are not going to look for a prosecutor to take this case. I kind of figured you would decline.

You apparently haven't accepted the fact that I do not agree with the DOJ definition.

The definition of rape we should be using is the one that existed in common law for centuries until the early 1970s.

"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

If the rape does not fit this definition of rape, I am not going to look for a prosecutor.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe the definition used by the DOJ is the correct definition of rape, yet you have enough sense to understand that the DOJ definition will be applied differently to men and women.

 

[genuineoriginal]

note to self

list of retards to avoid:

cabinetmaker
elohiym
lifeisgood
1peacemaker
town heretic

If you put them on ignore, the world will be a better place.

 

[CabinetMaker]

ok, i tried :idunno:

i'm done playing with retards

go away and find somebody else to drool on

You think you are so clever yet you fail to understand your own arguments. You are making an affirmative claim of rape and that is very different than a having a few drinks before bed. You should try to think your flippant comments through a bit before making them.

 

[ok doser]

You think you are so clever yet you fail to understand your own arguments. You are making an affirmative claim of rape and that is very different than a having a few drinks before bed. You should try to think your flippant comments through a bit before making them.

yes, that's nice


run along now :wave2:

 

[CabinetMaker]

You apparently haven't accepted the fact that I do not agree with the DOJ definition.

The definition of rape we should be using is the one that existed in common law for centuries until the early 1970s.

"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

If the rape does not fit this definition of rape, I am not going to look for a prosecutor.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe the definition used by the DOJ is the correct definition of rape, yet you have enough sense to understand that the DOJ definition will be applied differently to men and women.

It really doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, OD has made an affirmative claim of rape both as a victim and a perpetrator. He has made those claims knowing the definition of rape currently in use by the DoJ. He needs victim support and he needs to be prosecuted for raping a woman. His own words condemn him.

 

[ok doser]

He needs victim support and he needs to be prosecuted ....

 

[1PeaceMaker]

There's no statute of limitations on rape in NY.

Just sayin'

 

[ok doser]

There's no statute of limitations on rape in NY.

Just sayin'

you can share the prize with CM

 

[1PeaceMaker]

You are trying to be Politically Correct and look at this with common sense.

You can't have it both ways.

Common sense is the enemy of Political Correctness.

That part is actually good law. A man can be raped... even by his wife.

 

[lifeisgood]

Yes, you've played this message already. Since you've clearly missed what I've said, I'll make it even clearer.

We are to judge all things. When we see people claiming to be Christians who cannot even see that stripping is immoral, we have a clue they aren't Christians. When we see people denying and explaining away the godly principle of reaping what is sown, we have a clue they aren't Christians. When we see people claiming bad behavior doesn't deserve consequences in this life, we have a clue they are humanists and not Christians.

We are not to ignore those clues and pretend that such people are Christians, just because they may get all defensive and have themselves a little tannie, anymore than we are to lie and say strippers do not deserve to suffer the consequences for their bad behavior. I will continue to SAY what I see as the truth. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. I will continue to hold and state my opinions, nonetheless.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Corinthians 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.​

I have not discarded the scriptures; otherwise, I would not be able to know that God is awesome, that He is still on His throne, and that He is the ONLY one who really decides who is or who is not saved and not you.

Aren't you thrilled I am not God? I am.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It really doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, OD has made an affirmative claim of rape both as a victim and a perpetrator. He has made those claims knowing the definition of rape currently in use by the DoJ.

Yes, he stated the fact that normal willing sex between a husband and wife meets the DoJ definition of rape.

He needs victim support

Uh, no.

and he needs to be prosecuted for raping a woman.

Again, no.

His own words condemn him.

If every person that walked into the police station to confess to a crime was able to be prosecuted for their own words, then we would need twice the number of prisons than we currently have.

A prosecutor needs more than the words of the victim or the words of the alleged perpetrator.

They need eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and/or other proof of the allegations.

For a small time there (two, maybe three posts), it looked like you were trying to apply common sense to the allegations of rape, but now it is clear that you have gone full retard.

 

[patrick jane]

I'm afraid of being seen as your lapdog but I must say you have some brilliant posts lately. You arent shaken by all the misdirection and vilification and word twisting and outright lying. It seems to sharpen your focus even more.

hilarious :rotfl:

GD has a lap doggy

 

[genuineoriginal]

Common sense is the enemy of Political Correctness.

That part is actually good law. A man can be raped... even by his wife.

And as you just proved, Political Correctness is the enemy of common sense.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, he stated the fact that normal willing sex between a husband and wife meets the DoJ definition of rape.


Uh, no.


Again, no.


If every person that walked into the police station to confess to a crime was able to be prosecuted for their own words, then we would need twice the number of prisons than we currently have.

A prosecutor needs more than the words of the victim or the words of the alleged perpetrator.

They need eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and/or other proof of the allegations.

For a small time there (two, maybe three posts), it looked like you were trying to apply common sense to the allegations of rape, but now it is clear that you have gone full retard.

Or a confession. Confessions stand up pretty well in a trial.

Pay attention to how he said what he said. He made affirmative claims. Under the law, certain drunken acts could be considered rape but, if nobody claims rape, there is nothing to be prosecuted. However, when one of the participants makes a claim of rape, then law enforcement can and will get involved. His claim of being raped would probably go no where. However, he claimed to rape his wife, if his wife agrees that he raped her he will most likely do time for rape and be labeled a sexual offender for life.

In trying to make light of a legitimate topic he, and others, come off as fools who lack any sort of empathy.

 

[ok doser]

.... who lack any sort of empathy.

oh, i don't lack empathy

i am sincerely sorry that you are such a retard

 

[CabinetMaker]

oh, i don't lack empathy

i am sincerely sorry that you are such a retard

You have said nothing on this thread that would indicate that you have any empathy towards woman who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.