Nice crayons you have there. George.
why can't we all get along?
Racism, Bigotry and Misogyny at TOL
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
why can't we all get along?
Spot on! One would have to be either dishonest or retarded to argue otherwise.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It does seem to be a manifestation of self-loathing being projected onto others.
another drive by
how do you reply to this?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You mean your drive by? Because I was already here.
And no, you don't "put dots in my mouth." What the heck is that all about? You quote me. Simple.
they won't know who I am talking to you
if
I don't put dots in your mouth
the first time I quoted you without dots in your mouth
PureX
Well-known member
You should be asking that question of the rapists. Because they are the only ones who know.
Whatever it is that makes a woman attractive to a rapist is determined by the rapist, not by the women he rapes. This is what you don't seem to grasp.
If a woman locks herself in a fortress, alone, she's probably not going to be raped. But that does not mean that women that do not lock themselves in fortresses are responsible for being raped, if they are raped. Because the woman never had control over the decision to be raped. Which is what you are assuming. You are assuming that because she can control some of the circumstances in which the rape occurred (as seen in hindsight), that she is then somehow responsible for the rape occurring. But she was never in control of the circumstances in which the rape occurred, because only the rapist can decide what circumstances he deems suitable for rape.
Just as it seems to me that you are looking for a reason to blame the victim, so you can pretend that there are no victims.
So.. women are completely helpless and not intelligent enough to be proactive and secured from injury.
That's basically the argument that was presented.
And you wonder why I've made the feminized mindset synonymous to being a child :think:
*It's clear who is dishonest and/or retarded*
He cleared that up back in November, sadly many are glossing posts, or worse, outright lying about them.
What needs to be added to this though, is that not all who claim to be a christian, isnt. That distinction matters.
Sure it does, if i knew i could die of lung cancer because of smoking and i continued or started doing it anyway, and then got lung cancer - i chose it because i willfully denied the risks.
There are 2 definitions of choose (not just one like some wish to pretend):
choose
CHo͞oz/
verb
verb: choose; 3rd person present: chooses; past tense: chose; gerund or present participle: choosing; past participle: chosen
1) pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.
2) decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives.
In this overall discussion (which in the begining gave many specific clear examples and scenerios - like a naked stripper where all the men were stone cold drunk and she lap dances them and one of them does his thing when shes on his lap ) and the scenerio on smoking,
They knew the risks of what they did and decided that course of action even knowing their risk. Hence definition 2 - they chose to do what they did themselves, which increased their risk of what they should know better than to do, to begin with.
Get it yet?
Too many of you ignore context and word usage and meaning.
alwight
New member
Just living life carries an inherent risk of death from many sources but that doesn't mean that you chose to die if the worst happened.
Which has nothing to do with what i said. The risks in the examples and those in the beginning of the entire discussion go directly to cause and effect of known information and ignoring it knowing full well the risk is high.
Like this:
1) Deliberately leaving your keys in your empty running car where you are absent - to getting it stolen
2) Deliberately flashing around huge wads of cash in an area known for a high theft rate
and on and on.
What you said is not a case where you DELIBERATELY do something with full knowledge of an increase of specific risks involved, thanks for playing though.
ClimateSanity
New member
And you either missed her point or you moved the goal posts.
Moved them so far across the ocean, that they cant be found.
WizardofOz
New member
Heart disease is not a 'course of action'. No one chooses heart disease, they choose to smoke or they choose Big Macs and heart disease becomes an increased possibility due to unhealthy choices.
Let's look at definition 1 real quick: is a girl 'picking out or selecting' rape? :nono: See how definition 1 directly contradicts your position?
You're trying real hard to make definition 2 fit but it just doesn't. No one is choosing rape as a course of action except for the rapist. He rejecting the alternative of not raping. She said no to sex and rejected the alternative of having sex. She chose not to have sex. Her choice was no sex.
If he forces her after she chose not to, it is rape. If she "chooses rape" then she has actually consented to have sex and it isn't rape.
Get it yet?
Do football players choose concussions? Do soldiers choose to be beheaded by ISIS?
WizardofOz
New member
Victim complex 101