You deserve this!

[1PeaceMaker]

Yes. This is partly what makes this conversation so confusing and so long lasting between the different people on TOL. "Deserve," as I have pointed out, means a whole lot of different things depending on the context,

If you ask me, definitions 2 and 3 are the product of foolish thinking for numerous reasons.

People should keep their sense of justice clean.

Bad things happen to foolish people. :idunno:

In a corrupt society they are not safe. But everybody has a stupid moment now and then, making all potential prey to watchful criminals.

I completely agree. But unless and until then, lay off the perfume. You don't? Then shame on you. :idunno:

No way. By that reason we shouldn't have martyrs. Reign in lawlessness.

I wouldn't shame a black man for being attacked while walking through a racist neighborhood. He's not the one with the problem if he gets attacked.

 

[Rusha]

I wouldn't shame a black man for being attacked while walking through a racist neighborhood. He's not the one with the problem if he gets attacked.

Exactly. :thumb:

 

[rougueone]

Why do we post very divisive topics? lets post topics that glorify our father and edify the church please. We need each other badly. WE need wholesome communion together in our Christ, jesus. Not division, quarrelling, or trying to tie Scripture together we can only guess at.

There is more than enough Scripture we can bring together and unify our church..

@ Timothy 2:14, 15, 16
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.…

@;Timothy 2:24,25

But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,…

LOVE. Gods love through one another is all that matters. Lets practice love to each other please.

Proverbs 17:14

The beginning of strife is like letting out water, So abandon the quarrel before it breaks out.


James 4:1-2
What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask.

 

[ok doser]

Did you rape your wife often, or just that once?

under the conditions as stated?

often


and she usually initiated it! :banana:

 

[ok doser]

He doesn't think that he actually raped his wife. What he's claiming is that, according to the DOJ, any inhibition to consent leaves you open to a rape claim. His wife was intoxicated and therefore could not offer the kind of consent which meets DOJ standards; therefore, it was rape.

The conclusion here which should be drawn is, not that Ok_Dozer is a rapist, but that the DOJ standards, if Ok_Dozer is representing them accurately, are positively asinine.

you get it

not sure why all these others don't :idunno:



rusha takes a great big swig and posts:

Seriously ... if a person is too intoxicated to consent, it's rape ... that includes wives ...

:darwinsm:






must be something in the water :noid:

 

[ok doser]

Different strokes for different folks, man. I'm just saying: if such an arrangement were made, I don't think that it's rape. Personally, I think that this "consent" talk is just silly. We should go with the classic definition of rape as "forcibly having sex with someone against his or her will."

the DOJ definition changed it from "against her will"

to

"without her consent"

most people (being of lower orders of intelligence, like rusha and others on this thread who are playing the emo) don't realize the implications of the change

 

[1PeaceMaker]

From justice.gov:

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

.....

The new UCR SRS definition of rape does not change Federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the Federal, State or local level, it simply means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

 

[ok doser]

not sure why you posted it, but here's the part I was referring to:

“Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina.

The new definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

 

[ClimateSanity]

the DOJ definition changed it from "against her will"

to

"without her consent"

most people (being of lower orders of intelligence, like rusha and others on this thread who are playing the emo) don't realize the implications of the change

It means women can take advantage of unwary men and get them sent to prison when they did nothing wrong.

 

[Rusha]

Men being taken advantage of now means being required to take no for an answer.

One of the few situations I could see where someone deserves to be taken advantage of is when desperate predators seek out people on the internet hoping to hook up and are stupid enough to send them money and offer up their personal information.

It's like they are too stupid to realize the person they see in the pic on their screen is NOT staring back at them, but rather through them thinking ... "I just found another sucker!"

And then the cries of "but but but I am different and didn't deserve to be deceived even though my motives were less than honorable".

I have conversed with a few dummies who have done that.

 

[Rusha]

Another example of "you deserve this" goes out to J. Howard Marshall. What possible motive could a man his age have for seeking out and marrying a woman who was 62 years younger than himself?

Simple ... eye-candy and bragging rights.

 

[Rusha]

Another example: adulterers. They deserve to be humiliated and betrayed.

In court, they need to be on the losing end of custody, as well as take the hit financially.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I read nothing in the definition that claimed you had to be 100% sober to consent. Only that you had to be able to consent, in whatever state you were in.

 

[Rusha]

I read nothing in the definition that claimed you had to be 100% sober to consent. Only that you had to be able to consent, in whatever state you were in.

Most honest people know consent means being coherent enough and physically able to respond. It's fairly easy to tell the difference between someone who is tipsy as compared to someone in full on blackout mode.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

On what people deserve, I think many people actually deserve mercy not strict consequences.

 

[PureX]

"People deserve whatever I say they deserve."

That's what most of us call "justice".

 

[Rusha]

On what people deserve, I think many people actually deserve mercy not justice.

I am inclined to believe that justice should be reserved for *actual* criminals.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Most honest people know consent means being coherent enough and physically able to respond. It's fairly easy to tell the difference between someone who is tipsy as compared to someone in full on blackout mode.

Right.

 

[elohiym]

Did you rape your wife often, or just that once?

under the conditions as stated?

often

and she usually initiated it! :banana:

Implies consent. That's not rape according to the DOJ definition.

 

[elohiym]

the DOJ definition changed it from "against her will"

to

"without her consent"

most people (being of lower orders of intelligence, like rusha and others on this thread who are playing the emo) don't realize the implications of the change

The DOJ definition changed from "against her will" to "without the consent of the victim.” Now rape is not limited to women in the definition; now a victim can be a man. The definition still means against her will because that is what "without the consent of the victim” means. You are the one who doesn't realize the implications of the change, you arrogant schmuck.