You deserve this!

[elohiym]

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

No, it doesn't.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

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

I replaced the word justice for strict consequences, since I think mercy can be just.

Actual criminals can be meted mercy that is in not only their best interest but that of society, as well. This would be a subjective determination based on the attitude and history of the criminals in question, and of the faith society is willing to show towards them.

In the OT God says He desires mercy, not sacrifice, and in the NT Jesus says "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

If we can accept a moral principle from this that avoids prejudice over status, we could have a much more happy, peaceful population.

Reconciliation is a powerful restorative tool for spiritual unity and economic/political advantage.

 

[elohiym]

I mean ... can you imagine the conversation.

"Hon, don't take this personally ... it's not that I don't love you, but you are a repulsive toad. Allow me to get drunk, pass out unconscious and then you may have me!".

:shocked:

:chuckle:

Interestingly, not even that implausible scenario meets the DOJ definition of rape.

 

[elohiym]

"People deserve whatever I say they deserve."

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

Seems that way.

Why do you think that is?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

:chuckle:

Interestingly, not even that implausible scenario meets the DOJ definition of rape.

Right, because consent was given. It would be no different than consent to artificial impregnation during general anesthesia.

 

[elohiym]

Do you wish for me again to make an enumeration of the different senses of "deserve"?

Yes, do it again.

It's like the word "reward". Reward is used as a positive or a negative.

And like the word deserve, always implies a sense of justice.

2 Timothy 4:14
Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Supports my claim.

Psalm 103:10
He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

Supports my claim.

Ezra 9:13
And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this;

Supports my claim in the OP.

Thanks!

:e4e:

 

[LoneStar]

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

No, it doesn't.

:thumb:

 

[elohiym]

Ok. Once again, an enumeration of the senses of "deserve."

1. "Deserve" in the strict sense implies what is due according to justice.

That agrees with the OP. From that point you had to demonstrate a sense of the word deserve that doesn't imply a sense justice, which you failed to do.

2. Again, "deserve" can indicate poetic justice.

Poetic justice requires the consequence seem poetic while being just. Clearly it implies a sense of justice. If a woman tries to push you into a volcano but you step out of the way and she falls in, that's poetic justice. If a woman tries to push you into a volcano but you rape her instead, that's perverse injustice.

3. Again, "deserve" can indicate a linking together of apparent cause and effect. Thus, if I close my eyes and run straight ahead at full speed, I "deserve" to run into a brick wall. "I had it coming" and "I should have known better."

Poster ok doser is "using a definition of deserve that makes no claim of justness or appropriateness."
When you eliminate the ideas of justness or appropriateness from the meaning of deserved, you render the word undeserved virtually meaningless. I suggest you stick to the first sense of the word deserve when speaking English, and while keeping in mind that poetic justice must be poetic and must be just.

 

[Rusha]

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.

Valid point ... rape is not a gender specific crime. Even though it doesn't happen as often, men CAN be the victims of rape as well.

The reason rapists are allowed to continue on their rampage is because of stigma that is aimed at the victims of rape.

As we can see from the most recent slew of threads, those who are morally inferior see women as deserving of rape which is why they ask the monumentally retarded question "well what did she do that caused her rapist to rape her". Obviously that means less women willing to report the crime and more rapists on the street to continue their stalking and attacks.

On the flip side, men who are the victims of rape are afraid to come forward out of fear of being harassed for being sissies or liars.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, it doesn't.

How do you figure?

 

[ClimateSanity]

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

The DOJ rules leave no room for implying. If there is no verbal consent, a woman can send an innocent man to prison.

 

[ClimateSanity]

And like the word deserve, always implies a sense of justice.



Supports my claim.



Supports my claim.



Supports my claim in the OP.

Thanks!

:e4e:

Your going to have to show how it supports your claim.

 

[elohiym]

How do you figure?

I haven't explained it enough already?

 

[elohiym]

Your going to have to show how it supports your claim.

It's self evident all three of those scriptures imply a sense of justice.

Do you deserve God's grace?

"...God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve..."

 

[ok doser]

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

it is if she's deemed by the state to be incapacitated by inebriation and thus unable to give consent

 

[ok doser]

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.

there's nothing in that link to state what the determinant would be, so i assumed it would be tied to DWI regulations - that's the way they've done it in the past in my state


iow, those nights that I was the designated driver and we went out and she had fun having a few glasses of wine and we came home and she was frisky, I was guilty of rape for allowing her to force herself on me

 

[ClimateSanity]

I haven't explained it enough already?

Where?

 

[ClimateSanity]

there's nothing in that link to state what the determinant would be, so i assumed it would be tied to DWI regulations - that's the way they've done it in the past in my state


iow, those nights that I was the designated driver and we went out and she had fun having a few glasses of wine and we came home and she was frisky, I was guilty of rape for allowing her to force herself on me

Yes, according to DOJ rules.

 

[elohiym]

... a woman can send an innocent man to prison.

The change from a gender specific law to one that recognizes men can be victims of rape is a law that protects men's rights. Nothing in the change means "...a woman can send an innocent man to prison."

 

[ok doser]

The definition still means against her will because that is what "without the consent of the victim” means.

:darwinsm:


wot a tard! :mock: