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

Nonon said:

Not sure what's going on in this thread and it keeps jumping from one thing to the next. From what I did read though I was confused how he came to the conclusion that God was protecting the Egyptians first born by killing them with a curse. I don't understand your reasoning behind that. It would be helpful if you could explain your thought process in that instance. This is referring to posts on page 77.

Click to expand...

Nonon, please do not get confused.
ok doser was baiting and I did not bite his baiting and that is why I answered the way I did. (Now wait and see the contortions that will come out from some here just from this line alone. I am sure you have seen some already as at this point I have not gone any further than your post.)

I know what I said, and I knew that it would cause some in here to be all bent out of shape. All you have to do is read the responses since what I said and I am sure you will see their contortions; however, I stand by what I said.

Hope that helps you.
It will not help some in here, I am sad to say.

I see there have been a lot of threads on the topic. To me the foundational problem was "deserved". It's mixing things that shouldn't be.

You may significantly impact the chances of your being shot by placing a gun on a table and screaming the N-word at a Black Panther rally, but you don't "deserve" to be murdered. No one has a right to murder. You can't then merit being murdered.

So no, in no circumstance does a woman deserve to be raped.

On bearing some responsibility. No, you bear no responsibility for an unlawful consequence to a lawful act. You can increase the likelihood of a thing happening to you, or you can decrease it, but you bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions when those actions violate the law and your right.

Town Heretic said:

I see there have been a lot of threads on the topic. To me the foundational problem was "deserved". It's mixing things that shouldn't be.

You may significantly impact the chances of your being shot by placing a gun on a table and screaming the N-word at a Black Panther rally, but you don't "deserve" to be murdered. No one has a right to murder. You can't then merit being murdered.

So no, in no circumstance does a woman deserve to be raped.

On bearing some responsibility. No, you bear no responsibility for an unlawful consequence to a lawful act. You can increase the likelihood of a thing happening to you, or you can decrease it, but you bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions when those actions violate the law and your right.

Click to expand...

But people are responsible for acting like a slut if that is what they choose to do.

Town Heretic said:

I see there have been a lot of threads on the topic. To me the foundational problem was "deserved". It's mixing things that shouldn't be.

You may significantly impact the chances of your being shot by placing a gun on a table and screaming the N-word at a Black Panther rally, but you don't "deserve" to be murdered. No one has a right to murder. You can't then merit being murdered.

So no, in no circumstance does a woman deserve to be raped.

On bearing some responsibility. No, you bear no responsibility for an unlawful consequence to a lawful act. You can increase the likelihood of a thing happening to you, or you can decrease it, but you bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions when those actions violate the law and your right.

Click to expand...

Be ready to answer for Doser when he waddles in to show off his various twisted scenarios he wrote while he was watching Law and Order reruns.

ClimateSanity said:

But people are responsible for acting like a slut if that is what they choose to do.

Click to expand...

Yes. More broadly, everyone is responsible for their choices, period, because perfectly lawful choices can also be incredibly stupid with awful consequences, making "deserve" beside the point.

musterion said:

Deserve really is beside the point.

Click to expand...

It is the very crux of this discussion. Shouldn't avoid it just because it's difficult.

Town Heretic said:

I see there have been a lot of threads on the topic. To me the foundational problem was "deserved".

Click to expand...

right, which is why i let kmo define it and then used and continue to use his definition

to earn by one's actions

You may significantly impact the chances of your being shot by placing a gun on a table and screaming the N-word at a Black Panther rally, but you don't "deserve" to be murdered

Click to expand...

sure you do - you have earned that consequence by your actions

. No one has a right to murder.

Click to expand...

nobody is saying they do

You can't then merit being murdered.

Click to expand...

now you're introducing "merit"? :darwinsm:

good one! :thumb:

if you get drunk and play matador with the semis on the interstate, you deserve to get smooshed like a bug, in that you have earned that consequence by your actions

So no, in no circumstance does a woman deserve to be raped.

Click to expand...

unless she has acted in a manner that disregarded known risk and put herself in a position where rape was a likely consequence of those actions

in that case, she does indeed deserve to be raped, in that she has earned the consequences of her actions

Tambora said:

Click to expand...

:darwinsm:

ok doser said:

to earn by one's actions

Click to expand...

If that has been the extent of your definition and usage of deserve, I did not realize and I agree.

ClimateSanity said:

But people are responsible for acting like a slut if that is what they choose to do.

Click to expand...

Responsible in what way and to whom? Seems like a separate, moral argument. We're responsible to God for our sin, absent grace. Has nothing to do with what I'm speaking to, which is rape and the fact that no one is entitled to commit it, so no one can merit it, in any form or fashion.

Someone may use poor judgment and increase the likelihood of their being a victim of another person, but the responsibility for the immoral act of rape remains singularly with the violator.

Once you start addressing increasing the probability of a thing or decreasing the chance you get into the same sort of argument and problem as you do with charity. Who decides the degree and to what end?

ok doser said:

of course you do

if you get drunk and play matador with the semis on the interstate, whose responsibility is it if you get smooshed like a bug?

Click to expand...

In your scenario the would be matador is breaking at least two laws. The person striking him isn't necessarily breaking any.

revised version while you were composing:

Town Heretic said:

...you bear no responsibility for an unlawful consequence to a lawful act.

Click to expand...

of course you do if you engage in that lawful act knowing there's a strong likelihood of the unlawful consequence

if you leave your car running and the door open when you run into the store for a couple groceries and somebody steals your car you can bet yer boots your insurance company will hold you responsible for negligence and deny your claim

ok doser said:

revised version while you were compiling:

Click to expand...

You're daft. You were editing. I answered before your editing had gone full bloom, apparently.

of course you do if you engage in that lawful act knowing there's a strong likelihood of the unlawful consequence

Click to expand...

No, to match your actual argument. I've set out mine prior. Feel free to take a swing.

if you leave your car running and the door open when you run into the store for a couple groceries and somebody steals your car you can bet yer boots your insurance company will hold you responsible for negligence and deny your claim

Click to expand...

You're trying to conflate two different things there. The insurance company would hold you accountable to at least some extent under the doctrine of contributory negligence. That would be much like your drunken matador. So you'd be acting, civilly, in a way that was violative of your contract with them.

So neither of your cases is an apt parallel or rebuttal.

Town Heretic said:

You're daft. You were editing. I answered before your editing had gone full bloom, apparently.

Click to expand...

apparently

No, to match your actual argument. I've set out mine prior. Feel free to take a swing.

Click to expand...

nah - we've all been through this before - you don't bring anything new except a lot of hot air

You're trying to conflate two different things there.

Click to expand...

not at all

i'm trying to make you see the following:

we bear responsibility for the consequences of our actions when we engage in those actions knowing that we are putting ourselves at significant risk of those consequences



in scriptural terms - we reap what we sow

Town Heretic said:

I see there have been a lot of threads on the topic. To me the foundational problem was "deserved". It's mixing things that shouldn't be.

Click to expand...

First, I'm thrilled to see you back Town. :thumb:

In regards to your statement above.....let's not mix them, then. Let's look at each person's bad behavior (if there is bad behavior on both sides) separately. The wrong committed by one does not remove the wrong committed by the other.

You may significantly impact the chances of your being shot by placing a gun on a table and screaming the N-word at a Black Panther rally, but you don't "deserve" to be murdered. No one has a right to murder. You can't then merit being murdered.

Click to expand...

I don't see what that guy did as immoral, actually.
It was risky behavior, but it wasn't much different than what Jesus did when He took up a whip and drove the money lenders from the temple.

So no, in no circumstance does a woman deserve to be raped.

On bearing some responsibility. No, you bear no responsibility for an unlawful consequence to a lawful act. You can increase the likelihood of a thing happening to you, or you can decrease it, but you bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions when those actions violate the law and your right.

Click to expand...

I think you may know by now that I disagree. I think the stripper at a frat party deserves whatever she gets (even rape) as a consequence for her bad behavior. And I don't think it's wrong to say so, either....not even wrong to call for it. 2 Tim. 4:14

True, you bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions, but you certainly do bear all the responsibility for your own. I used the term, early on in this debate, "just deserts". Just deserts are outside the scope of the "law", but they are not outside the scope of the moral law. Most of this argument has been as a result of semantics (if that be the correct term), and one's understanding of the word "deserve". I can remember telling a friend that I thought we were saying the same thing, but seeing it from different angles.

noun 1. Usually, deserts. reward or punishment that is deserved: Death was his desert. Synonyms: due, payment, recompense, reward; justice, retaliation, retribution, penalty. 2. the state or fact of deserving reward or punishment. Idioms 4. get /receive /etc. one's (just) deserts, to be punished or rewarded in a manner appropriate to one's actions or behavior: Some people felt he had gotten his just deserts, having been imprisoned and relieved of his ill-gotten gains, but others would have preferred old-style public flogging, followed by drawing and quartering, and who can blame them?​

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned.

“The words of the Divina Commedia are still the mightiest and most living words in which man has ever painted in detail the true deserts of sin, penitence, and sanctity.“ —Rev. John C. Eccleston, from his lectures on Dante Alighieri, The Churchman, vol. 53 (January 2, 1886) “I have no sympathy with those who invested their money in slave property. They not only received their just deserts in having their property confiscated, but they should have been compelled to make restitution to the last penny to the poor slaves whom they had systematically robbed.“ —Timothy Thomas Fortune, Black and White: Land, Labor, and Politics in the South (1884) “Some will always mistake the degree of their own desert.“ —Samuel Johnson, The Rambler, No. 193 (January 21, 1752)​

ok doser said:

apparently

nah - we've all been through this before - you don't bring anything new except a lot of hot air

Click to expand...

Okay, feel free to stop talking to me. At present you appear to be demonstrably conflicted.

i'm trying to make you see that we bear responsibility for the consequences of our actions when we engage in those actions knowing that we are putting ourselves at significant risk of those consequences

Click to expand...

Responsibility is an empty word without a standard and a judge. I've noted our moral responsibility. The rest is legal and I only just demonstrated why both of your attempts there fail. Else, some idiot who feels inflamed by the sight of ankles will rape and foist upon the ankle bearing female some semblance of responsibility, which remains wrong as a matter of law and daft as an argument, though it is a rational extension of what you're trying to peddle.

Town Heretic said:

Responsibility is an empty word without a standard and a judge.

Click to expand...

nobody but you has been confused about it :idunno:

Town Heretic said:

Else, some idiot who feels inflamed by the sight of ankles will rape and foist upon the ankle bearing female some semblance of responsibility, which remains wrong as a matter of law and daft as an argument, though it is a rational extension of what you're trying to peddle.

Click to expand...

perhaps that's what passes for rationality in the community colleges in alabama :idunno:

again, for those who are easily confused:


we bear responsibility for the consequences of our actions when we engage in those actions knowing that we are putting ourselves at significant risk of those consequences




to put it in scriptural terms:

Galatians 6:7-9King James Version (KJV) 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Town Heretic said:

Responsible in what way and to whom? Seems like a separate, moral argument. We're responsible to God for our sin, absent grace. Has nothing to do with what I'm speaking to, which is rape and the fact that no one is entitled to commit it, so no one can merit it, in any form or fashion.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's what I'm talking about. We're all responsible to God...whether we accept that or not. And God allows all of us to suffer the consequences of our actions unless He specifically gives us grace in some particular situation. The idea of reaping what we sow is a Biblical concept...even though the ungodly call it karma and a result of some universal law.

People suffer for many reasons and ONE of those reasons is as a punishment for bad behavior..... God allows that suffering for a purpose. It may be to draw us to Him. It may be to keep us from doing that bad behavior in the future.

I could even pray the Lord give someone according to the wickedness of their endeavors....as David did here, but wouldn't the bleeding hearts have a fit if I went that far? :chuckle:



Getting raped might very well be the only thing that would make a stripper see the errors of her ways. Getting what we deserve for our bad behavior is one of the best teaching tools out there. We need to thank the Lord we don't get what we deserve more often.

glorydaz said:

First, I'm thrilled to see you back Town. :thumb:

Click to expand...

Good to stop by and chat up a few of you.

In regards to your statement above.....let's not mix them, then. Let's look at each person's bad behavior (if there is bad behavior on both sides) separately. The wrong committed by one does not remove the wrong committed by the other.

Click to expand...

Like I've said, there are two discussions, both with standards. No one has a right to rape anyone and so no one else can bear any of the responsibility for the action. No matter how you act, no one has a right to rape you. No one has a right to murder you and no one bears the responsibility for the act but the actor.

I don't see what that guy did as immoral, actually.

Click to expand...

It's arguable, but I wasn't addressing it as a moral judgment. His rights are still his own and no one is entitled to murder him because he's an idiot.

It was risky behavior, but it wasn't much different than what Jesus did when He took up a whip and drove the money lenders from the temple.

Click to expand...

I'd agree it was similar in that both were following their conviction and increasing the chance for a negative outcome.

I think you may know by now that I disagree. I think the stripper at a frat party deserves whatever she gets (even rape) as a consequence for her bad behavior.

Click to expand...

Then I'd say you're just wrong. There's no legal justification and God won't command anyone to do evil, which rape most assuredly is.

True, you bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions, but

Click to expand...

There's no qualifcation. You either are or you aren't. You are, both morally and legally. The only responsibility that attaches at law is for willfully furthering a criminal activity. Not for being stupid or indifferent to your own safety. Morally, everyone who gets what they deserve gets something horrible, so thank God for grace.

you certainly do bear all the responsibility for your own.

Click to expand...

Separate issue and standard. If a woman on a poll is acting to drive men to lust in exchange for money then she is responsible for the sin of it, but that sin doesn't justify rape and she isn't responsible for the person who attempts it. Her responsibility, morally, is between her and God. Legally she has no responsibility at all, provided her actions are sanctioned wherever she's working.

If you walk around shouting the N word in Compton someone is probably going to do something to you at some point that you won't like. Are you behaving irresponsibly? Of course you are. Does that irresponsibility increase the likelihood of an unfortunate outcome? Of course. Are you then responsible for that outcome? You are not.

I used the term, early on in this debate, "just deserts"

Click to expand...

Doesn't work as a matter of law and runs into grace and my above else.

Just deserts are outside the scope of the "law", but they are not outside the scope of the moral law.

Click to expand...

Just deserts aren't evil and don't serve it.

Most of this argument has been as a result of semantics (if that be the correct term), and one's understanding of the word "deserve". I can remember telling a friend that I thought we were saying the same thing, but seeing it from different angles.

Click to expand...

I think the word and the subjective nature of it invites contention. I think that was almost entirely the point.

Have to go. Just got a call from mom that dad's in the hospital.