> On Sep 18, 1:49 am, "g...@
rock.com"
rock.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> On Sep 15, 12:11 am, "J"
live.com> wrote:>
>>>> Tell them Eric, your wife wasn't in a coma. That's just the way she is in
>>>> bed.
>
>>> Once again, you show evidence that the size of your ignorance is
>>> larger than your mother's ass....
>
>
>>>> Secret sex tape can't be used, court says
>
>>>> Man accused of assault of wife in coma
>
>
>>>> Prosecutors can't use secret videotapes of a Watertown minister having sex
>>>> with his comatose wife while she was in a nursing home, the 4th District
>>>> Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
>
>>>> The man faces eight felonies - four counts of second-degree sexual assault
>>>> of an unconscious person and four counts of third-degree sexual assault - as
>>>> well as a misdemeanor.
>
>>> As well he should. One thing I've noticed about all you morons who
>>> claim the `slippery slope' is proof your ancient sexual taboos might
>>> stiil be relevant is that none of you morons understand the concept of
>>> "consent".
>
>
>>> Main Entry: 1 con·sent
>>> Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsent\
>>> Function: intransitive verb
>>> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French consentir, from Latin
>>> consentire, from com- + sentire to feel — more at sense
>>> Date: 13th century
>>> 1: to give assent or approval : agree
>>> 2archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
>
>>> Someone who is comatose cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless
>>> of their marital status. One must be conscious to consent to sexual
>>> activity. It takes "...two to tango..", idiot. If one says "no", then
>>> sexual activity should not occur.
>
>>> This is the same reason allowing homosexuals to legally marry will not
>>> lead to the legalization of bestiality or necrophilia. Animals and
>>> dead humans are not capable of consenting to a sexual union.
>>> Homosexuals *are*.
>
>> How is either any sort of a crime, when a dead human is already dead,
>> and an animal is considered as much - I mean I hardly see that it
>> crosses the line into cruelty to animals.
>
> Are you kidding me? I ask that you research the concept of "consent"
> again.
Inanimate objects don't need to consent. An animal and a cadaver
don't need to consent anymore than a dildo or a fake pussy need to
consent.
>> There are far too many laws, screwing over far too many people in the
>> United States, at taxpayer expense. While sex with an unconscious
>> person could be considered criminal if they later decided they were
>> violated, the woman in this case may consent if she ever wakes up.
>
> "If" may be the strongest word in the English language. Or in *any*
> language. At the moment the activity takes place, there is no consent
> between two people.
>
>> The law should only press charges if the once living victim is dead or
>> incapacitated - in this case she is at the moment, but will she be in
>> the future?
>
> Does not matter. Should all criminals be released because their
> behavior would one day be ruled legal?
>
>> The man may have acted out of love,
>
> Just like any man who's ever raped the target of his unrequited love.
> Do you claim rape is not a crime, because he was in love?
>
>> the wife may be happy
>> he got sex.
>
> But we won't know that unless she wakes up, will we...
>
>> Will it serve HER to destroy her husband?
>
> Ask her if she wakes up. Until then, it is still sex without consent.
>
>> Furthermore,
>> must we not consider; how terrible of a crime is rape in the first
>> place?
>
> You don't know many women, do you.
>
>> For those not brutally beaten nor permanently injured, nor
>> repeatedly raped, life will go on........
>
> So you're trying to tell me that different versions of rape are more
> or less moral, depending upon the level of violence created during the
> act?
>
> Yeah, I see that you haven't spent much time in the company of women
> at all.
Ask a woman! Would she rather be raped and beaten up, or merely
raped! Think about it yourself, would you rather be overpowered and
butt raped with no lasting physical injury, or butt raped and beaten
badly - even to the point of sustaining physical injury??
>> will it go on for an
>> attacker who is made a felon and sentenced to jail - to loose his
>> house and his job - where he faces peril of possible beatings, death
>> and rape himself?
>
> So what? You just said that sometimes, rape ain't so bad. And what if
> the other convict rapes the guy because he *loves* him? Didn't you
> just say rape's OK when the aggessor's in love? Make up your fucking
> mind.
My point is that jail is a dangerous place where people are routinely
beaten, killed, and raped repeatedly. And that a felony can last for
life.
>> The government of the United States is the biggest
>> rapist in the book, as prison rape is worse if it is repeated.
>
> *Any* rape is worse if it is repeated.
>
>> Repeated, brutal, and/or terrorizing rape are far worse than mere non-
>> consensual assault which leaves no harsh injuries.
>
> Once again, I must say that it seems you don't know many women....or
> many convicts. Rape is rape.
I would beg to differ.
>> The issue of rape
>> is sort of like hitting someone weaker than you when they're already
>> down. Would you rather be politely sexually forced or beat up and
>> injured but not raped?
>
> I'd kill the aggressor in either case, if I were capable of it. And I
> am *damn* sure I'd be capable of it.
So a one time rape which leaves no lasting physical injuries is the
same as murder??
In that case rapists may as well kill their victims.
I would suggest that you haven't spent too much time around women who
have been raped and "let it go."
As an example, consider loving couples. One may rape the other and
they may never report it and go on with their happy lives.
If you can receive your justice then murder is unnecessary. When
there is no recourse to the law and your victimizer receives no just
desert, murder is your only option. But on the other hand, when the
penalty is overly harsh and amounts to a new crime against the
victimizer, murder is their only option as well. Thus a judge must
endeavor to make a punishment fit a crime - lest the criminal takes
the law into his own hands, and murderers him for his own just revenge
and justice.
You're argument: I would kill either way, isn't a very good argument,
because based on your mere argument "that you would kill" you could
kill for anything, and how does that make you; or the government you
advocate; any different than a criminal?
The problem is that anyone can be overly reactive and decide they are
not receiving justice. i.e. "You trespassed on my land, and I should
kill you for it!" I suppose such is the way of the world, all should
tread lightly, criminals for sure, but law enforcement and judges as
well.
An eye for an eye might be most just in this situation, of course
based only on the victim's desire for "justice" if he or she is alive
and not incapacitated, but further, how do you measure how much
punishment a day in jail is?
Further, our government is currently committing vast injustices for
victimless crimes in the areas of drugs, sex and guns. When Thomas
Jefferson looked at slavery he said
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise
of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the
one part, and degrading submissions on the other," God who gave us
life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we
have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for
my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot
sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism.
Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people are to be free."
His prescient comments foretold the American civil war the bloodiest
war in American history to this day. The government can not go on
committing evil in the name of justice forever.
Justice is the absence of injustice. Justice is thus peace and
freedom. But when injustice occurs we try to make two wrongs equal a
right Perhaps this is it... but when we go to far is it really the
way to peace and freedom? Does the death penalty teach that killing
is wrong or that killing is right? Are we trying to teach anything?
What compels people to commit murderous crimes? Is it to any degree
an overbearing mentality or atmosphere - a world where liberty, peace
and freedom are not all prevailing - where you have no rights and need
not respect or care for other's rights? Where we do not value human
life? Such a degradation of our society has surely occurred alongside
the degradation of our legal system.
Or is justice nothing of the sort but merely revolving personally
around those involved. If so our unjust government will surely get
its just desert - unfortunately at taxpayer expense. First it
misspends taxpayer dollars, then someone like Tim McVeigh destroys
more taxpayer dollars. Perhaps precision killings would be a whole
lot less costly, and in the extreme event certainly allow us to avoid
the destruction from a civil war. But then again I suppose you need
to destroy the weapons of their injustice - including perhaps some
buildings. I suppose the misspending is all we can lament in the
first place.
>> Perhaps both are bad, but if it was a one time
>> thing you could easily recover from a rape which had no physical
>> repercussions, much like a minor assault.
>
> Your decision to compare any kind of rape with a "minor assault" is
> even more evidence that you really haven't spent much time around
> women. Or convicts.
>
>> Yes you deserve your just
>> desert for either, but what is an eye for an eye, a just punishment
>> for mere rape
>
> "Mere rape"????
>
>> with no lasting physical harm?
>
> The human body does not exist without the mind. Mental harm *is*
> physical harm. Are you really attempting to claim that a rapist that
> doesn't pull out his switchblade and cut up the pussy after he's
> fucked it is somehow *more* moral than the rapist that would not
> attempt to "erase the evidence"?
Are you an alien? Why would a rapist cut up a girls pussy unless he
was a psychopath?! It would hardly destroy the evidence. A rapist
wanting to get away with it would be better off wearing a condom and
raping gently. But the answer to your question is: Absolutely. One
woman's life would go on. The other would be left with lasting
physical injury for the rest of her life.
Permanent injury is almost as bad as death. Such a person might as
well just kill the woman.
How bad is rape if it's not repeated and you're not permanently hurt.
You would have a thought in your head "oh I was raped once," how does
this compare to "oh I was beaten up once?" Definitely both suffer
injustice, but an eye for an eye and justice is restored - life can go
on. Perhaps screaming at and standing up to your victimizer and a
little bit of non-permanent corporal punishment would do. Being
locked away for a short period seems it could do too, what the fuck is
putting people in prison for years on end, but to protect society from
violators - surely they could learn to not assault people and
understand the principle of not assaulting people? - unless they are
un-helpable crazy psychos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye
An eye for an eye will make the whole world free.
If you're with an eye for an eye and you protect and enforce an eye
for an eye then we can be free from injustice and oppression.
But if you don't then they can set up an institution and enforce a
philosophy worse than an eye for an eye.
If you just go forgiveness and let them do what they want to do
they'll just do their thing with out you, which can be worse than an
eye for an eye.
Making the punishment harsher than the crime is injustice itself, and
how is that truly legal?
> I'm snipping the rest because I'm beginning to doubt your sanity.
>
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
