Forums > Social Discussion > Does the US Army Deserve Praise?
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Posted:
I was in another forum and I saw this message..
The US army is one of the most imoral uncareing and reckless armys around currently, they arnt all like that but it seems somewhere along the way the content control seems to have been skipped by the men in charge.
So I put in this post
Then this guy posts this...
To which I posted after much thought
God bless america, land of the free, land of the american dream, land of the smug! Until someone says something they dont like and they want to erase it, I guess there's a little Richard Nixon in all of them.
I hope this turns into a worthwhile post I think ive gone and missed 'The woman Who Thinks Like a Cow' because of it...dag-namit!
I was in another forum and I saw this message..
Written by:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader who led a brutal insurgency that included homicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings, was killed in an airstrike on a building north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials announced Thursday.
The man whose been responsible for killing American Soldiers and the deaths of untold thousands of Iraqi civilians just ate 1000lbs of bombs, which was oh so graciously delivered to him by one of our F-16's.
Keep up the good fight guys. The world is a safer place today.
The US army is one of the most imoral uncareing and reckless armys around currently, they arnt all like that but it seems somewhere along the way the content control seems to have been skipped by the men in charge.
So I put in this post
Written by:
Now if we could just stop jar heads killing civilians, or shooting british troops. There was this time these geniouse americans were orderd to wait for british troops to relieve them and told to shoot anyone who comes near them until the british arrive. The english arrive in english vehicles, at the correct time, on the planned route, broadcasting over the radio announcing there approach. So what do the american troops do? Start shooting the British, huzah!
Then this guy posts this...
Written by:
On the interest of keeping things civil, I'll ask you to remove that, or have a DM do so, and we'll forget it was ever there.
This was made to honor those who are over there making the sacrifice that to few are willing to make. American, British, Australian, Japanese, and the rest of those in the coalition.
Not to attack them
To which I posted after much thought
Written by:
Wouldnt that be un-constitutional?
God bless america, land of the free, land of the american dream, land of the smug! Until someone says something they dont like and they want to erase it, I guess there's a little Richard Nixon in all of them.
I hope this turns into a worthwhile post I think ive gone and missed 'The woman Who Thinks Like a Cow' because of it...dag-namit!
Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat
'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
A few edits:
Grow up Patriarch917, it’s incongruousness to have "willingness and rape" in the same statement. The terms are mutually exclusive. There is no williness in rape.
I've never heard the word "rape" being used to describe having an affair ie. having sex with someone other than your spouse. Are you supporting another falsehood, that you can't rape your wife?
Rapeseed is now known as canola.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1151895333)
A few edits:
Grow up Patriarch917, it’s incongruousness to have "willingness and rape" in the same statement. The terms are mutually exclusive. There is no williness in rape.
I've never heard the word "rape" being used to describe having an affair ie. having sex with someone other than your spouse. Are you supporting another falsehood, that you can't rape your wife?
Rapeseed is now known as canola.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1151895333)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
p917 - you also need to have a look at the legal definition of rape,not the dictionary definition.
The definition set by legal preceedent of rape is more expansive than the one you outline above from the dictionary.
The dictionary will give you the historical definition of the word, based on the first time it was used (e.g., O.E.D), but not often how the word is used in contemprary society and culture...the legal definitions give us that context.
maybe that's where we are butting heads? you look to the dictionary for meaning, I am looking to the effects on peoples lives of the abuse of power and how that plays out in contemporary society...
more in a PM sent this morning
p917 - you also need to have a look at the legal definition of rape,not the dictionary definition.
The definition set by legal preceedent of rape is more expansive than the one you outline above from the dictionary.
The dictionary will give you the historical definition of the word, based on the first time it was used (e.g., O.E.D), but not often how the word is used in contemprary society and culture...the legal definitions give us that context.
maybe that's where we are butting heads? you look to the dictionary for meaning, I am looking to the effects on peoples lives of the abuse of power and how that plays out in contemporary society...
more in a PM sent this morning
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Wayne Wayne Wayne.
As you point out the Oxford English Dictionary is the standard dictionary for scholarly reference.
Not the Compact OED. Or the Junior OED or any other dumbed down/abbreviated version. I think you are probably well aware of this. the non-compact OED has 10 different entries for rape many of which have several meanings. they include;
the act of taking anything by force; violent seizure
the violation or ravishing of a woman
sexual assault upon a man
one of the six administrative districts into which Sussex was divided, each comprising several hundreds
and my favourite
the common turnip
rape for dinner anyone
so sorry... it wasn't a wayne specific definition - merely one lifted from a dumbed down verision of a dictionary. which doesn't account for the fact that you can rape a willing child, so it does not work with the term's general usage in society and in law - and thus required specific delineation as nobody else has a psychic link with you, enabling us to grasp which obscure definition you have tagged on to a word.
can you turnip the willing?
i know i can't. i couldn't even turnip a child. willing or otherwise.
Written by: Patriarch917
I recall that you once endorsed the Oxford English Dictionary as a standard for scholarly work. Perhaps, then, you will accept the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as a guide for a word’s general usage.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary gives three definitions of the word “rape”:
1. (of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with him against their will.
2. spoil or destroy (a place).
3. a plant of the cabbage family with bright yellow flowers, especially a variety (oilseed rape) grown for its oil-rich seed.
Now, of these three, I suspected from the context that Violent meant definition number one.
Wayne Wayne Wayne.
As you point out the Oxford English Dictionary is the standard dictionary for scholarly reference.
Not the Compact OED. Or the Junior OED or any other dumbed down/abbreviated version. I think you are probably well aware of this. the non-compact OED has 10 different entries for rape many of which have several meanings. they include;
the act of taking anything by force; violent seizure
the violation or ravishing of a woman
sexual assault upon a man
one of the six administrative districts into which Sussex was divided, each comprising several hundreds
and my favourite
the common turnip
rape for dinner anyone
so sorry... it wasn't a wayne specific definition - merely one lifted from a dumbed down verision of a dictionary. which doesn't account for the fact that you can rape a willing child, so it does not work with the term's general usage in society and in law - and thus required specific delineation as nobody else has a psychic link with you, enabling us to grasp which obscure definition you have tagged on to a word.
can you turnip the willing?
i know i can't. i couldn't even turnip a child. willing or otherwise.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I agree that the terms are mutually exclusive, and that there is no willingness in rape. That is why I agree that you can’t rape the willing. Rape requires unwillingness.
This is hardly a falsehood. Look at some legal definitions of rape... as Ade suggest that I needed to do:
In fact, I have recently spent about a month studying the legal definition of rape. One of the first things pointed out was that many traditional legal definitions of rape required that the victim be someone other than your wife. Thus, you could not rape your wife. (These laws have mostly been changed).
In this thread, I have defined rape to mean “sex with someone against their will.” Thus, by my definition, you could rape your wife.
Actually, the rape laws in England and the U.S. are generally agreed to be some of the most poorly written criminal statutes out there. Most rape laws do not even include the word “consent.” Thus, there is a big difference between what people usually mean when they say rape, and what the law says.
I assumed that Violently was using the word at it is commonly used, and not as a legal term of art. In order to use a legal definition, we would have to agree on a jurisdiction.
Did you get that idea when I said one was for “scholarly work,” and the other was for “general usage.”
Considering that we are interpreting a remark made on an internet forum in which people don’t even bother with correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation, I think it is acceptable to use the non-scholarly dictionary.
The whole point of the Compact OED, as far as I can tell, is to explain to us what a term’s general usage in society is.
If he had used it in a legal context, I would have looked up the rape statute in his jurisdiction. There is a “general” legal definition of rape found in the Model Penal Code... but no jurisdiction uses it any more. (One reason being that it requires the victim to be “a female other than your wife”).
I find it that you call the first definition in the Compact OED an “obscure definition.”
I could understand your being confused if I had started acting as if it meant “turnip.” However, I think interpreting the word "rape" to mean “sex with someone against their will” was a fair reading of the remark.
I agree, of course, that if Violent really mean “you cannot statutorily rape the willing” then he was wrong. However, you have not convinced me that this was what he meant, and the context doesn’t seem to support it.
To bring it back on topic, I think it might be fair to compare the Iraqi to underage minors. In other words, they shouldn’t have been given democracy even if they were willing.
I would probably go along with this idea. Like sex, democracy is only beneficial if you are mature enough to practice it wisely.
Just as children should have their decisions made for them by responsible adults. So also the Iraqi should be taken care of by mature countries.
Written by: Stone
Grow up Patriarch917, it’s incongruousness to have "willingness and rape" in the same statement. The terms are mutually exclusive. There is no williness in rape.
I agree that the terms are mutually exclusive, and that there is no willingness in rape. That is why I agree that you can’t rape the willing. Rape requires unwillingness.
Written by: Stone
I've never heard the word "rape" being used to describe having an affair ie. having sex with someone other than your spouse. Are you supporting another falsehood, that you can't rape your wife?
This is hardly a falsehood. Look at some legal definitions of rape... as Ade suggest that I needed to do:
Written by: Ade
p917 - you also need to have a look at the legal definition of rape,not the dictionary definition.
In fact, I have recently spent about a month studying the legal definition of rape. One of the first things pointed out was that many traditional legal definitions of rape required that the victim be someone other than your wife. Thus, you could not rape your wife. (These laws have mostly been changed).
In this thread, I have defined rape to mean “sex with someone against their will.” Thus, by my definition, you could rape your wife.
Written by: Ade
The definition set by legal preceedent of rape is more expansive than the one you outline above from the dictionary.
The dictionary will give you the historical definition of the word, based on the first time it was used (e.g., O.E.D), but not often how the word is used in contemprary society and culture...the legal definitions give us that context.
Actually, the rape laws in England and the U.S. are generally agreed to be some of the most poorly written criminal statutes out there. Most rape laws do not even include the word “consent.” Thus, there is a big difference between what people usually mean when they say rape, and what the law says.
I assumed that Violently was using the word at it is commonly used, and not as a legal term of art. In order to use a legal definition, we would have to agree on a jurisdiction.
Written by: dreamWritten by: Patriarch917
I recall that you once endorsed the Oxford English Dictionary as a standard for scholarly work. Perhaps, then, you will accept the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as a guide for a word’s general usage.
Wayne Wayne Wayne.
As you point out the Oxford English Dictionary is the standard dictionary for scholarly reference.
Not the Compact OED. Or the Junior OED or any other dumbed down/abbreviated version. I think you are probably well aware of this.
Did you get that idea when I said one was for “scholarly work,” and the other was for “general usage.”
Written by: dream
so sorry... it wasn't a wayne specific definition - merely one lifted from a dumbed down verision of a dictionary.
Considering that we are interpreting a remark made on an internet forum in which people don’t even bother with correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation, I think it is acceptable to use the non-scholarly dictionary.
Written by: dream
which doesn't account for the fact that you can rape a willing child, so it does not work with the term's general usage in society and in law –
The whole point of the Compact OED, as far as I can tell, is to explain to us what a term’s general usage in society is.
If he had used it in a legal context, I would have looked up the rape statute in his jurisdiction. There is a “general” legal definition of rape found in the Model Penal Code... but no jurisdiction uses it any more. (One reason being that it requires the victim to be “a female other than your wife”).
Written by: dream
and thus required specific delineation as nobody else has a psychic link with you, enabling us to grasp which obscure definition you have tagged on to a word.
I find it
that you call the first definition in the Compact OED an “obscure definition.”I could understand your being confused if I had started acting as if it meant “turnip.” However, I think interpreting the word "rape" to mean “sex with someone against their will” was a fair reading of the remark.
I agree, of course, that if Violent really mean “you cannot statutorily rape the willing” then he was wrong. However, you have not convinced me that this was what he meant, and the context doesn’t seem to support it.
To bring it back on topic, I think it might be fair to compare the Iraqi to underage minors. In other words, they shouldn’t have been given democracy even if they were willing.
I would probably go along with this idea. Like sex, democracy is only beneficial if you are mature enough to practice it wisely.
Just as children should have their decisions made for them by responsible adults. So also the Iraqi should be taken care of by mature countries.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Patriarch917, I can’t believe you wrote that crap
Where did you study law? What University?
Do you support rape and sexual abuse?
Do you believe in white supremacist?
Patriarch917, I can’t believe you wrote that crap
Written by:
In fact, I have recently spent about a month studying the legal definition of rape.
Where did you study law? What University?
Written by:
Like sex, democracy is only beneficial if you are mature enough to practice it wisely.
Do you support rape and sexual abuse?
Written by:
Just as children should have their decisions made for them by responsible adults. So also the Iraqi should be taken care of by mature countries
Do you believe in white supremacist?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
p917 - I see little point in getting into a semantic argument that is pedantic at best about a dictionary definition of rape that has no grounding in reality and the experiences of women, men and children who have been raped.
I find the incessant need to argue from a dictionary point of view of quite egotistical and childlike
I am not sure you are looking for common ground and a sense of understanding. I'm not sure what your motivation for this discussion is, except to push your barrow about rape again
I wont be bothering to reply to your PM, especially when this is the question you ask of me:
p917 - I see little point in getting into a semantic argument that is pedantic at best about a dictionary definition of rape that has no grounding in reality and the experiences of women, men and children who have been raped.
I find the incessant need to argue from a dictionary point of view of quite egotistical and childlike
I am not sure you are looking for common ground and a sense of understanding. I'm not sure what your motivation for this discussion is, except to push your barrow about rape again
I wont be bothering to reply to your PM, especially when this is the question you ask of me:
Written by:
How can we discuss who bears the responsibility for rape, if you cannot even tell me what that word means
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
To go on topic and answer the original question Does the US Army Deserve Praise? Then I say NO! There has been too much of what has happened below, and judging from the comments in recent posts I can now see that this attitude to women and minority groups is heavily ingrained in American culture.
US soldier in gruesome rape claims From correspondents in Washington 04jul06.
"HIDEOUS hints of the desperate, dying moments of a young Iraqi woman have emerged in court documents which charged a 21-year-old ex-US army private of her rape and murder."
To go on topic and answer the original question Does the US Army Deserve Praise? Then I say NO! There has been too much of what has happened below, and judging from the comments in recent posts I can now see that this attitude to women and minority groups is heavily ingrained in American culture.
US soldier in gruesome rape claims From correspondents in Washington 04jul06.
"HIDEOUS hints of the desperate, dying moments of a young Iraqi woman have emerged in court documents which charged a 21-year-old ex-US army private of her rape and murder."
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
ok, so that's one isolated incident, where people in a position of authority (real or otherwise), abuse that authority.
How about we give guns and training in their use to a hundred random people on the street, and see what they get up to.
ok, so that's one isolated incident, where people in a position of authority (real or otherwise), abuse that authority.
How about we give guns and training in their use to a hundred random people on the street, and see what they get up to.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
I suppose another way to look at it is how good they've been, relative to how bad they could be.
they're not all running around, massacaring civilians, laying land mines, and generally being pricks.
Are our expectations of the behaviours of an invading (not quite accurate, but i can't think of a better term) army realistic?
I suppose another way to look at it is how good they've been, relative to how bad they could be.
they're not all running around, massacaring civilians, laying land mines, and generally being pricks.
Are our expectations of the behaviours of an invading (not quite accurate, but i can't think of a better term) army realistic?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Unfortunately, that was not an isolated case MiG. There is no discipline in the US military. Even a quick search will show that there have been many more incidents.
Troops Facing Murder Probe Atrocities Against Iraqi Family Alleged. By Jonathan Finer. Washington Post Foreign Service. Saturday, July 1, 2006; A01. At least 14 U.S. service members have been convicted of crimes related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians or detainees, according to the Associated Press.
US troops suspected of raping Iraq teenager –mayor MAHMUDIYA, Iraq, July 3 (Reuters) - The Iraqi woman at the centre of a rape-murder inquiry by the U.S. military was no more than 16 years old when she was killed along with her parents and young sister four months ago, the local mayor said on Monday.
Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed CBS)Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
Unfortunately, that was not an isolated case MiG. There is no discipline in the US military. Even a quick search will show that there have been many more incidents.
Troops Facing Murder Probe Atrocities Against Iraqi Family Alleged. By Jonathan Finer. Washington Post Foreign Service. Saturday, July 1, 2006; A01. At least 14 U.S. service members have been convicted of crimes related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians or detainees, according to the Associated Press.
US troops suspected of raping Iraq teenager –mayor MAHMUDIYA, Iraq, July 3 (Reuters) - The Iraqi woman at the centre of a rape-murder inquiry by the U.S. military was no more than 16 years old when she was killed along with her parents and young sister four months ago, the local mayor said on Monday.
Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed CBS)Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
This is your justification for the country which has perpetrated the largest number of aggressions towards foreign soverign states in the last 50 years (the USA) invading other countries without the support of the UN???
That by virtue of its military and economic power the US is a mature country whereas Iraqis cannot look after themselves - they need an invading, unpopular foreign force to bomb them into maturity//democracy/peace
democracy from the root demos means rule of the people. what you support here is not Iraqi democracy but US imperialism. Its the same justification the Brits, French, Spanish and Portugese had for ruling over their colonies... the savages cannot be left to their own devices, so we, the civilised shall rule for them (and do very nicely out of it ourselves of course)
the doctrine of self-determination - championed after WW1 by US President Woodrow Wilson helped change that... But back then i guess it wasn't the US's empire which self-determination proposed to dismantle.
before anyone says the Iraqi people are free to say that the US troops can go... They have... Polls conducted for the British army have showed that about 80% of Iraqis want the US and UK forces out now and the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts they have awarded themselves annulled and awarded to Iraqi buisnesses... Similarly, of the parties at the Iraqi election, both Shia and Sunni - whose parties won nearly 70% of the vote between them said they wanted the US out and reconstruction contracts annulled.
Like thats gonna happen... The US and UK have invested too much money to just walk away from Iraq and leave the UN to carry out peacekeeping duties.
Written by: patriarch
I would probably go along with this idea. Like sex, democracy is only beneficial if you are mature enough to practice it wisely.
Just as children should have their decisions made for them by responsible adults. So also the Iraqi should be taken care of by mature countries
This is your justification for the country which has perpetrated the largest number of aggressions towards foreign soverign states in the last 50 years (the USA) invading other countries without the support of the UN???
That by virtue of its military and economic power the US is a mature country whereas Iraqis cannot look after themselves - they need an invading, unpopular foreign force to bomb them into maturity//democracy/peace
democracy from the root demos means rule of the people. what you support here is not Iraqi democracy but US imperialism. Its the same justification the Brits, French, Spanish and Portugese had for ruling over their colonies... the savages cannot be left to their own devices, so we, the civilised shall rule for them (and do very nicely out of it ourselves of course)
the doctrine of self-determination - championed after WW1 by US President Woodrow Wilson helped change that... But back then i guess it wasn't the US's empire which self-determination proposed to dismantle.
before anyone says the Iraqi people are free to say that the US troops can go... They have... Polls conducted for the British army have showed that about 80% of Iraqis want the US and UK forces out now and the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts they have awarded themselves annulled and awarded to Iraqi buisnesses... Similarly, of the parties at the Iraqi election, both Shia and Sunni - whose parties won nearly 70% of the vote between them said they wanted the US out and reconstruction contracts annulled.
Like thats gonna happen... The US and UK have invested too much money to just walk away from Iraq and leave the UN to carry out peacekeeping duties.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
That would be true if that's what you'd said. But it wasn't... (reposted below for lazyness...)
Written by: Patriarch917
@ NYC
I said:
“If you consent, . . . you are willing.
You said:
“someone can be willing but not give concent.”
The two do not contradict.
It is as if I said
“if it is a square, then it is a rectangle”
and you said
“something can be a square but not be a rectangle.”
That would be true if that's what you'd said. But it wasn't... (reposted below for lazyness...)
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
In your above quote you clearly say 'OR LACK THEREOF' and 'WILLING OR UNWILLING'.
I agree with 'Concent is an indication of whether you are willing' but do not agree that 'Lack of concent is an indication that you are unwilling' which you did say.
Your square-rectangle analogy is a good one, unfortunately I think you misspoke in the quote I quoted above in this post. I don't actually think you believe the 'or lack thereof' portion as it contradicts what you've said elsewhere.
Written by: NYCWritten by: Patriarch917
Consent, or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling. If you consent to have sex, you have indicated that you are “willing” to have sex.
Not true. There are many circumstances where someone can be willing but not give concent.
In your above quote you clearly say 'OR LACK THEREOF' and 'WILLING OR UNWILLING'.
I agree with 'Concent is an indication of whether you are willing' but do not agree that 'Lack of concent is an indication that you are unwilling' which you did say.
Your square-rectangle analogy is a good one, unfortunately I think you misspoke in the quote I quoted above in this post. I don't actually think you believe the 'or lack thereof' portion as it contradicts what you've said elsewhere.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Ok Patriarch917, no one will go to jail for wearing a t-shirt that says “you can’t rape the willing”. Also, from a technical legal perspective you may have a point, but in reality the laws do little to prevent rape and sexual abuse.
Once an incident has occurred there is no putting things back the way they were; peoples lives are wrecked forever. Where I’m coming from is encouraging a code of behaviour that prevents sexual abuse. This is not always a straight forward as it seems. For example, things got out of hand on Australians Big Brother recently.
Slogans like “you can’t rape the willing” or “you can’t rape your wife” or “ she was asking for it” increase the likelihood of sexual abuse in society. Perhaps you should talk to some rape victims for a first hand account, as most of your learning and morals seems to come from books. If you are still in doubt then look up the Ten Commandments, especially the ones dealing with relationships between people. Like committing adultery and coveting your neighbour’s wife.
Ok Patriarch917, no one will go to jail for wearing a t-shirt that says “you can’t rape the willing”. Also, from a technical legal perspective you may have a point, but in reality the laws do little to prevent rape and sexual abuse.
Once an incident has occurred there is no putting things back the way they were; peoples lives are wrecked forever. Where I’m coming from is encouraging a code of behaviour that prevents sexual abuse. This is not always a straight forward as it seems. For example, things got out of hand on Australians Big Brother recently.
Slogans like “you can’t rape the willing” or “you can’t rape your wife” or “ she was asking for it” increase the likelihood of sexual abuse in society. Perhaps you should talk to some rape victims for a first hand account, as most of your learning and morals seems to come from books. If you are still in doubt then look up the Ten Commandments, especially the ones dealing with relationships between people. Like committing adultery and coveting your neighbour’s wife.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
newbie
6 posts
6 posts
Posted:
95% of America needs to get off the viagra. Seriously.
95% of America needs to get off the viagra. Seriously.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
PM urges review of troop immunity From correspondents in Baghdad 07jul06
IRAQI Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called today for a review of the blanket immunity enjoyed by foreign troops following new allegations of violence against civilians by US soldiers.
Meanwhile, at least 30 people were killed in attacks today, including a bus bombing near a Shi'ite shrine that left 12 people dead, mainly Iranian pilgrims, raising new fears of sectarian violence.
"We have to review the immunity enjoyed by members of these forces or look for ways in which Iraqis can participate in the investigation," Mr Maliki told reporters on his return from a tour of the Gulf.
"A lot of mistakes have been committed before Mahmudiyah that have caused grief and anger in the Iraqi people who cannot tolerate these brutal crimes for very long."
US prosecutors on Monday charged a former soldier with raping and killing an Iraqi woman and gunning down three members of her family, including a five-year-old girl, in March in the town of Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad. Steven Green, 21, could face the death penalty if convicted over the latest of a string of alleged atrocities committed by US soldiers against Iraqis.
In his last decree before the June 2004 transfer of power from the US-led occupation to Iraqi authorities, former US administrator Paul Bremer granted immunity from prosecution for US-led forces and private security contractors working with the Americans and the US-backed government.
But calls for a review of the law have been mounting since the Mahmudiyah incident came to light last month. Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi called for severe punishment for the US soldiers and restitution for the town.
"US officials must also show sympathy towards Iraqi people especially the tribes of Mahmudiyah whose honour and dignity was stabbed and sullied," he said.....
PM urges review of troop immunity From correspondents in Baghdad 07jul06
IRAQI Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called today for a review of the blanket immunity enjoyed by foreign troops following new allegations of violence against civilians by US soldiers.
Meanwhile, at least 30 people were killed in attacks today, including a bus bombing near a Shi'ite shrine that left 12 people dead, mainly Iranian pilgrims, raising new fears of sectarian violence.
"We have to review the immunity enjoyed by members of these forces or look for ways in which Iraqis can participate in the investigation," Mr Maliki told reporters on his return from a tour of the Gulf.
"A lot of mistakes have been committed before Mahmudiyah that have caused grief and anger in the Iraqi people who cannot tolerate these brutal crimes for very long."
US prosecutors on Monday charged a former soldier with raping and killing an Iraqi woman and gunning down three members of her family, including a five-year-old girl, in March in the town of Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad. Steven Green, 21, could face the death penalty if convicted over the latest of a string of alleged atrocities committed by US soldiers against Iraqis.
In his last decree before the June 2004 transfer of power from the US-led occupation to Iraqi authorities, former US administrator Paul Bremer granted immunity from prosecution for US-led forces and private security contractors working with the Americans and the US-backed government.
But calls for a review of the law have been mounting since the Mahmudiyah incident came to light last month. Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi called for severe punishment for the US soldiers and restitution for the town.
"US officials must also show sympathy towards Iraqi people especially the tribes of Mahmudiyah whose honour and dignity was stabbed and sullied," he said.....
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Sorry, I was out for a while. Let me catch up...
First, the interview:
Vanderbilt.
No. Nor do I support democracy abuse.
Assuming you meant “supremacy”... no.
@dream
I am sympathetic to the view that Iraq deserved to have a chance at democracy. I am also intrigued by the view that democracy is not a good form of government for every country, that perhaps the people of Iraq cannot be trusted to pick a good government, and that a democracy should not have been established after Saddam.
The portion of my post that you quoted was not a justification for “bombing countries into maturity/democracy/peace.” It was an attack on Bush’s foreign policy theory that we can bring peace to the middle east by using military power to overthrow governments, and establishing democracies.
Bush seems to think that democracy leads to freedom and peace. I disagree. It leads to freedom and peace only if the majority of people want it to. If the majority of people want tyranny and war, it will lead to that instead.
For an example of how poorly this foreign policy has worked, we need look no further than the Palestinians. The democracy they were given has hardly led to more peace in the middle east. The experiment failed there, and I am troubled by the idea that it might fail in Iraq.
I will go no further in my criticism of democracy at this point. It deserves it’s own thread, and I suspect that an old one probably exists. The topic of this thread is (aside from whether Violently Tame attempted to justify rape) whether the U.S. Army deserves praise, specifically for killing Al. Z.
@NYC
True, but I also said “If you consent to have sex, you have indicated that you are ‘willing’ to have sex.” It was this statement which I condensed to say “If you consent, . . . you are willing.”
I can see where the misunderstanding happened. I thought you were intending to contradict the second sentence of that quote, whereas you actually had the first in mind.
I stand by my statement, that a lack of consent is an indication of unwillingness. I use the word “indication” rather than the word “proof,” because I meant to convey a sense of doubt about the evidence.
When someone says “I consent,” it is an indication that they are willing. However, it is not proof of willingness. They may in fact be lying.
One case in particular that demonstrates this was that case of a lady who went to a man's house, and thought that he had locked the door in order to prevent her from leaving. In fact, he had not locked the door, and had never tried to make her think that he had. Still, she became fearful of him. He asked her to have sex (which they had done so on several previous occasions), and she consented, thinking that he intended to force her to have sex if she did not do so voluntarily.
She consented, which was an indication (to him) that she was willing. However, she was actually unwilling. She only consented because she (mistakenly) thought that he had locked her in the house. She wasn’t truly willing. Thus, the man was convicted of rape, even though there was consent.
Consent is only an indication of willingness, not proof.
I support the idea that “lack of consent is an indication of unwillingness,” mainly because the legal decisions that I have read indicate that this is the way a court will view a possible rape. In the past, a victim was required to outwardly manifest unwillingness (nonconsent) in order for a court to find that a rape had occurred. In other words, a mere lack of consent was not considered to be an indication of unwillingness.
However, things have changed. It is now common to find courts holding that lack of consent should be taken as an indication of unwillingness. In other words, courts would like us to presume that people who have not consented are unwilling until they actually consent. Lack of consent is considered to be an indication (although not proof) of unwillingness.
If you ask someone “hey, wanna have sex” and they just lay there, motionless, silent, without making any indication of whether they consent or not, how should you interpret it? In the past, there was some tendency to say that a lack of consent indicated willingness. Now, we are leaning more toward presuming that a lack of consent indicates unwillingness.
Thus, I stand by the idea that a lack of consent indicates unwillingness. I support the idea because I would rather people err on the side of caution. I also think it is a good description of how modern American courts approach rape.
It may be altogether different where you come from, of course. I am sure there are still rape laws that require nonconsent, rather than merely a lack of consent.
Sorry, I was out for a while. Let me catch up...
First, the interview:
Written by: Stone
Patriarch917, I can’t believe you wrote that crapWritten by:
I have recently spent about a month studying the legal definition of rape.
Where did you study law? What University?
Vanderbilt.
Written by: StoneWritten by:
Like sex, democracy is only beneficial if you are mature enough to practice it wisely.
Do you support rape and sexual abuse?
No. Nor do I support democracy abuse.
Written by: StoneWritten by:
Just as children should have their decisions made for them by responsible adults. So also the Iraqi should be taken care of by mature countries
Do you believe in white supremacist?
Assuming you meant “supremacy”... no.
@dream
I am sympathetic to the view that Iraq deserved to have a chance at democracy. I am also intrigued by the view that democracy is not a good form of government for every country, that perhaps the people of Iraq cannot be trusted to pick a good government, and that a democracy should not have been established after Saddam.
The portion of my post that you quoted was not a justification for “bombing countries into maturity/democracy/peace.” It was an attack on Bush’s foreign policy theory that we can bring peace to the middle east by using military power to overthrow governments, and establishing democracies.
Bush seems to think that democracy leads to freedom and peace. I disagree. It leads to freedom and peace only if the majority of people want it to. If the majority of people want tyranny and war, it will lead to that instead.
For an example of how poorly this foreign policy has worked, we need look no further than the Palestinians. The democracy they were given has hardly led to more peace in the middle east. The experiment failed there, and I am troubled by the idea that it might fail in Iraq.
I will go no further in my criticism of democracy at this point. It deserves it’s own thread, and I suspect that an old one probably exists. The topic of this thread is (aside from whether Violently Tame attempted to justify rape) whether the U.S. Army deserves praise, specifically for killing Al. Z.
@NYC
Written by: NYCWritten by: Patriarch917
@ NYC
I said: “If you consent, . . . you are willing.
You said: “someone can be willing but not give concent.”
The two do not contradict.
It is as if I said: “if it is a square, then it is a rectangle”
and you said: “something can be a square but not be a rectangle.”
That would be true if that's what you'd said. But it wasn't... (reposted below for lazyness...)
Written by: NYCWritten by: NYCWritten by: Patriarch917
Consent, or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling. If you consent to have sex, you have indicated that you are “willing” to have sex.
Not true. There are many circumstances where someone can be willing but not give concent.
In your above quote you clearly say 'OR LACK THEREOF' and 'WILLING OR UNWILLING'.
True, but I also said “If you consent to have sex, you have indicated that you are ‘willing’ to have sex.” It was this statement which I condensed to say “If you consent, . . . you are willing.”
Written by: NYC
I agree with 'Concent is an indication of whether you are willing' but do not agree that 'Lack of concent is an indication that you are unwilling' which you did say.
Your square-rectangle analogy is a good one, unfortunately I think you misspoke in the quote I quoted above in this post. I don't actually think you believe the 'or lack thereof' portion as it contradicts what you've said elsewhere.
I can see where the misunderstanding happened. I thought you were intending to contradict the second sentence of that quote, whereas you actually had the first in mind.
I stand by my statement, that a lack of consent is an indication of unwillingness. I use the word “indication” rather than the word “proof,” because I meant to convey a sense of doubt about the evidence.
When someone says “I consent,” it is an indication that they are willing. However, it is not proof of willingness. They may in fact be lying.
One case in particular that demonstrates this was that case of a lady who went to a man's house, and thought that he had locked the door in order to prevent her from leaving. In fact, he had not locked the door, and had never tried to make her think that he had. Still, she became fearful of him. He asked her to have sex (which they had done so on several previous occasions), and she consented, thinking that he intended to force her to have sex if she did not do so voluntarily.
She consented, which was an indication (to him) that she was willing. However, she was actually unwilling. She only consented because she (mistakenly) thought that he had locked her in the house. She wasn’t truly willing. Thus, the man was convicted of rape, even though there was consent.
Consent is only an indication of willingness, not proof.
I support the idea that “lack of consent is an indication of unwillingness,” mainly because the legal decisions that I have read indicate that this is the way a court will view a possible rape. In the past, a victim was required to outwardly manifest unwillingness (nonconsent) in order for a court to find that a rape had occurred. In other words, a mere lack of consent was not considered to be an indication of unwillingness.
However, things have changed. It is now common to find courts holding that lack of consent should be taken as an indication of unwillingness. In other words, courts would like us to presume that people who have not consented are unwilling until they actually consent. Lack of consent is considered to be an indication (although not proof) of unwillingness.
If you ask someone “hey, wanna have sex” and they just lay there, motionless, silent, without making any indication of whether they consent or not, how should you interpret it? In the past, there was some tendency to say that a lack of consent indicated willingness. Now, we are leaning more toward presuming that a lack of consent indicates unwillingness.
Thus, I stand by the idea that a lack of consent indicates unwillingness. I support the idea because I would rather people err on the side of caution. I also think it is a good description of how modern American courts approach rape.
It may be altogether different where you come from, of course. I am sure there are still rape laws that require nonconsent, rather than merely a lack of consent.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
*point point point*
See, this is where you're wrong.
Example:
A hot sweedish volleyball player has just had surgery and is on many different pain killers and happy medications which make her unable to give concent. In her loopy state she sees you and is overcome by your beauty. She cries "Oh patriarch, please make love to me now!" and she means it. She wants to have sex, she is willing, she is pleading with you for it.
You do NOT have concent but you DO have someone who is willing. Therefore LACK OF CONCENT does NOT indicate UNWILLINGNESS.
In a more serious example, a child CAN NOT give consent whether or not they are willing. In the sad cases of children who 'fall in love' with their abuser, they are clearly 'willing' at the time but are not able to give concent.
Going back to my main point which contests your comment "you can't rape the willing".. there have been examples where willing children have been raped. It's certainly a disturbing example but a relevant one. If someone does not have the mental capacity to concent, their willingness does not indicate anything.
Written by: Patriarch917
Thus, I stand by the idea that a lack of consent indicates unwillingness.
*point point point*
See, this is where you're wrong.
Example:
A hot sweedish volleyball player has just had surgery and is on many different pain killers and happy medications which make her unable to give concent. In her loopy state she sees you and is overcome by your beauty. She cries "Oh patriarch, please make love to me now!" and she means it. She wants to have sex, she is willing, she is pleading with you for it.
You do NOT have concent but you DO have someone who is willing. Therefore LACK OF CONCENT does NOT indicate UNWILLINGNESS.
In a more serious example, a child CAN NOT give consent whether or not they are willing. In the sad cases of children who 'fall in love' with their abuser, they are clearly 'willing' at the time but are not able to give concent.
Going back to my main point which contests your comment "you can't rape the willing".. there have been examples where willing children have been raped. It's certainly a disturbing example but a relevant one. If someone does not have the mental capacity to concent, their willingness does not indicate anything.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I see the problem, you're using the word "consent" differently than I was.
I was using the word "consent" to mean "an outward expression of willingness." Thus, saying "oh patriarch, please make love to me now" would be verbal consent, while jumping on someone naked would be non-verbal consent.
You seem to be using the word "consent" to mean something like "legal right to agree to have sex."
In other words, you see the Swedish volleyball player and say “it would be rape to have sex with her, because she cannot consent.” I would see her and say “even though she has consented, it would be rape to have sex with her because she is drugged.”
This seems to be the source of our trouble. Look at this quote, then go back a page and look at it in context.
When I wrote this, I was trying to describe what meaning I thought should be given to the word “consent” as it had been used in the previous paragraph.
I was not trying to say “‘the legal right to agree to have sex,’ or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling. Rather, I was trying to say “‘an outward indication of willingness,’ or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling.”
You said that a child can not consent. I would say that a child can consent, but having sex with a consenting child is still rape. It sounds as if we are disagreeing, but we are really just using the word “consent” in different ways.
You can see now why I avoided using the word “consent,” and instead used the word “willing” as much as possible. I only brought it up because SAVA used the word “consent” in their rape definition (whereas most dictionaries use the word “will”). I tried to explain that the word “consent” should be understood as being equivalent to “an indication of willingness,” but the damage had already been done.
As you can see, it is very important to agree on what a word means before talking about it. This is why I have stressed the importance of determining what definition of the word “rape” Violently Tame had in mind when he said it. If, as you have pointed out, he meant to include “sex with a minor” then his statement is clearly wrong. If, as I suggest, he meant “have sex with someone against their will,” then his statement was right.
As both of these are acceptable definitions of the word, I think we should look to VT to explain which one he meant.
P.S. I will not use the word "consent" anymore.
I see the problem, you're using the word "consent" differently than I was.
I was using the word "consent" to mean "an outward expression of willingness." Thus, saying "oh patriarch, please make love to me now" would be verbal consent, while jumping on someone naked would be non-verbal consent.
You seem to be using the word "consent" to mean something like "legal right to agree to have sex."
In other words, you see the Swedish volleyball player and say “it would be rape to have sex with her, because she cannot consent.” I would see her and say “even though she has consented, it would be rape to have sex with her because she is drugged.”
This seems to be the source of our trouble. Look at this quote, then go back a page and look at it in context.
Written by:
Consent, or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling. If you consent to have sex, you have indicated that you are “willing” to have sex.
When I wrote this, I was trying to describe what meaning I thought should be given to the word “consent” as it had been used in the previous paragraph.
I was not trying to say “‘the legal right to agree to have sex,’ or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling. Rather, I was trying to say “‘an outward indication of willingness,’ or lack thereof, is an indication of whether you are willing or unwilling.”
You said that a child can not consent. I would say that a child can consent, but having sex with a consenting child is still rape. It sounds as if we are disagreeing, but we are really just using the word “consent” in different ways.
You can see now why I avoided using the word “consent,” and instead used the word “willing” as much as possible. I only brought it up because SAVA used the word “consent” in their rape definition (whereas most dictionaries use the word “will”). I tried to explain that the word “consent” should be understood as being equivalent to “an indication of willingness,” but the damage had already been done.
As you can see, it is very important to agree on what a word means before talking about it. This is why I have stressed the importance of determining what definition of the word “rape” Violently Tame had in mind when he said it. If, as you have pointed out, he meant to include “sex with a minor” then his statement is clearly wrong. If, as I suggest, he meant “have sex with someone against their will,” then his statement was right.
As both of these are acceptable definitions of the word, I think we should look to VT to explain which one he meant.
P.S. I will not use the word "consent" anymore.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Sounds perfect.
In the legal context of rape 'concent' takes on a certain meaning. That meaning is different than it is in normal speech. Misunderstanding understood.
I do think there is merit to examine 'willingness' in the context of those individuals not suited to make their own decisions (mentally handicapped, children, or even drunk)
All of those situations have serious implications in the concept of rape.
Sounds perfect.
In the legal context of rape 'concent' takes on a certain meaning. That meaning is different than it is in normal speech. Misunderstanding understood.
I do think there is merit to examine 'willingness' in the context of those individuals not suited to make their own decisions (mentally handicapped, children, or even drunk)
All of those situations have serious implications in the concept of rape.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
Your Face!
1,173 posts
Location: el paso, tx, USA
Your Face!
1,173 posts
Location: el paso, tx, USA
Posted:
Don't Fookin' look at me because y'all ripped apart a figure of speech and turned it into a week long argument. I was simply trying to say that if a democracy is not what iraq wanted than they could have said " No, we want some thing different."
Don't Fookin' look at me because y'all ripped apart a figure of speech and turned it into a week long argument. I was simply trying to say that if a democracy is not what iraq wanted than they could have said " No, we want some thing different."
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
-Albert Einstein-
Peanut butter... It fills the cracks of the soul! -Paul Blart-
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
but dont you think all this fuss/confusions/arguments over the last few pages could be just a micro version of what the people in Iraq are going through? some say No, some say 'you mean No i dont want saddam any more' some say 'No US soldiers here please' some say 'No Freakin Democracy EVER' some say 'No sham american inspired democracy'?
if a group of people her can aruge this much about the details of a situation millions of miles away how do you think the people that it actually affects are handling it? and how do you think they could peacefully stop an army taking control of their country?
but dont you think all this fuss/confusions/arguments over the last few pages could be just a micro version of what the people in Iraq are going through? some say No, some say 'you mean No i dont want saddam any more' some say 'No US soldiers here please' some say 'No Freakin Democracy EVER' some say 'No sham american inspired democracy'?
if a group of people her can aruge this much about the details of a situation millions of miles away how do you think the people that it actually affects are handling it? and how do you think they could peacefully stop an army taking control of their country?
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Violently Tame.
And what Violently Tame? The America army would have marched out of Iraq?
I don’t remember America ever being invited to invade Iraq in the first place. The bottom line is that America has removed a secular democracy and replaced it with a bunch of fanatic extremists.
Things just get worse. Look at today’s news: 61 killed in massacre, bombings From correspondents in Baghdad 10jul06.
The reason your figure of speech was ripped apart was because it implies that rape is acceptable, regardless of Patriarch917’s naïve postulations. Unfortunately, Patriarch917 does not understand the words "you can't rape the willing" supporting rape and is a blaming statement .
From the Sexual Assault Victim Advocate:
Myths / Misconceptions “People have many misconceptions about sexual assault. For instance: "you can't rape the willing;" or "people often cry rape when, in fact, they wanted it to happen;" or "only sexy young women get assaulted;" or "rape is only rape if committed by a stranger." All these examples serve to set the victim up to take the blame for the assault.
The attacker is the only one responsible.
Victim blaming is one of the most damaging responses to sexual violence.
Examples of victim blaming statements are:
"I wouldn't let that happen to me."
"She must have let him do it. Anyone can stop a rape if they want to."
"Sexual assault only happens to bad girls."
What did she expect....?
Being out alone at night?
Drinking more than she should?
Being at that kind of party?
Smoking marijuana?
Living on the streets?
Wearing those clothes?
Going to a bar?
Letting him buy her dinner?
Being married to him and all?
Working at that place?
She got him all excited and led him on. What was he supposed to do?
"But he's such a nice boy. It couldn't be true."
You have to be mentally ill to sexually assault someone.
"If a rapist attacked me, I'd kill him."
It is important to review your own beliefs when assisting someone you know who has been sexually violated. Understand your words have great impact on the victim. Negative outcomes of victim blaming statements can be:
1. Not getting needed help.
2. Not reporting the crime for fear of not being believed
When unreported to law enforcement, perpetrators are not identified to the system and may continue to assault others
Got It?
Violently Tame.
Written by:
I was simply trying to say that if a democracy is not what iraq wanted than they could have said " No, we want some thing different."
And what Violently Tame? The America army would have marched out of Iraq?
I don’t remember America ever being invited to invade Iraq in the first place. The bottom line is that America has removed a secular democracy and replaced it with a bunch of fanatic extremists.
Things just get worse. Look at today’s news: 61 killed in massacre, bombings From correspondents in Baghdad 10jul06.
The reason your figure of speech was ripped apart was because it implies that rape is acceptable, regardless of Patriarch917’s naïve postulations. Unfortunately, Patriarch917 does not understand the words "you can't rape the willing" supporting rape and is a blaming statement .
From the Sexual Assault Victim Advocate:
Myths / Misconceptions “People have many misconceptions about sexual assault. For instance: "you can't rape the willing;" or "people often cry rape when, in fact, they wanted it to happen;" or "only sexy young women get assaulted;" or "rape is only rape if committed by a stranger." All these examples serve to set the victim up to take the blame for the assault.
The attacker is the only one responsible.
Victim blaming is one of the most damaging responses to sexual violence.
Examples of victim blaming statements are:
"I wouldn't let that happen to me."
"She must have let him do it. Anyone can stop a rape if they want to."
"Sexual assault only happens to bad girls."
What did she expect....?
Being out alone at night?
Drinking more than she should?
Being at that kind of party?
Smoking marijuana?
Living on the streets?
Wearing those clothes?
Going to a bar?
Letting him buy her dinner?
Being married to him and all?
Working at that place?
She got him all excited and led him on. What was he supposed to do?
"But he's such a nice boy. It couldn't be true."
You have to be mentally ill to sexually assault someone.
"If a rapist attacked me, I'd kill him."
It is important to review your own beliefs when assisting someone you know who has been sexually violated. Understand your words have great impact on the victim. Negative outcomes of victim blaming statements can be:
1. Not getting needed help.
2. Not reporting the crime for fear of not being believed
When unreported to law enforcement, perpetrators are not identified to the system and may continue to assault others
Got It?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
So if you still haven’t got it.
Following the invasion and rape of Iraq by America you say “You can’t rape the willing”. Meaning America didn’t rape Iraq, because apparent you say Iraq was willing and consensual. Well, what ever gave you or America the idea that Iraq was willing? Your own propaganda?
Like in the Sexual Assault Victim Advocate rape examples all you are doping is setting up the victim (ie. Iraq) and shifting the blame for Americas assault/rape of that country, back on to the victim (ie. Iraq).
So if you still haven’t got it.
Following the invasion and rape of Iraq by America you say “You can’t rape the willing”. Meaning America didn’t rape Iraq, because apparent you say Iraq was willing and consensual. Well, what ever gave you or America the idea that Iraq was willing? Your own propaganda?
Like in the Sexual Assault Victim Advocate rape examples all you are doping is setting up the victim (ie. Iraq) and shifting the blame for Americas assault/rape of that country, back on to the victim (ie. Iraq).
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
So, when someone is murdered, we don't blame the person who was murdered. We don't say that they contributed to their death, we place responsibility fair and square on the shoulders of those that would murder.
Why is rape different? why do some seek to place responsibility on the person who was raped?
Both interfere with the life of another, yet only one seeks to blame the other for their actions.
So, when someone is murdered, we don't blame the person who was murdered. We don't say that they contributed to their death, we place responsibility fair and square on the shoulders of those that would murder.
Why is rape different? why do some seek to place responsibility on the person who was raped?
Both interfere with the life of another, yet only one seeks to blame the other for their actions.
SILVER Member
Your Face!
1,173 posts
Location: el paso, tx, USA
Your Face!
1,173 posts
Location: el paso, tx, USA
Posted:
Look stone, I don't condone rape in any way. The statement was only meant(sp?) as a figure of speech.Looking past that your right. America spent a arse load of money to bring equipment,supplies, and personnel over here, so why would we just turn around? I beleive this is a waste of time,money,and lives. I beleive that saddam should of been taken out of power, but in a way that didn't involve restuctureing the entire country of iraq.
Look stone, I don't condone rape in any way. The statement was only meant(sp?) as a figure of speech.Looking past that your right. America spent a arse load of money to bring equipment,supplies, and personnel over here, so why would we just turn around? I beleive this is a waste of time,money,and lives. I beleive that saddam should of been taken out of power, but in a way that didn't involve restuctureing the entire country of iraq.
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
-Albert Einstein-
Peanut butter... It fills the cracks of the soul! -Paul Blart-
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
big happy anti-invasion-of-a-soviern-country family?
big happy anti-invasion-of-a-soviern-country family? "but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Violently Tame, I’m not suggesting that you condone rape in any way. What I am suggesting is that what we say has meaning. Take the Allied slogan during World War 2 ”Loose lips sink ships”. Which means unguarded talk may give useful information to the enemy.
Violently Tame, I’m not suggesting that you condone rape in any way. What I am suggesting is that what we say has meaning. Take the Allied slogan during World War 2 ”Loose lips sink ships”. Which means unguarded talk may give useful information to the enemy.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Your Face!
1,173 posts
Location: el paso, tx, USA
Your Face!
1,173 posts
Location: el paso, tx, USA
Posted:
yes, i understand that................
yes, i understand that................
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
-Albert Einstein-
Peanut butter... It fills the cracks of the soul! -Paul Blart-
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
VT, the problem is how does one take a tyrant out of power without restructuring the entire country? I guarantee that Mr. Hussein wasn't carefully planning for the greater good of the Iraqi nation so that there could be a smooth transition to another form of government on the off chance that he might get deposed.
See, I'm the last person to say that Saddam was a good leader. However, every single liberal in this country was screaming to stay the hell out because 1) there was no good reason to invade and 2) there is no good way to place a democracy in power when political views are as widely disparate as they are in Iraq. The only time we have been able to get it to work is when we've carved up a country along ethnic lines. That way the differences in opinion aren't so great that people are willing to fight over them. This happened in the former Yugoslavia when we carved it up into Bosnia-Herzogovina, Croatia, and Serbia. When you try to force traditional enemies to live together in peace, it never happens.
And Bush is unwilling to take the one step that would work. Split Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan (in all practicality, the Sunnis would be best off being sent to Kuwait).
THEN you can have not one democracy, but three. And in time, they can learn to live next to each-other, to solve their own internal problems, and eventually to get along.
You SEPARATE quarreling children, you don't lock them in a room.
VT, the problem is how does one take a tyrant out of power without restructuring the entire country? I guarantee that Mr. Hussein wasn't carefully planning for the greater good of the Iraqi nation so that there could be a smooth transition to another form of government on the off chance that he might get deposed.
See, I'm the last person to say that Saddam was a good leader. However, every single liberal in this country was screaming to stay the hell out because 1) there was no good reason to invade and 2) there is no good way to place a democracy in power when political views are as widely disparate as they are in Iraq. The only time we have been able to get it to work is when we've carved up a country along ethnic lines. That way the differences in opinion aren't so great that people are willing to fight over them. This happened in the former Yugoslavia when we carved it up into Bosnia-Herzogovina, Croatia, and Serbia. When you try to force traditional enemies to live together in peace, it never happens.
And Bush is unwilling to take the one step that would work. Split Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan (in all practicality, the Sunnis would be best off being sent to Kuwait).
THEN you can have not one democracy, but three. And in time, they can learn to live next to each-other, to solve their own internal problems, and eventually to get along.
You SEPARATE quarreling children, you don't lock them in a room.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [army deserve praise] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Does the US Army Deserve Praise? [188 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com