Getting raped is like getting a flat tire. Also, it's God's will. Fancy that.

[Darius Brogan]

Well, for me, this is just another number on my 'List of why humans are stupid'

I find it hilarious that this asshole said that, and evidently didn't bat an eyelash.

Seriously? 'I have a spare tire on my car'? So this guy is comparing driving over a random sharp-object lying on the road, that just happened to be large enough to puncture his tire, with some sexually uncontrolled, morally void fuck-head deliberately HUNTING DOWN women, and raping them? Whatever he's on, should be WAAAAY more illegal than it is, or isn't, whatever the case may be.

Planning ahead for rape shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Even then, 'abortion insurance' is just plain stupid. It won't help the women that got raped to know that she's ngot good insurance, because she JUST GOT RAPED.

I could see carrying around a big-ass pistol and blowing the guys balls off being called 'preparedness', because, if he's got no balls, and is bleeding all over the pavement, you don't have to worry about getting pregnant now, do you?
And if 'Gods will' is getting a woman raped, just so she can have a child grow up to be a singer, then he's on some fucking powerful Psychotropics, because That.Is.Pathetic.

This man should think over what he said, and I should be there to see the look on his face when it hits him what he said, and how completely wrong it could, and is, being interpreted.

I can just imagine the largest, most helpless look of "Oh... Fucknuts" glazing over his eyes.

Also, on a different note, I find it so far above hilarious that they're separating 'rape' and 'incest' so obviously. The term 'Incest' is just people that share blood having sex, while 'Rape' is sex that is IN ANY WAY against the man or woman's will.
Incest can be consensual, Rape cannot. If it's a girls brother or father that raped her, incest is just an addendum, RAPE is what should be the focal point, and RAPISTS in general deserve to be shot in the face.

I apologize in advance if my views offend anyone, they tend to be a bit radical for most tastes.

I prostrate myself for you. I think what you said is just AMAZING.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

I hope both of you are brought to task for every person you have ever hurt, ever.

Pardon? For the record, I don't hurt people often, and when I do, it's always in self defense. ALWAYS.

I've lived through people threatening my family, friends, and my own life, several times.
I've been almost completely ostracized for most of my life.

I've also nearly had my left eye destroyed TWICE, by two different people, who though it would be funny to try and get me to cry in public. It didn't work, by the way, though I've got permanent scar tissue over my eye now.

My thoughts and opinions of and about people have been formed over the years by seeing people, myself included, GET HURT.

I won't say my life has been the worst, matter of fact, compared to many, it's been really easy, however, being 'brought to task' for my hurting people won't come about until I actually HURT SOMEONE intentionally, and with either outright, or implied malice. So take your uninformed, negative opinion, and go fuck yourself with it.

I am sure that you are perfect. that you have never hurt anyone, never done wrong. and I touched a nerve. You didn't like it, did you? The idea you might be called to account for every wrong you have ever committed.

Uh, you'd have to deliberately hurt people for that to happen and, while I'm not perfect, and won't say I've NEVER hurt anybody, even accidentally, I'm evidently better than you, because you seem to think that I DO deliberately hurt people. I don't.

If you had read my previous post and absorbed any real information from it, I know INTIMATELY what it feels like to be on the receiving end of an asshole trying to hurt me.

Accountability for a wrong never committed, is barely accountability at all. Yes, I've hurt people, NO it hasn't been deliberate. In fact, the worst I can remember EVER doing is thus: Recently, I sharpened my brothers Knives, I'm very good at it, he got momentarily distracted and cut his finger rather severely. No Stitches, but it was bleeding quite a lot.THAT'S the WORST.

What about you? oh saintly one? Ever accidentally step on a foot? say the wrong word? Knock a coconut out of a tree that broke somebodies glass of Cuervo?

If not, you must be God, because it's not physically possible to go through this world without hurting SOMEONE, and God is the only being that can evidently bend the laws of reality.

Step on a nerve? I'll say so. What you said was the equivalent of telling a Father he just punted his eight year old son across the yard, when he was aiming for a soccer ball.
I'm not perfect, nobody is, but Do Not Ever assume that everybody on earth deliberately sets out in the morning looking to hurt someone. I know EXACTLY what happens to people when they deliberately hurt others for their own amusement, because I've been on the receiving end.
Did ANYTHING in my first post allude to my love of hurting people? I don't think so, in fact, if I remember correctly, it was more watching the look on the guy's face when he realized how backwards what he said could be taken.
That's not hurting someone, that's watching the realization of a colossal mistake. They're very different in term, and in definition.

So go take your self righteous bullshit elsewhere, you're infecting the internet.

EDIT: Also please note 'until I actually HURT SOMEONE intentionally, and with either outright, or implied malice.' I stated intentionally, with malice. Yeah, I've hurt people in self defense, physically and verbally, as well as accidentally. Malice was never an issue.

No. your reaction is that of someone trying to explain away their guilt. If you really expect any person here, or anywhere else, to believe that you have never hurt anyone intentionally, you are probably looking to end up disappointed. Accusing me is a straw man argument, I never claimed to be perfect. I never claimed to have never hurt anyone. and I have never tried to justify my actions in front of the internet. The only person here spouting "self-righteous bullshit" here is you, you just can not stop going on about how great you are and how flawless you are in the matter of hurting people.
Unfortunately, you are arguing against someone learned in the social sciences. You see yourself as flawless in this matter because you want to. But it is unlikely you are viewing yourself objectively. You see yourself through a lens that does not accurately describe reality.
Let me give an example: Have you ever mocked someone? laughed with a crowd at someones misfortune or accident? Have you ever made fun of someone in order to boost yourself?
To believe that these things are less harmful is to make one person less than another, to say that one kind of pain is worse than another. I have met 6 year olds whose self esteem has been so devastated by harassment, that they want to die. 6 year olds.
My initial post was meant to shock you, draw you out, and possibly make you confront yourself. Rather than do this, you have reflected outward, a common symptom in this day and age. Your use of capslocks, your vehemence in your perfection, and your anger at anyone daring to call you out on the hypocrisy of your opinion speaks everything else that needs to be said.

If you think pretending to be a psychiatrist will change the outcome of this conversation then, by all means, go for it.

You would need guilt to explain away in the first place, and I've already made my peace with the fact that it is impossible to go through life without hurting anyone.
'My reaction' is that of somebody that's tired of stupid, self righteous assholes like you pretending they know anything about me.

Also, explaining a situation is hardly justifying anything. Justification in this situation is unnecessary, and will get me nowhere, I was just hoping that you were smart enough to understand said situation. Evidently you think you're TOO smart to care, and are therefore pretending that you know me well enough to form any sort of cohesive argument against my character.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm asking you a question. You seem really caught up on making me feel like an asshole for 'hurting people', yet you'll admit that you hurt others as well. I smell a double standard here.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I even attempt to make myself seem flawless, I admitted to hurting people, physically, verbally, ect... but I do NOT hurt people intentionally, unless provoked. Ever. I guess you could say I was raised that way, you know, with a code of MORALS. Like any good human being has.

I also don't care how 'learned in the social sciences' you think you are, trying to explain the actions of someone potentially thousands of miles away, with no evidence of their temperament at the time of the comment, is a useless endeavor, because, through text, even with inflections, capitalization, punctuation, bold, italic, underlined, and what-have-you, it is not possible to impart all the information one would when holding a verbal conversation, with any of the verbal queues that would normally be present.

In answer to your situational inquiry, I can say this. 1) Mocked someone? Give me a cut and dry example of said mocking, and 'll be able to tell you. 2) Laughed with a crowd at someones misfortune? No. Not ever in my memories do I ever remember following a crowd and laughing at someone. That I can honestly say, regardless of what you believe. 3) No I have never made fun of another to 'boost myself'. My self-esteem is my problem alone, and I will not foist embarrassment off onto another person to give myself a pick-me-up.

Whatever you may think of me, I was NEVER a part of those groups that find bullying/embarrassing/otherwise belittling others amusing, I was usually on the other end. Paint my character however you will, but until YOU experience MY life, and I experience YOURS, your know-it-all 'social sciences' attitude is meaningless.

I'm not a perfect person, and I'll never claim to be, but just because you're in possession of what YOU believe to be a superior education, that doesn't give you any right to judge my character, nor the knowledge to do so. If we ever meet in person, the situation may change, but until that happens, I'm going to continue living my life the way I choose to do so, regardless of the opinions of someone that believes spouting their 'education level' will improve their standing in my eyes, OR humble me.

Also, I use the Caps-lock because I don't feel like adding the extra characters for italic, underline, or bold, not because I'm pissed off, and not because you think your initial post was well-worded enough to make me introspective.
I'm not vehement in my own perfection, as you seem to have glazed over the admissions of imperfection in my previous posts. They're not there for show, they're there to be read and understood. I'm so far past confronting myself in this life it's rather funny. You think you're the first person pretending to be a psychiatrist when talking to me? Get over yourself. I made peace with my demons LONG before my first ever post on the Escapist. Accept that.
You say you've seen 6 years old children with destroyed self esteem? So have I. I know what it looks like, I know what it feels like. Or do my personal experiences count for less when compared to the almighty education you possess?

1. your implication that I care the slightest about my "standing" in your eyes is laughable, and not the point at all. It is a deviation from what the argument is about.
2. I never said I was a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists, by the way, prescribe medications to people who have mental disorders. My fields of study are clinical psychology, and social science.
3. You hint that you have been abused, but have not actually said. If you have been, and still have the kind of vehemence against people that you carry, your "demons" are not nearly as faced as you believe. do not believe me? go see a psychologist and ask him/her if I am wrong.
4. Your denial of either my education, or its effect on this conversation, is once again a straw man argument. I believe that seeing as how I have actually worked with sex offenders in several different instances, I am more qualified than you in this argument. You can deny that all you want, it wont make the slightest bit of impact on me, or likely anyone else.
Your original comment on what "should happen to rapists" is anti-social and indicative of serious unresolved anger issues. You do not seem to grasp that you cannot cure violence with more violence. Who are you to judge anyone? Do you know what most of these people have been through, the abuse they have absorbed? No, you don't, but you sit back and judge them from the confines of your tower, and when someone like me throws a rock through your window, you react in any way to seem like you are normal. Fun Fact: If you want to hurt anyone you do not personally know for any reason, you are not normal. I am done talking to you. You are convinced of both your superiority, and your opinion.

1) Why bother mentioning your education if not to make yourself seem more intelligent? It doesn't help your argument any that you've got no idea what I do for a living, yet seem to assume it's any less involved with sexual predators. You're also acting like a shrink, I never said you were. (Better? I didn't use the caps-lock )

2) Refer to above point.

3) In this context, 'abused' is more like 'bullied and ostracized from the ages of 10 till 18'. You could call that abuse, I suppose, but it doesn't affect me much anymore. My opinion of rapists has been formed over the years by watching the news, reading articles, ect... And the personal experience I carry with me much of the time these days.

4)I did not deny your education, you just quoted your education levels as if they mattered in a real argument and, given that you know nothing of my own education, you assumed that I was any less educated than yourself. I'm obviously just quite a bit more opinionated, not that that's a good thing much of the time.
I wont deny that I'm anti-social, I prefer it that way because it's more quiet. 'Unresolved' anger issues are a topic for another day, as they haven't affected my opinion in any significant way.
You say I 'don't know what these people have been through'? You know nothing about my life or family, extensive as it is, but what I've told you, and you still think you can get a read on my personality? My quirks, such as they are? You assume that my knowledge of this topic is any less than your own?
I know people that have been through ten times what most rapists have, and have come out on top. One had his parents murdered before his eyes, another was raped while her father lay dead on the floor, with her mother, whom later committed suicide, being raped in a separate room. I'm not 'superior' in any way. I just find it laughable that you think I'm uninformed of the situation.
If I'm convinced of my superiority, you must be plotting to overthrow God himself, because the sheer proportions of your assumptions are as arrogant as they come.
Also, if you can point out, in any of my previous posts, where I claim my superiority to the heavens, please point them out.

The bottom line here, is that Rapists, regardless of what they've been through, are horrible people that, in almost all cases, are completely beyond redemption.

EDIT: Please don't take this in a sarcastic, or offensive way: The willing abandonment of a conversation in which you were actively trying to A) Change someones opinion or B) Prove that it was wrong, indicates to me a lack of caring, or determination on your part.
You said you work in clinical psychology and social science. Tell me, what does that entail? There are more than one position available when one mentions either of those particular fields of expertise, and I would like to know which you fall under.

 

[funguy2121]

He wanted to rape her back then.

2) Rape has everything to do with attraction. The whole act of sex is wanting to copulate with the opposite gender. I think you are confusing this with personality attraction rather than physical attraction. Animals are 'attracted' to one another. To do this they usually give off pheromones. The male will also give off pheromones to promote his sexual availability and genetic superiority over other males. If the female is not giving these hormones off but the male is, the male still needs to 'unload' so to speak. He recognizes a member of the opposite gender and proceeds to copulate whether it be consensual or not. The point is when the male is sexually active he will often be attracted to any female at the slim chance of reproduction. It is built into all males to 'get as many women as we can'. It's why so many men have commitment issues. It is part of our genetic makeup.

3) TBH I only skimmed through the article and took out the flat tire vs rape analogy and spoke about that. I honestly don't care about religion and I would probably agree with you on many points to decry them and their stupidity. That being said, many Christians (or people of any religion) are good decent people and so I tend to just hate the idea of religion converting naive people and not the people themselves. And I agree, women SHOULDN'T have to cover up to avoid rape and I'm certainly not advocating that. Unfortunately rape is simply a part of life.

I agree with all of your points except (2). I used to feel this way as well. Why would a guy rape a woman to whom he's not attracted? Of course, back then I didn't like to think about what I thought were greatly exaggerated accounts of, say, prison rape. Most inmates are not homosexuals, yet they commit horrible acts of rape that happen to be homosexual. If it weren't about power, they would just use their hand. Believe me, I've heard of some pretty creative means that some prisoners will go through to simulate a pussy.

Rape always has been and always will be about power, except for some date rapists who simply don't believe they can actually convince a woman to go to bed with them. FBI profilers and psychologists will tell you the same. Women are not raped because the perp finds them attractive. They are raped because the only way he can get off is a power trip.

Agreed that rape can be about power but it isn't just always about power. I'm having a discussion with another person who doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. Dominating others and wanting 'power' is ALSO built into us genetically. Whether it be for survival of the fittest or dog eat dog. Lions fight for territory. So do prison inmates. Rape for the sake of power over another individual is an inbuilt natural tendency, however because the only people around are males and putting your penis in someone is the only way to humiliate someone in prison without actually killing them then it's basically the only option.

Yes rape can be about power AND / OR basic sexual copulation. Both of which have biological explanations.

Agreed, in much the same way that monogamy is NOT built into us. Yet we can choose it, and choosing it is what defines us as a species and separates us from other animals. Other animals do not and cannot have moral quandaries. And rapists don't choose to be anything but animals.

 

[Jewrean]

Agreed, in much the same way that monogamy is NOT built into us. Yet we can choose it, and choosing it is what defines us as a species and separates us from other animals. Other animals do not and cannot have moral quandaries. And rapists don't choose to be anything but animals.

Definitely. Most people in prison are usually in there for adhering to their baser instincts in the first place. I however think that our intelligence is merely an illusion. I'm sure there may be some alien species who considers our intelligence level quaint so it really is dependent on perspective. That being said, morals are something that humans exhibit and animals cannot, you are right.

I could add however that just as a animal mother is programmed to take care of its children, so to do many of our social mannerisms stem from genetic pre-programming to further the survival of the species.

 

[funguy2121]

Agreed, in much the same way that monogamy is NOT built into us. Yet we can choose it, and choosing it is what defines us as a species and separates us from other animals. Other animals do not and cannot have moral quandaries. And rapists don't choose to be anything but animals.

Definitely. Most people in prison are usually in there for adhering to their baser instincts in the first place. I however think that our intelligence is merely an illusion. I'm sure there may be some alien species who considers our intelligence level quaint so it really is dependent on perspective. That being said, morals are something that humans exhibit and animals cannot, you are right.

I could add however that just as a animal mother is programmed to take care of its children, so to do many of our social mannerisms stem from genetic pre-programming to further the survival of the species.

Cynicism is not inherently scientific, which is why the cynical viewpoint is so often useless.

I wonder how, with all the philosophy and science and music and mathematics and networking and engineering and doctoring and lawyering that we've done/created/shared/invented/pioneered, with all of our satellites and gene sequencing and telecommunications and nuclear power, you think that our intelligence is an illusion. There is no reason to believe that sentient life exists beyond Earth, except for numbers-a product of our own intelligence. And to assume that they are so far advanced compared to us that they would find us quaint is equally without warrant. The only life outside of Earth that we can empirically say even probably has existed are single-cell organisms on Mars.

Determinism = defeatism = human apolog-ism = la zi ness.

 

[Jewrean]

Cynicism is not inherently scientific, which is why the cynical viewpoint is so often useless.

I wonder how, with all the philosophy and science and music and mathematics and networking and engineering and doctoring and lawyering that we've done/created/shared/invented/pioneered, with all of our satellites and gene sequencing and telecommunications and nuclear power, you think that our intelligence is an illusion. There is no reason to believe that sentient life exists beyond Earth, except for numbers-a product of our own intelligence. And to assume that they are so far advanced compared to us that they would find us quaint is equally without warrant. The only life outside of Earth that we can empirically say even probably has existed are single-cell organisms on Mars.

Determinism = defeatism = human apolog-ism = la zi ness.

You misunderstand me. Of course from our perspective we, as a people, have achieved much. But from an-others perspective, perhaps one we don't understand, our intelligence could be comparable to how we feel superior to the animals of this world. Being a scientist at heart and a teacher myself I don't doubt the existence of other species of life. Yet, of course, like the rest of us I cannot prove their existence either. Speaking from a probabilistic standpoint we have never encountered a species more intelligent than us and therefore we have no evidence to say they exist, however a faint probability of them being encountered by us is still apparent. We also have only a small amount of data to support the probability of intelligent life and until we have mapped 100% of the universe such claims as there are no aliens cannot be said. It is also naive to say that no aliens exist because we haven't found any yet. Surely as an advocate of mans great achievements you would understand the nature of discovery and how there are limitless possibilities on the horizon for mankind.

I am no cynic nor do I have a defeatist attitude. I look forward to the future no matter how fantastic or even bleak it may be. I prefer to live in the realm of the real and shed misconceptions and political correct behaviour which is why so many people have replied in anger to my posts. I say our intelligence is an illusion because even though select individuals have strived forward and evolved our species for survival, the remaining horde of humanity answers to their animalistic and primal nature more so than their intellectual prowess. I'm not saying this is a bad thing either, but my point is that we aren't as different to the animals as most think we are.

 

[pokepuke]

God setting things into motion and have foreknowledge of all future events in no way robs man of his free will. The end goal is inevitable (death, and either heaven or hell; in your example, hitting the ground would be analogous), but man has the freedom to choose how he lives his life before this final end. Your analogy breaks down in that the final destination doesn't change depending on how the dog behaves during the fall; whereas for man it does.

Mumbo jumbo to explain away more mumbo jumbo.

It's no different at all. There is no difference. We can already guess just about everything the dog will do. If you're going to bring up some endgame scenario, then how about: if the dog barks then it goes to heaven, and if it has a heart attack before landing then it goes to hell. The example given doesn't change at all, but our perception of it does.

God created human life, supposedly with extreme specificity. God would have to be retarded to not see the outcome he is creating at the same time. It is all his choice. Free will is an illusion based on ignorance.