The Homosexual Movement And Pedophilia

[Hagbard Celine]

No is NO! ASSHOLE.

I dont give a flying fuck if the woman is walking down YOUR street buck naked. If she changes her mind then you need to blow your wad someplace else.


Just because the female is a bitch DOES NOT give you the right to rape her. PERIOD!

So she has the right to turn on me and accuse me of something I thought was consensual? No warning signs or anything? She can just change her mind and just like that I'm a rapist?
Also, why am I an "assh*le?" Is it because you're losing this debate?

[82Marine89]

Is it wrong for a soldier to murder his enemy?

Yes

Is it wrong for a starving man to steal food?

Yes

Would it be wrong to burn down a building used to make kiddie porn?

Yes

Would it be wrong to kidnap someone if it was for the purpose of saving their life?

Care to elaborate?

That's just off the top of my head.

Open head. Insert brain.

[82Marine89]

So she has the right to turn on me and accuse me of something I thought was consensual? No warning signs or anything? She can just change her mind and just like that I'm a rapist?

Yes

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes

So you'd be willing to face the music if the woman you engaged in consensual sex with turned on you mid coitus and accused you of raping her? Please spare me.

You'd have no problem prosecuting soldiers for murder?

You'd have no problem prosecuting a starving man for stealing food?

You'd have no qualms prosecuting someone who burnt down a building used to make dirty videos of little kids?

You'd have no problem with prosecuting someone for kidnapping a kid to save them from an abusive household?

[82Marine89]

So you'd be willing to face the music if the woman you engaged in consensual sex with turned on you mid coitus and accused you of raping her? Please spare me.

She says stop, I'm out of there.

You'd have no problem prosecuting soldiers for murder?

If they murdered them, but they would receive a fair trial. BTW, killing in combat is not murder.

You'd have no problem prosecuting a starving man for stealing food?

None at all.

You'd have no qualms prosecuting someone who burnt down a building used to make dirty videos of little kids?

Nope. You prosecute the person and sell off their assets to pay to the victims. Counseling isn't cheap.

You'd have no problem with prosecuting someone for kidnapping a kid to save them from an abusive household?

Nope. That's what law enforcement is for.

[dread]

So she has the right to turn on me and accuse me of something I thought was consensual? No warning signs or anything? She can just change her mind and just like that I'm a rapist?
Also, why am I an "assh*le?" Is it because you're losing this debate?

No you are an asshole because you think raping a woman is ok. AND IT WAS NOT consensual the moment she said no.

[dread]

Is it wrong for a soldier to murder his enemy?

Is it wrong for a starving man to steal food?

Would it be wrong to burn down a building used to make kiddie porn?

Would it be wrong to kidnap someone if it was for the purpose of saving their life?

That's just off the top of my head.

1. In war it is not murder. But then I guess people at Pearl Harbor had no justification in defending themselves from being slaughtered according to you.There is this little thing in the law books called "intent".

2. YES! There is no need for a man to steal for food. There are plenty of churches and homeless shelters and other places that feed the needy. Or for that matter just look to your street corner and you will find a pan handler getting TONS of money.


3. YES! There is no need to burn down a building that housed kiddie porn.


4. YES! If they are an adult and in a cult it is on them to get their own carcass out of the mess they got themselves in.

[Hagbard Celine]

She says stop, I'm out of there.

No, not "stop." She calls you a rapist and accuses you and presses charges. That's the scenario. I've never included her saying "no" as part of the scenario.

If they murdered them, butr they would receive a fair trial. BTW, killing in combat is no murder

.
But you just said in a previous post that they are committing murder when they kill the guys shooting at them. Which is it? I thought in your black and white world it either is or it isn't. Seems to me killing a person is pretty straightforward but you're telling me that there are gray areas?

None at all.

You'd rather they starve? That's f*cked up man.

Nope. You prosecute the person and sell off their assets to pay to the victims. Counseling isn't cheap.

What if there's no evidence to prosecute them? There's no way to prove it but you know they're making kiddie porno because of something you accidentally saw but have no evidence of but you had no way of getting to the person behind it so the only recourse you could take would be to walk away or burn the place down? Would you let it continue by walking or would you burn the place down? And would it be wrong?

Nope. That's what law enforcement is for.

Law enforcement is unable to respond due to extenuating circumstances. Does the kid get a fat lip simply because you refuse to become a "kidnapper?"

[Yurt]

No, that would be wrong. Obviously specific scenarios are judged according to their specific circumstances. No black and white doesn't mean that nothing can be wrong, it simply means that you can't say things like "all rape is evil." In the circumstance of "raping a three year old kid," obviously that would be wrong. But what if you were at a bar and a scantily clad woman was flirting with you all night so you took her home and engaged her in sexual intercourse and then half-way through she started screaming "rape!" Was your act evil? Were you wrong? Of course not. But it would still be rape if the b*tch decided to press the matter.
Do you get the concept or are you going to continue to accuse me of condoning toddler rape?
The same goes for murder. Would you agree that killing a person qualifies as murder? if you said "yes," then I would ask you if you think US soldiers are murderers for killing the guys shooting at them. You'd probably say no. So that proves that not all murder is wrong or evil.
Nothing is absolute. Everything has gray areas.

if you stopped the moment she said stop, it is not rape. you might have a hard time in court unfortunately, but it only becomes rape as soon as she becomes unwilling. and interestingly, the common law also included "not your wife"

[Hagbard Celine]

No you are an asshole because you think raping a woman is ok. AND IT WAS NOT consensual the moment she said no.

No, you've made me an assh*le by adding something to the scenario that I didn't include when I created it. She never says "no," she simply turns on you spontaneously and accuses you of rape and then presses charges with a vag full of your dna. Are you a rapist and therefore "evil" simply because she defined the event as "rape?"

[82Marine89]

No, not "stop." She calls you a rapist and accuses you and presses charges. That's the scenario. I've never included her saying "no" as part of the scenario.

Your changing the rules midstream. The original statement was she said no while you were bopping each other.
.

But you just said in a previous post that they are committing murder when they kill the guys shooting at them. Which is it? I thought in your black and white world it either is or it isn't. Seems to me killing a person is pretty straightforward but you're telling me that there are gray areas?

Care to quote me where I said that?

You'd rather they starve? That's f*cked up man.

Never said that. I said I'd prosecute them for stealing.

What if there's no evidence to prosecute them? There's no way to prove it but you know they're making kiddie porno because of something you accidentally saw but have no evidence of but you had no way of getting to the person behind it so the only recourse you could take would be to walk away or burn the place down? Would you let it continue by walking or would you burn the place down? And would it be wrong?

Committing a crime to end a crime is still a crime.

Law enforcement is unable to respond due to extenuating circumstances. Does the kid get a fat lip simply because you refuse to become a "kidnapper?"

So what pray tell are these new found extenuating circumstances?

[Hagbard Celine]

if you stopped the moment she said stop, it is not rape. you might have a hard time in court unfortunately, but it only becomes rape as soon as she becomes unwilling. and interestingly, the common law also included "not your wife"

This discussion isn't about what the court would do. The court already accepts the existence of gray areas by acknowledging things like first degree, second degree, self defense, etc.
I'm simply trying to prove to this guy that he's wrong about the world being "black and white." Of course he's wrong. Every situation is different--that's why we don't accuse soldiers of being murderers even though that's literally what they've done in killing other human beings. The circumstances of the act are different from say, a mugger killing someone on the street. Therefore, not all murder is wrong or evil. There are gray areas.

[Hagbard Celine]

Your changing the rules midstream. The original statement was she said no while you were bopping each other.

No I said she accused you of rape. I NEVER included her saying "no." Here's the proof: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...&postcount=114

Care to quote me where I said that?

Right here:http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...&postcount=122

Never said that. I said I'd prosecute them for stealing.

Essentially it's the same thing. You'd prosecute someone for feeding themselves simply because technically they were "stealing." You'd have no compassion for their plight. It's just black and white to you.

Committing a crime to end a crime is still a crime.

It may be a "crime," but does that mean it wasn't warranted or that it's inherently evil simply because it's a "crime?" Remember, you had no other recourse other than to walk away or to burn the place down so it couldn't be used again. You'd prosecute someone for putting an end to a child porno ring simply because they did so through the act of arson?

So what pray tell are these new found extenuating circumstances?

Who cares? Perhaps another terrorist attack or a natural disaster called all law enforcement personnel away from the area. So would you nap the kid or leave him to be beaten up by his unfit parental units?

[ranger]

No, not "stop." She calls you a rapist and accuses you and presses charges. That's the scenario. I've never included her saying "no" as part of the scenario.

You should know what you're sticking your dick in before you start. If you pick the chick up in a bar, you;re playing with fire.

.
But you just said in a previous post that they are committing murder when they kill the guys shooting at them. Which is it? I thought in your black and white world it either is or it isn't. Seems to me killing a person is pretty straightforward but you're telling me that there are gray areas?

It's written in black and white that you can kill to defend yourself. Quit trying to change up in midstream to try and make it look like you're right.

You'd rather they starve? That's f*cked up man.

Plenty of churches, agencies and what not that would bend over backward to feed them.

What if there's no evidence to prosecute them? There's no way to prove it but you know they're making kiddie porno because of something you accidentally saw but have no evidence of but you had no way of getting to the person behind it so the only recourse you could take would be to walk away or burn the place down? Would you let it continue by walking or would you burn the place down? And would it be wrong?

What if your mom had balls, would that make her your dad? And yes, it would still be wrong. I know of a rapist that is out ad about because we can get enough evidence to try him in court. So, I keep a really good eye on his ass.

Law enforcement is unable to respond due to extenuating circumstances. Does the kid get a fat lip simply because you refuse to become a "kidnapper?"

WTF kind of scenario are you fabricating now? If you see a kid being assaulted the law states you can intervene and stop the assault. The law says you can call the police. It's not kidnapping, it's doing what's right. Of course, that concept seems to be alien to you.

[Yurt]

This discussion isn't about what the court would do. The court already accepts the existence of gray areas by acknowledging things like first degree, second degree, self defense, etc.
I'm simply trying to prove to this guy that he's wrong about the world being "black and white." Of course he's wrong. Every situation is different--that's why we don't accuse soldiers of being murderers even though that's literally what they've done in killing other human beings. The circumstances of the act are different from say, a mugger killing someone on the street. Therefore, not all murder is wrong or evil. There are gray areas.

what is gray about stopping when she says no? you either stop or you don't.