Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 133

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

  1. #81
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    "Views of the other side"? What is this "other side" you are speaking of, because *I* was referring to a specific piece of legislation? How else would you interpret the "forcible rape" distinction?

    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?

    You know, as of late you've been really great at angry bluster and indignation, but you can never seem to actually defend said views. So I'm racking my brain trying to think of any possible other reason to draw a distinction between "forcible rape" and other types of rape, when it comes to abortion rights, and I'm still coming up blank. So in your considerable wisdom, perhaps you can help me out here and provide such a reason.
    See, here's your problem Kand. You assume that because someone disagrees with your ridiculous, over the top, hyperbolic, bigoted views rooted in prejudice and bitterness that they must disagree with the more reasonable base assumptions that your ridiculousness is built off of.

    It's not.

    I don't actually agree with the legislation in this case. While I don't have an issue with differing legal types of rape (for example, I have no problem with a harsher eye under the law is given to instances where a person is drugged or physically beaten along with the rape because in essense two crimes are being committed, where as in statutory rapes or scenarios where during sex an individual indicates they wish to stop and the other side does not where generally one law is being violated. Both are eggregious offenses, but I don't have an inherent issue under the law of seperating them for punative purposes) I don't believe we need laws on a federal level making stipulations based on non-consistent language.

    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.

    Now, you highlight...before you went into your over the top partisan rhetoric...part of why I have issues with the law and wouldn't support it. Not all instances of statutory rape are the situation of the 15 year old and an 18 year old, and not all instances of rape due to substances impairing the individual are situations where the individual is just drinking a whole lot and is drunk. IF you're going to try to give a limit on federal funds, I think doing so in a way that limits it to only cases where the state had found that the individual was raped, would be the only way to really do it in a solid manner...and I'd have a huge issue with that because of the under reported nature of Rape and the issue that there is a wide gap between the number of provable criminal instances of rape and the number of times it happens in reality but simply isn't provable in a court of law.

    I show my "bluster and indignation" to the idiocy that you' been spewing lately because it's that...idiocy. It's over the top, ridiculous, ignorant, partisan bull****. If you wish for responses singularly focused on your actual baseline points, rather than the dumbass assertions you go on to use that baseline to state, then perhaps you should leave such things out of your post so I can more easily focus on those baseline posts.

  2. #82
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    And you are right there correcting over the top rhetoric all the time....right......
    No, I'm just not usually sitting there complimenting the post and patting the person on their back with how correct they are. That's the difference.

    Drugged falls under some definitions of forcible rape, but not others. Some require violence or the thread of violence. Guess maybe your guys should have maybe been more clear...
    Funny...doesn't touch on the notion of "The bitch was probably asking for it" at all. Also, the presence of it being in some definition means that his statement of universal truth of what Republicans must be thinking "isn't about right".

  3. #83
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So you don't think there's any trauma involved if a 12-year-old "consents" to sex with a grown man? Let me ask you this: Why do you think statutory rape laws exist in the first place?
    Didn't say that, however, historically maybe there is, maybe there isn't - it's a case by case thing. We were talking about LEGAL DEFINITIONS though, and what consitutes forcible rape and how it's distinct from others LEGAL definitions of rape (you know, the thread topic?).

    As to your question, perhaps the layman's definition at the wiki will help you to understand:

    The term "statutory rape" is used in some legal jurisdictions to refer to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault", "rape of a child", "corruption of a minor", "carnal knowledge of a minor", "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge". In statutory rape, overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

    The term "statutory rape" generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation", is typically treated as a more serious crime.

  4. #84
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    statutory rape is a lesser kind of rape. It doesn't carry anywhere near the emotional baggage found in forced rape scenarios.
    Absolutely not the case in the extremely broad sense you're stating it.

    A 7 year old getting raped, not by force but by being manipulated, by a 30 year old absolutely can and often will have similar emotional baggage to those in a forced rape scenario.

    as for a 12 year old getting pregnant. I propose her family is on the hook for the unexpected costs of getting that abortion, assuming they can't get the 30 year old to pay of course.
    I'm confused, are you also in favor of the family being "on the hook" if that 30 year old just grabbed her, held her down, and ****ed her? Or is it only when a 30 year old manipulates and takes advantage of a 12 year old who is in no legal means able to consent or is expected to undrestand the ramifications of their action that hte family should be on the hook?

    If its the former, then at least there's consistency. If there's the latter, then how widely further do you extend that logic. If a 12 year old enters into a fiscal contract behind her parents back requiring that she pay huge amounts of money to someone who has taken advantage of her naitivity and lack of mental abilities, should the government allow legal recourse to null and void that contract or should the parents be on the fiscal hook to pay for the money their child consented into paying despite having no legal ability to do so?

  5. #85
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Absolutely not the case in the extremely broad sense you're stating it.

    A 7 year old getting raped, not by force but by being manipulated, by a 30 year old absolutely can and often will have similar emotional baggage to those in a forced rape scenario.
    Read that last of the wiki I just posted. Generally a 30yr old having sex with a 7yr old does not fall under statutory rape law but is treated far more seriously.

  6. #86
    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
    See, here's your problem Kand. You assume that because someone disagrees with your ridiculous, over the top, hyperbolic, bigoted views rooted in prejudice and bitterness that they must disagree with the more reasonable base assumptions that your ridiculousness is built off of.
    I assumed no such thing. The "bitch was asking for it" comment referred to supporters of this specific piece of legislation, and later, to the people who espoused similar views in this thread. If you thought that that included you, then perhaps it's because you identify with those people for some reason. *I* certainly never applied that viewpoint to you; in fact, your previous indignant post was (I think) the first post you even made in this thread.

    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.
    This distinction makes no sense, because "ultimately she still made choices that led to the eventual scenario" is just a nicer way of saying "the bitch was asking for it." And when the law starts treating different types of rape differently and blaming the woman/girl in some of those cases, then it basically ceases to be rape at all. The law would essentially be telling women that their trauma is less real than someone else's, and they are ultimately to blame for the consequences.

    Now, you highlight...before you went into your over the top partisan rhetoric
    Over the top partisan rhetoric? I think I've made *one* reference to politics in this thread...and that was just to say that this so-called "distraction" issue could disappear if Republicans just stopped doing crap like this. I'd hardly call that "over the top partisan rhetoric."

    I show my "bluster and indignation" to the idiocy that you' been spewing lately because it's that...idiocy. It's over the top, ridiculous, ignorant, partisan bull****.
    See above re: "partisan." And it isn't "over the top, ridiculous, or ignorant" to frame that viewpoint in those terms...it's an accurate portrayal of their views in many cases. People in this thread have basically advocated the "bitch was asking for it" view in different words (see post #71 for an example). Hell, you yourself suggested it in this post (albeit in the beliefs of a hypothetical pro-lifer who supported this legislation).
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-23-12 at 04:03 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The same distinction exists. Why should taxpayers have to pay for an abortion in one kind of rape, but not the other? It's all about how "legitimate" you consider the rape to be, as you've all but explicitly stated.
    Actually, since he seems focused on the statutory nature, it seems less about what he considers "legitimate" rape and more that he feels that none substance affected consent, even if not legally able to be given, is enough to not warrant the tax payers being on the hook because there was some active choice knowingly made to engage in the activity.

    Now, if ARC wants to clarify whether he agrees that forcible rape wouldn't include...say....instances of intoxication to the point of unconsiousness or being under the effect of a drug that you unintentionally took...then perhaps further conclussions could be gained. But as of not he seems singularly focused on the statutory part of it. Which makes some sense, because depending on your location and the laws in place that's nearly the only type of rape that doesn't fall under foricble rape.



    Did it ever occur to you that the parents, guardians, or relatives are the perpetrators in a large amount of statutory rape cases?



    The distinction between legal/illegal or taxpayer-funded/not funded isn't terribly important. Either way you are suggesting that some forms of rape are more legitimate than others, and should be treated differently under the law.[/QUOTE]

  8. #88
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Read that last of the wiki I just posted. Generally a 30yr old having sex with a 7yr old does not fall under statutory rape law but is treated far more seriously.
    Thanks for pointing that out. So in some states that's aggravated rape and satutory rape are different things entirely. That said, it still says puberty...and I do think there's a difference even between a 12 year old and a 15 year old in these type of situations

  9. #89
    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
    Absolutely not the case in the extremely broad sense you're stating it.

    A 7 year old getting raped, not by force but by being manipulated, by a 30 year old absolutely can and often will have similar emotional baggage to those in a forced rape scenario.
    That is not statutory rape, that is child molestation. Statutory rape requires the person to be at the age of sexuality.


    I'm confused, are you also in favor of the family being "on the hook" if that 30 year old just grabbed her, held her down, and ****ed her? Or is it only when a 30 year old manipulates and takes advantage of a 12 year old who is in no legal means able to consent or is expected to undrestand the ramifications of their action that hte family should be on the hook?
    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?

  10. #90
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I assumed no such thing. The "bitch was asking for it" comment referred to supporters of this specific piece of legislation, and later, to the people who espoused similar views in this thread.
    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.

    This distinction makes no sense, because "ultimately she still made choices that led to the eventual scenario" is just a nicer way of saying "the bitch was asking for it." And when the law starts treating different types of rape differently and blaming the woman/girl in some of those cases, then it basically ceases to be rape at all. The law would essentially be telling women that their trauma is less real than someone else's, and they are ultimately to blame for the consequences.
    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 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".

    Over the top partisan rhetoric? I think I've made *one* reference to politics at all in this thread...and that was just to say that this so-called "distraction" issue could disappear if Republicans just stopped doing crap like this. I'd hardly call that "over the top partisan rhetoric."
    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.

    See above re: "partisan." And it isn't "over the top, ridiculous, or ignorant" to frame that viewpoint in those terms...it's an accurate portrayal of their views in many cases. People in this thread have basically advocated the "bitch was asking for it" view in different words (see post #71 for an example). Hell, you yourself suggested it in this post (albeit in the beliefs of a hypothetical pro-lifer who supported this legislation).
    No, it's not accurate. There's not been a single person in this threads whose view point could honestly and factually be delcared as "Bitch was asking for it". It's a hyperbolic, exaggerated, inflammatory method of twisting the actual thoughts, views, and statements of those on the other side of you in this argument to suit your ends without a care regaridng the integrity and honesty of your means.

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •