Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 133

Thread: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    That is not statutory rape, that is child molestation. Statutory rape requires the person to be at the age of sexuality.
    Okay, bump it to 12. I'd love to have CC to come in and verify, but I'm almost positive children at that age...while technically entering into puberty...can still have significant emotional trama from being manipulated into a sexual relationship at that point.

    I'm in favor of the 30 year old being on the hook in all cases.

    but that has many problems. In forced rape cases, we often don't know who the 30 year old is, or he won't have the means to pay as he is incarcerated.

    If a person beats me up, does the tax payer pay my medical bills? Am I criticized for suggesting tax payers should not be responsible for this? how is this any different?
    Then in this case it seems you're being relatively consistent in the generalized view which even if I disagree with is at least following a general coherent logic process.

  2. #92
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Okay, bump it to 12. I'd love to have CC to come in and verify, but I'm almost positive children at that age...while technically entering into puberty...can still have significant emotional trama from being manipulated into a sexual relationship at that point.
    I'm sure it can. Even adults can sometimes not handle the emotional baggage that comes with sexual activity. I still feel contrasting the two is acceptable.

    What I find unacceptable is how Kandahar is trying to re-frame this position

    If some guy beats you up and runs off, I feel you are responsible for your medical costs, not the tax payer,

    Kandahar claims I am saying you are a bastard that deserved it, but that is not what I am saying.

    having responsibility <> deserving something

  3. #93
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then give me an example of a rape that you don't consider forcible. Statutory? Comatose? And why are these distinctions even relevant, if not to punish the woman for secretly wanting to be raped in certain circumstances?
    Why are these distinctions relevant? The crimes have completely different motivations and deserve different punishments or at least the potential of different punishments. Forcible rape, as its defined by some states, involves not just "forcing oneself" - pinning the victim down - but raping and basically beating the crap out of the victim at the same time - the intent is more to punish and completely degrade the victim then anything else. Compare that to some guy in his mid 20's who has sex with a 16 year old who says she's 18 - he should have known better but believed what he wanted to believe. Same crime? Hardly.

    "Rape is rape is rape" is good politics - as is a lot of bs. There are relevant distinctions, whether or not you have a problem with the way they've been labeled.

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    I'm sure it can. Even adults can sometimes not handle the emotional baggage that comes with sexual activity. I still feel contrasting the two is acceptable.

    What I find unacceptable is how Kandahar is trying to re-frame this position

    If some guy beats you up and runs off, I feel you are responsible for your medical costs, not the tax payer,

    Kandahar claims I am saying you are a bastard that deserved it, but that is not what I am saying.

    having responsibility <> deserving something
    Well here I'm going to be fair to Kandhar.

    From his view it seemed you were saying

    "If some guy mugs you and takes your wallet, the goverment should reimburse you. But if some guy just illegally tricks you to give him your money, well then the government shouldn't reimburse you"

    Essentially it seemed like you were supporting the government paying for it in SOME cases of rape but not in other cases of rape.

    You've clarified pretty clearily that you don't think it should be paying for it in ANY kind of rape

  5. #95
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,355
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I would imagine however that for one who is pro-life, the view in the case of some instances of statutory rape or rape that occurs due to an outside substance impairing ones judgement and ability to consent are such that the individuals actions create a situation where the law should err on the side of the child not because "the bitch deserves" to be pregnant but rather due to the notion that utlimately they still made choices that led to the eventual scenario where as the child is the only one that was helpless where as in their mind a "forcible" situation is one where the woman is always as helpless as the child was in the act occuring, and as such its more reasonable to err on her side instead.
    You just made his point for him, and ruined all your indignation. Prettying up "the bitch was asking for it" language does not change the content.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #96
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well here I'm going to be fair to Kandhar.

    From his view it seemed you were saying

    "If some guy mugs you and takes your wallet, the goverment should reimburse you. But if some guy just illegally tricks you to give him your money, well then the government shouldn't reimburse you"

    Essentially it seemed like you were supporting the government paying for it in SOME cases of rape but not in other cases of rape.

    You've clarified pretty clearily that you don't think it should be paying for it in ANY kind of rape
    I was defending those that side with this legislation, only because Kandahar asked me to explain why they introduced such a bill.

    But your analogy could be more fair.

    More like:

    "If a con man sells you a phony newspaper subscription, the Gov should reimburse you. But if a teenager subscribes to a real newspaper subscription, he should not be reimbursed simply because he can't give that kind of consent"

    I don't think the government should reimburse you for getting robbed by the con man, but I can understand why some will be more willing to do so then reimbursing the teen.

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You just made his point for him, and ruined all your indignation. Prettying up "the bitch was asking for it" language does not change the content.
    Gotcha. I'll keep in mind "prettied up" things, aka actually explaining them from the mindset and views of those actually making the statement or taking the action, are actually completely cool to just be reworked into hyperbolic, over the top, hatefilled rhetoric.

    I disagree, but hey...gotta meet people on their level and expectations.

  8. #98
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And that's a ridiculous, bigoted, hyperbolic assumption to make in regards to their intent, thinking, or belief. Doesn't matter if you were including me, I didn't think you were including me...making stupid statements about large groups of people is something that irks me regardless if I'm in that group of people or not.
    I don't make statements about "large groups of people" if there are differing reasons they might think or act a certain way. In this case, I've yet to hear any plausible alternative rationale for why people might support (taxpayer-funded) abortion for SOME kinds of rape, but not others. Believe it or not, your attempt wasn't very convincing.

    No, it's not. There's a distinct difference between suggesting that an individual "asked" to be raped and suggesting that an individual did things that increased the chance that it could happen. If I leave my keys in my car and my doors unlocked I am not "asking for my car to be stollen". However, I am taking risky actions that enhances the chance of that happening.

    Suggesting someone is responsable for the poor decisions they make is not suggesting they are responsable for the bad act that someone else did by taking advantage of those decisions. I am not responsible for my car being stolen, the thief is. A woman is not responsable for being raped, the rapist is. However, depending on what actions I took, I could be repsonsable for putting my car in a situation where theft became more likely or more easily viable. Similarly, depending on actoins taken, a woman could be responsable for putting herself in a situation where the rape became more likely or more easily viable. That does not make either less of a victim, that does not make either to "blame" for the act that followed, but your emotional need to suggest that anyone who points that out is "blaming" the victim is not coherent to reality.
    What does a 12 year old do to decrease her chances of being raped? And how is she expected to know these things? And if you acknowledge that there is no difference in the degree of culpability of the victim, then we're back to the question of how the circumstances are relevant at all to the subject at hand in the first place.

    What the law would be doing is telling some women that the violation of the law that occured to them was of a lesser degree than the violation of the law that would occur to others, due to surrounding circumstances regarding the situation. That, I would agree with you in terms of what the law is doing. What I disagree with is that such a thing is equating to those individuals believing "Bitch had it coming".
    And this distinction is absurd because the government cannot possibly know the degree to which the woman was victimized better than the woman herself can. If the rapist is on trial for the crime, that's a different matter...of course the circumstances should matter for his punishment, and of course the government needs to be make a judgment as to whether the violation of the law is to a "lesser degree" than some other violation. But the government has no need or business doing this when it comes to how to treat the victim.

    You began by criticizing Republicans and a Republican bill based on a republican issue by stereotyping the mindset of individuals that are likely to support this, IE pro-life people, by suggesting they all just think "Bitch had it coming". Dress it up any way you want...the attack was firmly rooted in bitterness and distaste for Republicans and their view points and the need to attack and score political points by degrading, attacking, ridiculing, and mocking in a way that grossly exaggerates and contorts the thought process of that side.
    No, it was firmly rooted in bitterness and distaste for misogyny. I have no idea if this was a partisan-line bill or if some Democrats signed onto it, and frankly I don't give a ****. If they did, they're just as culpable as the Republicans. I never made this a partisan issue; the only time I even MENTIONED politics was to state that if Republican politicians considered this a "political distraction," they could just stop doing **** like this. Aside from that, my posts have all been about the CONTENT of this bill. You are the one who is trying to make this a partisan issue, not me.

    And I didn't "grossly exaggerate" anything. First of all, I didn't say it applied to "pro-lifers," I said that it applied to supporters of this bill. Second of all, it isn't a gross exaggeration when there are people in this very thread who are advocating for that point of view. One person has stated that 12-year-olds should be held accountable for consensual sex with adults...another person said that statutory rape wasn't really traumatic because on some level the victim was consenting. This kind of crap is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say "bitch had it coming" is the dominant mindset for the types of people who support these laws.

    And for some reason, you are inexplicably defending those disgusting viewpoints you supposedly disagree with, to show how nonpartisan and rational you are. Hint: Defending indefensible, irrational viewpoints doesn't make you more rational. You can get indignant and pretend it's about "Republicans" or "pro-lifers" rather than disgusting misogyny all you like, but you're the only one of the two of us who has made it a partisan issue.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-23-12 at 05:12 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #99
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,355
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Gotcha. I'll keep in mind "prettied up" things, aka actually explaining them from the mindset and views of those actually making the statement or taking the action, are actually completely cool to just be reworked into hyperbolic, over the top, hatefilled rhetoric.

    I disagree, but hey...gotta meet people on their level and expectations.
    Zyphlin, look at this again: "the individuals actions create a situation(your words)". That is blaming the victim, or to put it another way "the bitch asked for it".
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #100
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't make statements about "large groups of people" if there are differing reasons they might think or act a certain way. In this case, I've yet to hear any plausible alternative rationale for why people might support (taxpayer-funded) abortion for SOME kinds of rape, but not others. Believe it or not, your attempt wasn't very convincing..
    I noticed after I laughed off your incest debate point, you pretended our exchange was over, and now you pretend nobody gave a plausible reason for such legislation, when I did lay out a logical reason some might support this type of legislation

    It is illogical to expect rapists to pay for abortions as we often don't even know who they are.

    It is not illogical for all the parties involved in statutory rape to figure out payment themselves.

    Personally, I also think it is also practical for the victim of forced rape to pay, but apparently that is politically taboo so for electability, that group has been pandered to.

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •