On Sep 19, 10:22 pm, "g...@
rock.com"
rock.com> wrote:> On Sep 17, 11:39 pm, panamfl...@
hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
Inanimate objects don't need or want sex. What's next? You gonna fuck
your car's tailpipe? The gutter drainpipes on your house?
Yikes! And I thought *I* was horny...
> An animal and a cadaver
> don't need to consent anymore than a dildo or a fake pussy need to
> consent.
A dildo or a sex doll are artificial creations that are designed to
give pleasure to those poor unfortunate people who cannot find willing
sexual partners. Why you would consider a living animal, or a dead
human as an equal to these toys? Do you have so little respect for
them?
>>> 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?
Can't help but notice that you've neglected to address this point...
>>> 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!
I have. That's why I said what I said.
> Would she rather be raped and beaten up, or merely
> raped!
They said it would be the same.
> Think about it yourself,
Why? I thought we were talking about how the women felt....and not
about how we would feel.
> 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??
I thought I had already stated that I see no difference between the
two.
>>> 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.
Oh, I agree. Conditions inside the US prison system are absolutely
criminal. What I don't understand is why you'd wish absolution upon
people who rape inside that system-and why you'd claim that rape
*outside* that system is somehow less harmful than such behavior
inside it. It seems that you are saying that this particular criminal
activity should be excused simply because of the environment where
those crimes take place. If that's true, then there's no reason for
*anyone* to be imprisoned at all.
> And that a felony can last for
> life.
Irrelevant. So can the loneliness, the hopelessness, and the
frustration that leads to rape in the first place.
>>> 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.
Why?
>>> 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??
False dichotomy. "...no lasting physical injuries.."? Not possible.
You still seem to be unable to understand that the mind *is* part of
the body.
> In that case rapists may as well kill their victims.
And they often do.
> I would suggest that you haven't spent too much time around women who
> have been raped and "let it go."
And I hope I never will. I don't know what kind of trailer parks or
public housing projects you've been stalking, but if I ever meet a
woman that agrees with you, I'm sure she's barefoot, pregnant, and
votes Republican.
> 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 they're loving, why can't one understand that "no means no"?
> 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 sound like a rapist that's trying to rationalize his crime when
you say something like that.
> 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,
No, not for "anything"...just for someone trying to screw me without
me saying "..yes! Screw me!.." Do I need to post the definition of
consent for you again?
> and how does that make you; or the government you
> advocate;
I have not advocated the behavior of any particular government, or
even *any* concept of government in general during our conversation.
> any different than a criminal?
Because I understand the concept of "consent".
I'm snipping the rest of your garbage, because what you say leads me
to belive you're just a rapist looking to rationalize your crime.
Rape is for ugly men too broke to buy a prostitute. Or for men who
hate women, and want to hurt them. Your attempt to equate heterosexual
rape with homosexual rape in jail is simply another example of your
hope that one day you'll be able to come to terms with the crimes
you've committed.
It must suck to be you....and it must really suck to be the women
you've raped.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
