You know what Flavin, I give up.
Arguing with you is like trying to dig through clay using a spoon.
I'm not going to argue with you about your perception of words anymore today.
California Debates 'yes Means Yes' Sex Assault Law |
||
|
フォーラム » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
California debates 'yes means yes' sex assault law
California debates 'yes means yes' sex assault law
You know what Flavin, I give up.
Arguing with you is like trying to dig through clay using a spoon. I'm not going to argue with you about your perception of words anymore today. We need an end times thread with doomsayers and ***, this is getting boring - its the same damn argument spread over 32 pages!!
done.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: » We need an end times thread with doomsayers and ***, this is getting boring - its the same damn argument spread over 32 pages!!
Asura.Kingnobody said: » You know what Flavin, I give up. Arguing with you is like trying to dig through clay using a spoon. I'm not going to argue with you about your perception of words anymore today. You're right, It's an inference of words and motives that simply aren't there in the first place.
Bahamut.Kara said: » The past page AND a half has had a discussion dealing with a text clarification issue. In a thread bemoaning a law requiring clarifying language rather than body language or silence to be used as consent. Ironic. Oh the IRONY... P.S. Sorry, had to. So in a hypothetical scenario where you try to be safe and minimize any potential risk involved in daily activities. Whats to prevent someone from breaking and entering your home and raping you/hypothetical daughter?
That depends on if she's ludic enough to affirmatively give consent.
Rapers gonna rape.
volkom said: » So in a hypothetical scenario where you try to be safe and minimize any potential risk involved in daily activities. Whats to prevent someone from breaking and entertaining your home and raping you/hypothetical daughter? Nothing, per se, but that is a different issue altogether. Almost every portion of that scenario is already highly illegal and carries stiff penalties. The act of having sex with a passed out drunk or completely incognizant woman was a gray area prior to this legislation. volkom said: » So in a hypothetical scenario where you try to be safe and minimize any potential risk involved in daily activities. Whats to prevent someone from breaking and entertaining your home and raping you/hypothetical daughter? Blazed1979 said: » volkom said: » So in a hypothetical scenario where you try to be safe and minimize any potential risk involved in daily activities. Whats to prevent someone from breaking and entertaining your home and raping you/hypothetical daughter? (autospell on phone :/) Ragnarok.Nausi said: » That depends on if she's ludic enough to affirmatively give consent. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Rapers gonna rape. Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Rapers gonna rape. You can have all the laws and nonsense about how evil men are you want, but if someones gonna rape someone, none of that applies. The sexes of of both parties doesn't really matter. Rape is about dominance, not sex. Sex is just a means to exert that dominance. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Rapers gonna rape. You can have all the laws and nonsense about how evil men are you want, but if someones gonna rape someone, none of that applies. The sexes of of both parties doesn't really matter. Rape is about dominance, not sex. Sex is just a means to exert that dominance. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Sex is just a means to exert that dominance. but in the terms of sadists, then yes it is just to torture them, and they get off on that. Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Sex is just a means to exert that dominance. but in the terms of sadists, then yes it is just to torture them, and they get off on that. Why did person A still force person B into a sexual encounter without consent or against their wishes? Dominance. Otherwise Person A would have respected person B's wishes or not force themselves upon person B and found another outlet for their sexual tension. volkom said: » pretty sure Person B wouldn't be on top Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Sex is just a means to exert that dominance. but in the terms of sadists, then yes it is just to torture them, and they get off on that. Why did person A still force person B into a sexual encounter without consent or against their wishes? Dominance. Otherwise Person A would have respected person B's wishes or not force themselves upon person B and found another outlet for their sexual tension. It's not as simple as that Chaos, but I'm glad you think it is. There are more facets of the human psyche than just dominance, but that is a rather common one. For some it's about fulfilling a fantasy, granted that's a delusion, but it really has nothing to do with dominance. Unless you want to break everything everyone does into a "control" situation, which is what I expect coming. Speaking of which, I wonder how the prosecutor general is dealing with all those guys who think she's their waifu. volkom said: » pretty sure Person B wouldn't be on top unless she's willing but unable to legally give consent, like being drunk. Still rape, but I definitely wouldn't consider it being a dominance scenario, well more so in the opposite direction, (some) *** get slutty when they're drunk. Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Sex is just a means to exert that dominance. but in the terms of sadists, then yes it is just to torture them, and they get off on that. Why did person A still force person B into a sexual encounter without consent or against their wishes? Dominance. Otherwise Person A would have respected person B's wishes or not force themselves upon person B and found another outlet for their sexual tension. It's not as simple as that Chaos, but I'm glad you think it is. There are more facets of the human psyche than just dominance, but that is a rather common one. For some it's about fulfilling a fantasy, granted that's a delusion, but it really has nothing to do with dominance. Unless you want to break everything everyone does into a "control" situation, which is what I expect coming. Speaking of which, I wonder how the prosecutor general is dealing with all those guys who think she's their waifu. she secretly has a reverse harem Jetackuu said: » volkom said: » pretty sure Person B wouldn't be on top unless she's willing but unable to legally give consent, like being drunk. Still rape, but I definitely wouldn't consider it being a dominance scenario, well more so in the opposite direction, (some) *** get slutty when they're drunk. Besides that, it looks like you wouldn't mind abusing the law for your own personal gain one bit. Sad to see, but not unexpected from you. I'm sorry, I was lazy and didn't use quotes.
Yes, I refer to drunk party *** as ***. Besides that: the rest of your crap is unsubstantiated, unwarranted and a typical load of ***you spew. Can a female get really drunk without being a party ***?
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Besides that, it looks like you wouldn't mind abusing the law for your own personal gain one bit. Sad to see, but not unexpected from you. Did I say that you are absolutely have already broken laws or take advantage of people? Or did I say that it seems that you would in a heartbeat? My opinion of you keeps going down, I don't think there will ever be a bottom. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||