Tara Reade who accuses Biden of sexual assault now fears for her life.

[nPeace]

I already gave an example. Perhaps we could stick with that.

Yes. Let's stick to that.
You gave consent to sex. You both did things wrong. Or, your expectations were not satisfied. What do you do? Cry rape, because the guy did not stop when you wanted to?

I gave several examples to illustrate what that amounts to.
However, you seem only focused on what you said. Is that how conversations go?

Here is a scenario. Girl likes guy. Girl wants to have sex with guy. Guy wants to have sex with girl. Girl probably expects guy to take his time, and be gentle, but guy rushes into things and is rough. Girl tells guy to stop. It hurts. Guy says, well it's supposed to hurt... what did you think would happen, if you aren't a... you know.
Do you say the guy raped you?

All of these words but no response to the questions asked that would address the point. Just a tap dance.
Oh well, I tried.

Why you do this, is for one reason, and one reason only, but if I can't help you, to change that, I just can't.
All your questions were answered. Is there one on your mind you did not post?

I refer back to the post I was responding to.
It happened to me that my first time with a man was a bit unsettling and...painful.
But he was my boyfriend and I was deeply in love with him.
And I didn't express my consent explicitly because I didn't know what to do...because it was my first time.

The fact that another woman could have sued that man...in the US, shows that the American judicial system is flawed.
I am sorry.
Because it basically tells women: if you enjoyed the sexual act, it's not rape.
If you didn't enjoy it, it's rape.

That is, you can withdraw your consent, after the sexual act.

I see it like this...
The mindset is... If things do not go my way, I can simply just "change my mind", and have my way.
It's a form of cheating... interesting pun. To me it's like having your cake and eating it too.
It no doubt creates causality - the effects you don't want to accept.
That's the price of immorality.

Thankfully, the Christian does not have to deal with that selfishness, because they don't hop into bed with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
The man or woman they get into bed with, is one they take time to know. One who appreciates, respects, and loves them, so that they consider the feelings of each other.
That's the role morality plays in their life.

Those who do otherwise, runs along, and suffer the consequences... which they don't like, of course.

 

[fantome profane]

Cry rape, because the guy did not stop when you wanted to?

That is the definition of rape.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, between a convicted sex offender and Biden, in addition to Trump's worse platform, I would vote for Biden. I would still prefer someone else over either, but I know the bipartisan system has American elections by the neck.

What does "by the neck" mean?
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils, eh.
When was Trump convicted as a sex offender?

I was talking about a potential scenario where Biden was proven to have committed the crime he was accused of. This doesn't mean he wouldn't still be a lesser evil than Trump (who is now a convicted sex offender).

Then again, if a system ends up with those two as the only choices, perhaps the system itself is either broken or in desperate need of reform.

I was referring to the guilty verdict in Trump's recent trial:

Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused columnist E Jean Carroll

Verdict for first time legally brands a former US president as a sexual predator but clears Trump of rape

www.theguardian.com

Under our system, he was found liable in tort.
He wasn't convicted of a crime.

...I have seen some libertarians oppose all wars and suggest isolationism.

One can say one has seen some <any group> support <anything>.
I know a feminist who advocated rape of men in prison.
Equally invalid as criticism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ew!
And right after eating dinner!
Stay down, food....stay down.

Hmmm, Jesus told his disciples to pray this way: "Lord, let your kingdom come." Kingdom - government. It obviously wasn't on the earth when he offered that prayer to his disciples otherwise he would not have said, "Let your kingdom come," or be on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[nPeace]

That is the definition of rape.

To some.
To others, the definition of rape differs.
Seems people have a hard time making up their mind on matters.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What does "by the neck" mean?

That the bipartisan system stifles alternatives to the usual wealthy, generic proponents of the status quo be they Republicans or Democrats.

When was the last time a libertarian third-party candidate had an actual chance to win a presidential election?

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils, eh.
When was Trump convicted as a sex offender?



Under our system, he was found liable in tort.
He wasn't convicted of a crime.

Ah. I was unaware that per US law, a guilty verdict in a civil case about sexual abuse doesn't make someone a convicted sex offender.

Interesting. Legal nuances aside, though, the fact remains that he has been found guilty of sexual abuse, so I see him the same way I would see any other sex offender.

One can say one has seen some <any group> support <anything>.
I know a feminist who advocated rape of men in prison.
Equally invalid as criticism.

I wasn't offering that as criticism; it's an example of neoliberals who aren't necessarily hawkish. The isolationism is the downside, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmm, Jesus told his disciples to pray this way: "Lord, let your kingdom come." Kingdom - government. It obviously wasn't on the earth when he offered that prayer to his disciples otherwise he would not have said, "Let your kingdom come," or be on earth as it is in heaven.

I don't know what that means.

 

[nPeace]

Hmmm, Jesus told his disciples to pray this way: "Lord, let your kingdom come." Kingdom - government. It obviously wasn't on the earth when he offered that prayer to his disciples otherwise he would not have said, "Let your kingdom come," or be on earth as it is in heaven.

Was it the kingdom Jesus said would be on earth, or God's will?

 

[fantome profane]

To some.
To others, the definition of rape differs.
Seems people have a hard time making up their mind on matters.

To the rapist, the definition of rape is different.

I don't care. If she says stop, stop. When she says stop, stop.

 

[nPeace]

Hmmm, Jesus told his disciples to pray this way: "Lord, let your kingdom come." Kingdom - government. It obviously wasn't on the earth when he offered that prayer to his disciples otherwise he would not have said, "Let your kingdom come," or be on earth as it is in heaven.

YoursTrue!!! Didn't realize that was you.

 

[nPeace]

To the rapist, the definition of rape is different.

I don't care. If she says stop, stop. When she says stop, stop.

Those officials are rapists???

 

[fantome profane]

Those officials are rapists???

Or supporting rapists. Yes.

 

[nPeace]

It appears that the only real difference here is consent being revoked
retroactively, ie "after the act". (Revocation "during" is easily addressed
by stopping, although males do still face the risk of a rape accusation.)
Certainly, retroactive revocation shouldn't be rape.
But there are complications, eg, regret can inspire accusation, memory
is corrupted over time. There's a big problem with many rape cases
relying largely upon personal testimony about what they remember.
Juries can rely upon the word of one person. Consent rarely has physical
corroborating evidence (eg, witnesses, documentation). Rape is a very
politically charged matter, creating prejudice, & clouding judgment.
And finally, the "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard
isn't reliably applied by juries.

One prosecutor's experiences & views...

I used to prosecute sexual assault cases. Here's what I learned and how it could help us.

My default position is to believe women, but not all allegations are real. Here's how to avoid scorched-earth battles like the Kavanaugh confirmation.

www.usatoday.com

Note:
I served on a jury once. You do not want people that I saw deciding
your fate. Justice has a large random element. And it's filled with
corrupt & incompetent prosecutors, lawyers, & judges. So I favor
Blackstone's ratio.

Blackstone's ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Man's system is too flawed to get justice right.

 

[nPeace]

Or supporting rapists. Yes.

You opinion against millions is still your opinion.
There is no consensus on zillions of things in this world.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue!!! Didn't realize that was you.

lol that's ok...

 

[Revoltingest]

That the bipartisan system stifles alternatives to the usual wealthy, generic proponents of the status quo be they Republicans or Democrats.

The wealthy are valuable primarily because they provide the money
to campaign for votes. And those are provided by the masses, who
are the ones who repeatedly elect & re-elect the status quo.
Solely blaming the wealthy is lazy. But even worse, it lets the
voters off the hook when they should be considering which
candidates will do what they want.

When was the last time a libertarian third-party candidate had an actual chance to win a presidential election?

Never.
Was that a real question, or a rhetorical one making some point?

Ah. I was unaware that per US law, a guilty verdict in a civil case about sexual abuse doesn't make someone a convicted sex offender.

It wasn't a guilty verdict, so it wasn't a conviction.

Interesting. Legal nuances aside, though, the fact remains that he has been found guilty of sexual abuse, so I see him the same way I would see any other sex offender.

He was found liable, not guilty.
Don't dismiss important differences as mere "nuance".
The difference is about 51% vs 99% certainty.

I wasn't offering that as criticism; it's an example of neoliberals who aren't necessarily hawkish. The isolationism is the downside, though.

You regularly complain about USA mucking things up
around the world. Perhaps you should being a little
more positively disposed towards some libertarian
influence in government, eg, less dysfunctional foreign
adventurism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Man's system is too flawed to get justice right.

Until we get robotic systems, we're stuck with humans providing justice.
But who will program those robots?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know what that means.

OK, a kingdom is a government, is it not? Obviously there are various kingdoms or governments on this earth. The Israelites actually had factions amongst themselves, differing opinions that were powerful. Jesus told his disciples to pray that God's will be done on the earth. What is called the "Lord's prayer" by many says, "Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth." What do you glean from that?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The wealthy are valuable primarily because they provide the money
to campaign for votes. And those are provided by the masses, who
are the ones who repeatedly elect & re-elect the status quo.
Solely blaming the wealthy is lazy.

Where did I solely blame anyone? The system has many players to blame for its current condition, and it tends to propel the same wealthy proponents of a fundamentally flawed status quo to the final rounds of elections.

Never.
Was that a real question, or a rhetorical one making some point?

It was to make the point that anyone outside the two main parties has no real chance to win a presidential election or effect major change.

It wasn't a guilty verdict, so it wasn't a conviction.

He was found liable, not guilty.
Don't dismiss important differences as mere "nuance".

Let's put this in practical terms rather than strictly legal ones: Trump was found liable for sexual abuse in the civil case. Does that mean the court has determined that he sexually abused a woman or not?

You regularly complain about USA mucking things up
around the world. Perhaps you should being a little
more positively disposed towards some libertarian
influence in government, eg, less dysfunctional foreign
adventurism.

I'm against foreign adventurism, but I also oppose isolationism. I view some forms of interventionism as sometimes positive or even necessary. For example, if the US could intervene in Russia non-militarily to remove Putin from power and end the war on Ukraine, would that be bad? I think it would be a net positive.

The problem I have with American interventionism isn't that I categorically oppose interventionism; it's that American interventionism has usually been of the abusive, exploitative kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Until we get robotic systems, we're stuck with humans providing justice.
But who will program those robots?

oops that's a good question. Perhaps theorists can offer some explanations?