Do we live in a Rape Culture?

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 10:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You act as if the parallel didn't carry the same logic; as though market transactions don't require consent to be legally and morally correct.


But continue your puritian smugness that things suddenly become different in the realm of sex.



I don't think I've ever seen pretentious pomposity on this high a level in a thread before. Duly noted.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 10:57 PM)GMDino Wrote:

I'm not surprised that you choose to respond to the word usage of a post not directed at you instead of the other posts I directed at you.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You act as if the parallel didn't carry the same logic; as though market transactions don't require consent to be legally and morally correct.

But continue your puritian smugness that things suddenly become different in the realm of sex.

I don't think I've ever seen pretentious pomposity on this high a level in a thread before. Duly noted.

I consider bodily autonomy, or liberty, to be a higher level concern than crimes of property. Just my line of thinking there. But I'll attack your logic. Online retailers can't protect you from yourself, there is only one actor in drunk buying online. The retailer is passive and has no knowledge of your intoxication. In drunken sex where one party is intoxicated there is no passive party, both are active, and the state of intoxication can be perceived. So no, they don't carry the same logic.

And I am far from puritanical in my attitudes towards sex. Wanting people to be sober when they do so does not qualify.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 10:59 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'm not surprised that you choose to respond to the word usage of a post not directed at you instead of the other posts I directed at you.

You responded to me?

I haven't gone back through the entire thread as I was out and working at home...but I'll be sure to do so in order to make you happy!

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 11:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I consider bodily autonomy, or liberty, to be a higher level concern than crimes of property. Just my line of thinking there. But I'll attack your logic. Online retailers can't protect you from yourself, there is only one actor in drunk buying online. The retailer is passive and has no knowledge of your intoxication. In drunken sex where one party is intoxicated there is no passive party, both are active, and the state of intoxication can be perceived. So no, they don't carry the same logic.

And I am far from puritanical in my attitudes towards sex. Wanting people to be sober when they do so does not qualify.

An online retailer doesn't have to know that you're intoxicated at that moment to protect you from yourself. In my example, with that logic carried over, all I would have to do is tell them I was drunk in order for them to return my money.


But since you want to nitpick the superficial parts of my logic and not the logic itself, what about casinos or any other firm that sells goods and services to people who are drunk and/or drinking?

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: You responded to me?

I haven't gone back through the entire thread as I was out and working at home...but I'll be sure to do so in order to make you happy!

Go ahead and take your time.

I'll wonder what stretching and character assassination you'll come up with next.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 09:07 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You're minimizing the actual definition of Rape Culture to an event that proponents claim is indicative of rape culture to make your point.

For those that are actually interested in discussing it as a concept: Here's the definition straight out of Wikipedia.



"..rape culture is a setting in which rape is normalized due to societal attitudes towards gender and sexuality. Behaviours commonely associated with rape culture is objectification, trivalisizing rape, denial of widespread rape, refusing to acknowledge the harm cause by rape, or some combinations of all listed behaviours."


I love how denial of widespread rape is evidence of rape culture. Talk about a catch-22.

I was disagreeing that we have a rape culture as defined in the above post but that we still have a rape culture of men who want to make excuses for rape.  I've never said anything different.  Nothing is this thread has disproved it.

(05-10-2016, 09:16 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Gender issues aren't binary.


Men have advantages in some respects; women have advantages in some respect.

Not even going to get into your "People saying there isn't a rape culture=rape culture" is just you begging the question.

See above....and learn to read and comprehend.  

But I was responding to this:

(05-06-2016, 01:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is no rape culture.    We have had enough education on the matter that these days it's just over the top.   You almost need a written contract to ensure there is no rape allegations.   

Instead of girls doing the walk of shame and that being a deterrent to their actions.... Now if there is any walk of shame moment then they can just claim rape and at least hassle a guy long enough to matter in his personal life.

Which is exactly what I was talking about in my very first response.  Men who still think women just make it up because they are "ashamed".  And that its almost too hard to get proper consent to have sex.

(05-10-2016, 09:18 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I said feminists and SJWs.  I didn't say woman. Though i'm not surpised that you conflate the two as if they're the same thing.

So women aren't feminists? 

(05-10-2016, 10:02 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How if is it relevant what I do for work, or in my free time if what I'm saying is true? But, this isn't just based on the one jury I sat on.

Well it is revelant if you want to say you understand the law and court cases  better than someone who might actually have studied it.

Not that you couldn't have a great grasp of it but you have only cited your one jury experience thus far while speaking as if you had a greater knowledge of the law.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 11:08 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Go ahead and take your time.

I'll wonder what stretching and character assassination you'll come up with next.

That didn't take long. 

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 11:08 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Go ahead and take your time.

I'll wonder what stretching and character assassination you'll come up with next.

Zounds!  Did I say something to offend your sensitive nature?

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That didn't take long. 

I aim to please!

Thanks for your support!  

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 11:07 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: An online retailer doesn't have to know that you're intoxicated at that moment to protect you from yourself. In my example, with that logic carried over, all I would have to do is tell them I was drunk in order for them to return my money.

But since you want to nitpick the superficial parts of my logic and not the logic itself, what about casinos or any other firm that sells goods and services to people who are drunk and/or drinking?

I notice you avoided the passive part. That is important to keep in mind. Rape is a charge against someone actively doing something. Amazon would not be actively doing anything. That is why I pointed out that part,which is more than nitpicking the superficial parts of your logic.

As for the casinos and the like, I do find it objectionable to take advantage of an intoxicated individuals inanattempt to have them spend more money. That is active. But again, I consider the bodily autonomy issue of more importance. So maybe one day we will get into that, but one battle at a time.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 11:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Zounds!  Did I say something to offend your sensitive nature?

Not at all.

Pointing out your method of argumentation isn't showing offense to them. It's just pointing them out.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 11:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I notice you avoided the passive part. That is important to keep in mind. Rape is a charge against someone actively doing something. Amazon would not be actively doing anything. That is why I pointed out that part,which is more than nitpicking the superficial parts of your logic.

As for the casinos and the like, I do find it objectionable to take advantage of an intoxicated individuals inanattempt to have them spend more money. That is active. But again, I consider the bodily autonomy issue of more importance. So maybe one day we will get into that, but one battle at a time.

I addressed the passive part directly.


Amazon is actively doing something. They're taking your payment and sending you the goods and services you bought.


Your original beef was that they couldn't have any knowledge of me being drunk.



But since we're accusing people of blatantly ignoring things, rape is a charge against someone against their will. 

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 11:19 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Not at all.

Pointing out your method of argumentation isn't showing offense to them. It's just pointing them out.

You mean the part where I point out you are wrong and didn't understand what I said?

[Brownshoe]

(05-10-2016, 11:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well it is revelant if you want to say you understand the law and court cases  better than someone who might actually have studied it.

Not that you couldn't have a great grasp of it but you have only cited your one jury experience thus far while speaking as if you had a greater knowledge of the law.

Why does it matter if someone studied something if they are correct with their statement? I see how it's more likely that someone who took a course is right, but doesn't it only really matter if someone is right? Not implying that I didn't take any such course.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 11:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: You mean the part where I point out you are wrong and didn't understand what I said?

So being wrong about your method of argumentation means i'm offended by them?

You're a peach.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 11:25 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: So being wrong about your method of argumentation means i'm offended by them?

You're a peach.

No, no.  You said:

(05-10-2016, 11:08 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Go ahead and take your time.

I'll wonder what stretching and character assassination you'll come up with next.

Is that when I point out you are wrong and didn't understand what I said?  Because that isn't a personal attack on your character.  That is simply showing you that your interpretation of my post was incorrect and then an attempt to point you in the right direction.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 11:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, no.  You said:



Is that when I point out you are wrong and didn't understand what I said?  Because that isn't a personal attack on your character.  That is simply showing you that your interpretation of my post was incorrect and then an attempt to point you in the right direction.

Heh, I see.

It was meant your posts as a whole in this thread rather than a specific one.

[THE Bigzoman]

And no, not all women are feminists.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 11:32 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Heh, I see.

It was meant your posts as a whole in this thread rather than a specific one.

Oh, just a rash generalization.

Good form.