Yes Means Yes law passed

[silesian]

There is in reality no meaning attached to marriage beyond whatever the woman feels or wants from minute to minute. . . . . at least not in our culture, anymore.

Why do you single out women?

 

[silesian]

For words to have any meaning, there need to be some beliefs about personal responsibility, personal morality, and in some higher power that represents transcendent truth somehow. . . . .

secular humanism, cutting off all attribution to universal principles that will stand as true on their own inherent terms as truth, reduces us to squabbling morons socially, and to "human resources" under the absolute tyranny of fascist elites politically.

You think secular humanism has nothing to do with personal responsibility and morality? You must be living in a cave. Secular humanists believe that you can be moral and ethical without a belief in God.

The counter-belief is that the only reason a person choose to behave morally and ethically is because they believe in God. Since I see a great number of moral and ethical atheists, this is not credible to me

 

[silesian]

secular humanism, cutting off all attribution to universal principles that will stand as true on their own inherent terms as truth, reduces us to squabbling morons socially, and to "human resources" under the absolute tyranny of fascist elites politically.

Yes, because in religious societies, there are no squabbling morons tyranny or fascist elites. A victim mentality to blame societal problems on "those people" who don't go to my church, instead of being reflective and seeing how you and your kind are contributing to these social problems.

Pick up a history book, young man. Reading is fundamental.

 

[gandalfe]

He demands of us to love our neighbor and do good to others. The horror! !!

Oh. And to kill the infidels.

 

[One Brow]

There are probably scenarios when a woman consents to sex and then the man upsets her in some way, so she decides to cry rape in an effort to **** the man over

There are probably scenarios when a person gives a gift and then the recipient upsets the giver in some way, so the giver decides to cry theft in an effort to **** the recipient over, but we don't try to discount most accusations of theft because of it.

 

[8]

There are probably scenarios when a person gives a gift and then the recipient upsets the giver in some way, so the giver decides to cry theft in an effort to **** the recipient over, but we don't try to discount most accusations of theft because of it.

But we should discount those particular cases, no?

 

[One Brow]

But we should discount those particular cases, no?

You mean, every case where one person happens to have met the alleged thief? Every case where the alleged theif claims it was a gift?

 

[8]

You mean, every case where one person happens to have met the alleged thief? Every case where the alleged theif claims it was a gift?

The case you described, dude.

 

[fishonjazz]

There are probably scenarios when a person gives a gift and then the recipient upsets the giver in some way, so the giver decides to cry theft in an effort to **** the recipient over, but we don't try to discount most accusations of theft because of it.

I think the punishment for theft vs the punishment for rape are not the same.

Nor the effect on the accuseds reputation

 

[gandalfe]

I think the punishment for theft vs the punishment for rape are not the same.

Nor the effect on the accuseds reputation

Nor the effect on the victim. Nor the effect on the victim during a trial. Have you ever heard a case where the judge says, "Well, you've loaned things to people before, therefore it can't have been stolen from you?" Because the equivalent happens all the time in rape cases.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nor the effect on the victim. Nor the effect on the victim during a trial.

Exactly

 

[One Brow]

The case you described, dude.

How do you separate them from the cases where a theft actually happened, without a thorough investigation followed by a prosecution?

 

[One Brow]

I think the punishment for theft vs the punishment for rape are not the same.

Nor the effect on the accuseds reputation

Nor the effect on the victim's reputation, for that matter. Why does the effect of reputation mean we should give alleged rapists a pass?

 

[fishonjazz]

Nor the effect on the victim's reputation, for that matter. Why does the effect of reputation mean we should give alleged rapists a pass?

Nevermind.
This is something that you just won't ever be able to understand no matter how much we discuss it

 

[babe]

How do you separate them from the cases where a theft actually happened, without a thorough investigation followed by a prosecution?

Probably useless to replly to this particular question. . . . but hey, why should I stop doing useless stuff now?

Before the brave new world spawned by secular humanists with their vaunted moral superiority and their dictums of political correctness intended to school the poor benighted religious bigots huddled in their intellectual caves clutching their bibles, people used to talk about the facts of the case in some fashion or another.

"Judge not, lest you be judged" was a religious dictum. . . . . "Innocent until proven guilty" was a legal dictum that followed from biblical precepts. Jesus spent His life teaching that people should exercise personal responsibility and thoughtful conscience before stoning accused wrongdoers. . . . before participating in local mobs enforcing public morals, and the like.

secular humanists claim they own the moral arena because they are their own judges and because they know best what the government should do or not do, and what everyone else should think as well.

Probably a fine thing to cut God out of the loop if you're going to invoke government power to control humans absolutely. I'm sure God wants no part of it.

Assuredly, God wanted no part of the medieval Catholic Church or of the jihadist muslin zealots or their "Sharia Law" as well. It is a straw man argument to trump up humans who are falsely invoking "God" as justification for inhumanity and oppression of God's children. . . . as any proof against "God" or "religion", because people acting on those claims are not "religious" in the true sense of seeking to live in accord with a higher law or principle than their own wishes. . . .

Most of the world's religions have a perhaps small but wiser set of proponents who see the mas-action "religions" or "governments" with propagandized rampages against "non-conforming" individuals as being a human phenomenon of evil rather than the action of a God worthy of study or reverence.

"Secular Humanism", if kept dissociated from propaganda intended to legitimize political action inimical to the rights of others, could be discussed on the merits of the ideas just as well as any religion, but it is inherently, also a "religion".

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I am glad that the White House declared this to be an epidemic. Otherwise how are we to ever know what issues are important if they don't tell us?

I'd be worried if Babe likes one of your posts.

Let's see, there's this thing we call 'public policy.' Elected officials are tasked with, among other things, legislating on important social issues, using their positions as a bully pulpit to talk about them, or bringing items previously not on the public agenda to the public agenda. This process generally entails some recognition, often explicit, that such and such an issue is important.

 

[babe]

Why do you single out women?

Because we weren't talking about male victims of rape, or societal attitudes and laws relating to men who feel they've been raped.

I know I have a concept of manhood that isn't sympathetic to personal victimhood. I have a prejudice that men should be able to defend themselves. It's nobody else's job.

I might be out of step with a whole lot of other folks who want some authoritarian system of justice, but hey, it's just a matter of definitions. I am the relevant authority responsible for my own welfare.

 

[babe]

I'd be worried if Babe likes one of your posts.

Let's see, there's this thing we call 'public policy.' Elected officials are tasked with, among other things, legislating on important social issues, using their positions as a bully pulpit to talk about them, or bringing items previously not on the public agenda to the public agenda. This process generally entails some recognition, often explicit, that such and such an issue is important.

It is my express purpose to worry you, and others like you, eat****. . . . . Well, perhaps to dislodge the authoritarian jugernaut that's rolling over this country from unquestioning submission on the part of the "governed".

The problem with your assertion is that it's just false. The public has been largely cut out of the information base, out of the news coverage, out of the positions of leverage in our educational system, out of the legislative and judicial and executive functions of government.

Some people call this progress. I call it fascism.

 

[babe]

You think secular humanism has nothing to do with personal responsibility and morality? You must be living in a cave. Secular humanists believe that you can be moral and ethical without a belief in God.

The counter-belief is that the only reason a person choose to behave morally and ethically is because they believe in God. Since I see a great number of moral and ethical atheists, this is not credible to me

I think secular humanism as a valid philosophical system of reasoning has been hijacked by political advocates of fascism, just like other "religions" or popular "philosophies" before have been used by the ambitious demagogues, tyrants, and militarists across the entire span of human history. . . .

And yeah, I've known some "religious believers" who, when their faith in their little cult. . . say the Mormon Church, for example. . . . was shaken, had no actual personal morals to stand on.

Basing your personal decisions and morals on compliance with authority is no way for a human being to live, whether that authority is religion or government. It's a lot of work to figure out the connections between your actions and the effects of your actions on yourself and others, but it is a job nobody can rightly let go into the hands of "officials" or "lawmakers" or any other authority center outside of your own self.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Nobody, but the feminazis always blame the guy.

Merely using the word feminazis in this context disqualifies you from any reasonable, intelligent debate. Yep, only true feminazis oppose sexual assault.

As for your quote by the famous bearded homophobe, he's left trying to explain why many of the most secular countries also tend to have among lowest rates of crime and other social ills (Northern Europe). the hyper religious Jesus-loving societies of medieval Europe were peace loving, highly ethical societies where evil had absolutely no sway, right? I consider this quote to be laughably stupid.

One also can't help but wonder where fundies like Robertson put bigotry in their hierarchy of 'evils.'