I'm please to report that Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina is at least owning the GOP's problem with women. Recognizing that you have a problem is a big step. Of course, this simple fact has seemed to have escaped Lindsey Graham.
What exactly is a "definitional problem" with rape? More importantly, why are they talking about rape AGAIN?
46 comments:
Did you even bother to READ the story? Does it not make sense to you? Or are you purposely playing stupid just because you have an ingrained need to blame Republicans?
Here's a clue - the story isn't about rape, it's about abortion.
Oh...
I see, you didn't bother to link here the same story you linked at Quora. That's the story I was talking about.
Since you left that out, I guess we can go with you being purposely deceitful.
How dare I put a conservative's direct words up here and not run it through a liberal filter!
Because posting a clip from 'right wing watch' that starts in the middle of a speech leaving out the ENTIRE context of what he is talking about is sooooooooooooooooo neutral.
Again, it all boils down to these choices for you:
Read for comprehension - if you did so you would not look like a fucking moron trying to take this phrase out of context.
Playing ignorant - playing stupid to score points still leaves you looking stupid.
Purposely being deceitful - Being a liar just makes you a liar.
Which one are you being here?
I'm the one attempting to get conservatives like you to own a very serious problem you have in your party. It's similar to the denial you have about race. You blame liberals for a problem that is clearly of your own doing. Amusing that people in your own party are now admitting it (as my link shows) but you aren't. Of course Representative Elmers is a woman:)
Here's a clue-when talking about abortion, don't talk about rape except for a brief mention of the exception. Any more expounding leads to the stark reality that your party is filled with old fashioned white men who view women much in the same way extremists in the Middle East view women.
How dare you assume that Lindsay Graham speaks for me. I would vote for Bernie Sanders over Graham if that was my only choice.
My apologies, juris. That was a really shitty thing for me to do.
Mea culpa...
Not that there is much chance M will read this, much less comprehend it.
I'm not having an issue of denial Mark, you are having an episode of blithering idiocy.
Here's a clue-when talking about abortion, don't talk about rape except for a brief mention of the exception.
Great. Let's say someone wanted to ban late-term abortion but also wanted to allow certain exceptions to that ban, such as rape.
Define rape. Hey look, in order to pass the fucking law you need to actually have a legal definition of rape.
Now, let's say you used the dictionary definition of rape. Does that definition work for the purposes of writing a law banning abortion except for cases of rape? No, it does not. It doesn't because there is no way to verify that a person trying to get a late term abortion exemption due to rape was, you know, actually a victim without some further type of information. Or in other words, a definition of rape that can be used in this law.
Now, let's also say that while attempting to write this law, and trying to come up with an appropriate definition of rape for the purposes of this law, that some other supporters of the law disagree with what was originally decided as a definition. They then withdraw their support. If the supporter of the law were to then make some comments about the law and it's future, it might be very likely that they would say something like 'we need to solve this problem with the definition of rape.
Instead of having a clue, your first and last decision is always to blame the GOP.
If you want to disagree with them banning abortions. Great.
But to come here and point at this as some kind of misogynistic indicator of the entire GOP rather than the necessary semantic discussion in order to pass a law - is as I said: ignorant or deceitful.
Actually, I didn't point to anything, GD....a Republican lawmaker did. Give her the credit:)
I would prefer if you guys continued to blame others for your problems with women's issues. It just means that you're going to continue to get your ass kicked in every state and district that isn't deep red and gerrymandered.
I'd also like to see you try out your paragraphs there in a larger forum..say one where many women post. What do you say, buddy?:)
Actually, I didn't point to anything, GD
You ain't really that fucking stupid on top of being a liar are you?
Let's see:
Again With The Rape
the GOP's problem with women
this simple fact has seemed to have escaped Lindsey Graham
why are they talking about rape AGAIN?
I'm the one attempting to get conservatives like you to own
Or are you saying you really didn't actually write these statements - which most definitely is YOU pointing at the GOP.
I'd also like to see you try out your paragraphs there in a larger forum..say one where many women post. What do you say, buddy?
Define rape in a way that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?
Ah, I see why you are bent out of shape about this...again with The Pattern. I do give you credit, though, for at least admitting that you think there is a definitional problem with rape as Lindsey Graham does. Again, I encourage you to share this on a forum with more women. I'd be interested to see what their reaction is.
Define rape in a way that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?
Continuing to ignore that question just proves my point.
The fact that you are asking for this is actually the original point of this post. In fact, as a man, I don't think that what I would offer here as a definition means anything. I would think you would be happy about this, right? I freely admit that I am incapable of managing the definitional problem of rape.
So, again, go ask a group of women this question. I'm sure you can find a forum in which to do this. Post a link here and let's see the reaction:)
No. The original point of this post was you making it out that someone has a 'definitional problem' defining rape was somehow misogynistic.
But here you admit that YOU cannot define rape for the purposes discussed here.
YOU have a definitional problem with rape.
Let me repeat that:
YOU have a definitional problem with rape.
Your so-called point that someone having a definitional problem is not your point.
That you somehow think even talking about it is somehow misogynistic is your point.
Evidenced by your thinking that a woman somehow has some special input on the subject.
That's because you place the emphasis of this discussion on the word rape. As if saying rape is doing rape.
That's where you are wrong. This isn't a discussion ABOUT rape. It's a discussion about words.
Words that can be used to legally describe something.
We don't need to go to a women's only group to talk about words. They have no more or less ability to use words than me or you. Well, maybe not you.
That's because you are incapable of comprehending even the most base concepts.
Take for example this latest statement of yours:
"as a man, I don't think that what I would offer here as a definition means anything."
Do you honestly believe that I am asking you to define rape? That is what it appears here.
Read again. And again and again and again. Read it over and over and over until you can actually comprehend what I asked.
Here, I'll repeat it for you:
"Define rape in a way that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?"
P.S. Why do you think only women can have input upon rape? Do you not think men can be raped? Oh wait, I remember you wishing for people to be raped in, how did you say it, "FEDERAL pound me in the ass prison."
You're such a nice guy.
I can't think of anything else to say that would do a better job of criticizing your perception of this issue than what you just wrote here. As is usually the case, I just need to let you guys speak...
Wow...
Then stop fucking around and just speak your criticism.
Your 'wow' is out of place after just explaining to you multiple ways how you are conflating two different things.
You can't define rape for the purposes mentioned. You also think that a man shouldn't even attempt to do so. Why not? Why can't any particular person do so? Or rather, why do you think such has to be done by a particular group of people.
And by the way. That was a bullshit response. You keep insisting that I make my cases, state my position or my opinion. Unlike you, when I do so I actually EXPECT a response that is actually directed at and specific to the things I say.
In other words, respond to the things I say - using the things I say explicitly and directly. Like I do to you. I don't take that as a 'personal attack'. I take that as the debate.
If you had done so I would have some fucking idea what the hell your problem with what I said was. As it is, I don't. Since I don't, I also don't know if you disagree with me on a base level, you disagree with some specific thing, disagree because I didn't explain myself properly, disagree because you didn't comprehend the words that I wrote or disagree because you're just a dick.
Considering that you have asserted on here continually that my posts and responses are beyond sub par on a variety of levels, I don't get why my opinion suddenly matters now. If my views matter so little to you, then perhaps you should take your assertions and share them with other people...say, women, for example, and see what their response would be. I think the feedback from them would likely sink in a little more and anything coming from me.
If you do, provide a link here. If you don't, well...that would mean that perhaps you aren't as confident in them as you pretend to be...
Another B.S. response.
Your views usually suck, I'll agree. But you're dodging. I, for example never hesitate to call you on your stupidity. I even tell you in detail where you error.
You obviously think my words speak for themselves. .. I have no clue wtf you're taking about. Don't be a dick. ..tell me. Explain what my words are saying to clearly to you.
I showed this thread to some women. An entire ER of women. Women who actually deal with rape and the law on a daily basis. They too have no idea what you are taking about.
So, explain yourself.
Without evidence of feedback, how do I know that you showed it to anybody? I was thinking about some sort of online forum. The responses you get will likely have more impact than my criticisms. It's not really rocket science here, GD. Like Senator Graham, lead with a discussion of the definitional problem of rape.
Why would you need evidence that I showed it to anyone? I thought the purpose of showing it was to 'gain feedback' that was somehow better that what you could give. 'Proving' that I've done so doesn't fit in with your stated reasons for me 'needing' to do so. I've done so. That feedback wasn't kind to your position.
It also wasn't illuminating to your position. That's because you are refusing to actually state your position. If you want to play this game, no problem. From now on I'll just criticize your posts in a general form. Tell you that they are wrong but refuse whatsoever to explain what's wrong with them.
Or you can put on your grown up pants and talk like a rational person.
Your choice.
That's because you are refusing to actually state your position.
Actually, I already did above.
I'm the one attempting to get conservatives like you to own a very serious problem you have in your party. It's similar to the denial you have about race. You blame liberals for a problem that is clearly of your own doing. Amusing that people in your own party are now admitting it (as my link shows) but you aren't. Of course Representative Elmers is a woman:)
Here's a clue-when talking about abortion, don't talk about rape except for a brief mention of the exception. Any more expounding leads to the stark reality that your party is filled with old fashioned white men who view women much in the same way extremists in the Middle East view women.
And you accuse me of having a reading comprehension problem.
Once again, GD, I think you know what kind of shit you would get into if you started talking about the definitional problems of rape with a wider audience, hence your reluctance to lay yourself out there. Similar to the gun safety graphic, there is a decided deafness of tone that you will not understand by posting here where can you continue to make up a bunch of bullshit because nobody (other than the same six people) reads my comments section.
So, again, post your question to Quora or debate.org or some other forum you find that has a bigger audience than here and I will be more than happy to reiterate what I have said here. Feel free to post the link in this thread. I'd like to see how you do with more than one person criticizing you. I've done just fine with multiple people from TSM ripping me all the time. Why can't you take it? I thought you guys were supposed to be tougher than liberals:)
So, your entire point is that people shouldn't talk about rape at all except for a brief mention?
That's some serious intellectual shit man. Wow.
Hey, if someone is raped, can they talk about the details to the police? The medical people? The courts?
Do you think that there are maybe times people should talk about rape in a dispassionate way?
AGAIN: Define rape in a way that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?
How about this one: Define the evidence needed to prove that a rape occurred for the purposes of convicting a rapist.
Do you think that would be a taboo subject? That nobody should ever, ever, ever talk about? 'Can't talk about rape, can't define it, can't prosecute it'. Is that your plan?
Buck up peaches. Put on your grown up pants and point to WHAT I SAID and tell me what YOUR specific problem with it is. According to you it's SOOOOOoooo obvious, it shouldn't be hard to use your words to describe.
It appears the discussion about straw man arguments had no effect on you whatsoever.
And, since you are apparently refusing to bring this discussion to a wider audience, I have to question your fortitude. I guess I am accurate about you guys and insecurity, inferiority complexes.
I know that life in your parent's basement is super safe and all but you should really be sharing these views with a wider audience. You also really need to experience what life is like when I have more supporters as well. God, that must just really fuck up your emotional balance. Hmm...
Perhaps venturing out wouldn't be such a good idea. You might receive comments like this...
If you're having a 'definitional' problem with rape, you're a horrible person and have no place in government.
Or this...
Anyone who ever uses the term "legitimate rape" has just sent up a big banner that says "I am an ass clown."
Either you are raped, or you are not. There is no "legitimate rape" because there is no "illegitimate rape". Fucking morons.
Or this...
Translation: "Lets all try to hide our batshitcrazy views"
Or this...
Definitional Problem Rape: A "legitimate rape" Republicans have to make exceptions for when banning abortion to get more Americans on board with punishing women who consented to having sex... because life. Since Republicans can't help revealing their misogyny, they believe defining rape is a problem more serious than voting against VAWA and not realizing women have a right to make their own decisions without having to answer to a bunch of old, white men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_e-0IlHBnA
Yeah, tuck yourself in, pookie. It's scawee out there:)
Just as I guessed.
Look, cut the bullshit. The only, and I mean only, reason you think I should take this to a forum with women is that YOU expect the women there to provide some kind of emotional level response. Like the crap you just posted. That includes your own emotional words.
That's wrong on several different levels. One, you have such a low opinion of the female mind that you can't imagine one providing anything other than an emotional response over rational thought. Two, you yourself are incapable of providing a rational response and are yourself limited to emotions - thus you need other emotional responses to back you up.
Let's rephrase this and see if a cluebat can penetrate your thick skull:
Let's say the government was trying to pass a law that allows people who have had property stolen to have the value of that theft deducted from their taxes.
"Define theft in a way that can be used in a law that allows recompense to victims that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?"
Questions for those who don't understand and need 'clarifying'. If you are defining 'theft' for the purposes of this law, are you defining all theft?
For instance, let's say this theoretical law mandates that someone who wishes the tax exemption for theft is required to provide a police report documenting the theft. Hmmmm, that sounds pretty much like a 'definition of theft for the purposes of this law'.
Now, for the perennially clueless, does this definition of 'theft' mean that only those who have a police report of a theft are the only victims of theft? No, this does not change the DEFINITION of theft, it only creates a definition of theft FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS LAW.
Con't
Con't...
So, again for the moronic among us - let's say some people are discussing a law to ban extremely late term abortions.
Person A says "Hey, let's write a law banning extremely late term abortions."
Person B says "Great idea."
A: "Let's see, 'it shall be unlawful to perform an abortion after X weeks of pregnancy'."
B: "What about in cases of rape?"
A: "Oh yeah, we need to exempt people who are pregnant due to rape. Ok, 'it shall be unlawful to perform an abortion after X weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape'."
B: "Good."
A: "How do we define rape?"
B: "What?"
A: "How do we define rape for the purposes of the exemption in this law?"
B: "We can't talk about rape."
A: "What do you mean?"
B: "Exactly that, when talking about abortion, don't talk about rape except for a brief mention of the exemption."
A: "But we're writing a law that needs to include that exemption. We need to define it for it to work."
B: "Misgyonist!"
A: "What are you talking about, we ne..."
B: "We can't talk about rape. Why don't you see what kind of reaction you'd get by shouting about white male privilege at a NOW meeting."
A: "OK, wait. We want to put in an exemption for cases of rape, right?"
B: "Right."
A: "Which means that a woman who is pregnant due to rape can get an abortion after the term length the law allows, right?"
B: "Right."
A: "So, what happens if a woman is past the term length and wants an abortion?"
B: "Well, that would be against the law."
A: "And what happens if she says, 'I was raped, there is an exemption."
B: "There is an exemption for rape."
A: "But what if she wasn't raped?"
B: "What do you mean?"
A: "What if she just says she was raped in order to gain the exemption?"
B: "The exemption only covers those who were raped."
A: "Exactly! So we need to define rape in a way that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law."
B: "Misogynist!!!!!"
It's like a really not funny parody of 'who's on first'.
Look, if one were to write a law that bans late term abortions you only have two choices regarding rape:
You can exempt cases of rape, in which case you NEED to have a definition for use to prevent circumvention of the law.
The only other choice is to not allow exemptions. Period.
Are you on the side of no exemption for rape? I don't think so. So YOU need a definition of rape.
YOU expect the women there to provide some kind of emotional level response. Like the crap you just posted.
So, women are only about emotions? Surely I must be reading this wrong:) It can't possibly be that you, a conservative, has a stereotypical view of women! As I sated above, letting you guys talk is the best possible thing to do (and why you still refuse to take this discussion to a wider audience).
thus you need other emotional responses to back you up.
You've asserted repeatedly on here that I am wrong on a number of levels with most of the things I assert. Let's test that in a wider court of public opinion. Any time, GD, for this or any other topic. You say you post in other forums. Which ones? I suspect they are "safe zones" where your insecurity doesn't have to worry about any negative feedback.
So, again for the moronic among us
There is no one else reading this except me and you, GD...possibly one of the five others who reads comments. Since you have taken great care and effort to craft such a stellar argument, why not take it to a place where more people can see you finally beat me and show who is more logical:)?
Holy freaking crap Mark.
If you have that poor of reading comprehension of the first paragraph I wrote, how could you possibly understand any idea more complex than 'see spot run'?
Use you wittle brain and come up with a response to what I wrote. Actually what I wrote and not some twisted, Mark can't understand the written word version.
If you can't even understand, process and respond to the simple concepts I've provided - going to outside sources is only going to confuse you.
I stand by my response. If you disagree or think I am in error, explain why.
And I'm waiting for that link to that larger forum:)
You stand by it? Great, do so. Stand by something. You've yet to actually make an argument in this thread so you're not doing such a good job of standing by anything.
Which makes your demand that I 'explain why' laughable. I've spent a dozen responses trying to get you to respond with ANY support for your position.
And you want me to get responses from others? Dude, you can't even give minimal support for your own position. It's not my job to go search out someone to provide a defence for your argument. I've provided one. You haven't.
In absence of any defence of your position I am going to have to assume you have none.
That absence of any backing for your position (or even any reasonable explanation of it) is also why I have to assume your position is not based upon rational thought but rather emotionally based. If it were rational you could provide rational argument in support of it. If emotional you can't.
That combined with your 'demands' that I get the responses from others that you refuse to provide also leads me to assume that you expect those responses to agree with you. Logically if your response is emotional, then any response agreeing with you has to be emotional. This assumption is further supported by the quotes you chose to supply - which are themselves emotional and not rational arguments.
Finally - a statement that says 'I think that you think X' means EXACTLY that. For you to claim that statement really means that 'I think X' is asinine. Really, an amoeba has more intelligence than to think that. I have for years questioned your reading comprehension skills, but after that I have to ask - is English your first language? Really. Perhaps you have a severe case of ADHD and can't concentrate long enough to finish a sentence without going off on some tangent. Whatever it is - you need to stop and think reeeeeaaaalll hard when you read something, because the majority of the time you are reading it wrong.
Nowhere in that comment of nonsense did I see a link to a site with a wider audience. At this point, I must conclude that you aren't that secure in your assertions and are, in fact, afraid to post on a larger forum. If this ever changes, I'll be happy to post further comments. Doing so here is largely pointless because of your warped obsession with me.
I'm willing to let many other people judge whether or not what you say about me is valid. Why aren't you?
Present your case. Simple.
It doesn't matter what anyone else says, and your obsession with outside support is silly. I think it's pretty clear that you are incapable of supporting your own position.
Oh yeah, I'm plenty secure with my own position. I'm the one who had been presenting one, remember?
You on the other must be really insecure, by your own logic, as you can't even present a position to be insecure about.
Well, I guess I have my answer...again:)
All right. You get your wish, for as much good as it will do you.
Posted to a wider audience. Waiting for more responses. But judging by the early returns, you probably aren't going to like it.
Wish you could have just had an honest discussion, rather that the crap you've spewed here. Nothing came of this whole thing, other than proving you don't want to honestly discuss the things you post.
And the link is...where?
Waiting for more responses.
Again, unable to read for comprehension.
Why are you waiting for more responses? I would think you would want to post the link now if the responses favor your assertions.
You said you wanted a wider audience. Limited responses won't fulfil your own demand.
This latest round of hedging makes me wonder where you posted. A right wing web site or blog doesn't count.
Oh for fuck sake.
A: you claimed posting to a wider audience was for me to expose my views. So it really shouldn't matter if you can verify it. Why do you need to see it?
B: I don't give a damn what you wonder. It's posted at a place you don't consider 'right', and after getting a number of replies I will post the link to it. I only tell you now so to make sure you don't wander off and forget this conversation on the mean time.
I knew that somehow "pedantic, semantic arguments as the weapon of choice" would somehow come into play here. That's a whole lot of wriggling, GD and several non denial denials.
It's going to be disappointing if you acted like an 8 year old and posted to the "wider audience" of a right wing web site.
I said I posted to a place you won't consider 'right'.
Take a fucking chill pill dude.
Oh for fuck sake.
A: you claimed posting to a wider audience was for me to expose my views. So it really shouldn't matter if you can verify it. Why do you need to see it?
B: I don't give a damn what you wonder. It's posted at a place you don't consider 'right', and after getting a number of replies I will post the link to it. I only tell you now so to make sure you don't wander off and forget this conversation on the mean time.
Post a Comment