What is Rape?

[Norstal]

Irrelevant. Either way, they can't express desire.

It's incredibly relevant I'm saying that unless they have expressed their desire not to be a participant they were not raped.

BETTER GAG THEM FIRST THEN LOLOLOLOL

CHLOROFORM CITY HERE I COME!

[The Emerald Dawn]

So, we've established that he's starkers. I mean, no sane argument can be made in this manner.

You would have to be so anal that your picture adorned the entry for anal retentive to actually think this was sane.

[Samuraikoku]

Absolutely.

I'm so sorry. Somewhere along the way, someone, most likely a teacher, or someone else responsible for explaing how to form complex arguments, failed you horribly.

I am so, so sorry for that.

Sometimes not even something complex is needed. It's the fact of actually forming an argument simple or otherwise.

[Anachronous Rex]

Killing someone illegally who didn't consent isn't murder. If they actively expressed they didn't consent however, it's murder.

You can kill me. I'll just respawn.

That is my pact with each of my Cerebrates.

[Nadkor]

So...what you're saying is that people have to actively opt out of having sex with every individual on the planet or they're fair game and it's not rape?

Rape apologist.

I think, like TED, you're assuming more than there is. I don't really blame you. I mean, we expect there to be at least a little nuance to his argument. His whole whine however seems entirely to consist of that he just doesn't like CALLING it rape.

No, really, I know that seems obscenely sophoric, completely juvenile, nonsensically petty, and generally too simplistic to ACTUALLY be his point, but I swear to god, it is.

It really is just that petty and insignificant.

I get that, but I guess I'm just holding out hope that we're both wrong and that Des-Bal has the intellectual capacity and complexity to construct nuanced arguments worthy of someone over the age of 10.

[Des-Bal]

What does this even mean.

Do you think I consider all acts to either be rape or legal? That any illegal act is rape? What?

You're literally making no sense.

You're saying that I'm saying you either opt out of sex with every individual person on earth or you're "fair game." That only makes sense if the only crime someone could be charged with was rape. I'm saying that that is not and should not be the case.

[Des-Bal]

I'm so sorry. Somewhere along the way, someone, most likely a teacher, or someone else responsible for explaing how to form complex arguments, failed you horribly.

I am so, so sorry for that.

When I make complex arguments people start talking to strawmen, I'm trying to hold their attention with a series of simple arguments.

[Immoren]

What does this even mean.

Do you think I consider all acts to either be rape or legal? That any illegal act is rape? What?

You're literally making no sense.

You're saying that I'm saying you either opt out of sex with every individual person on earth or you're "fair game." That only makes sense if the only crime someone could be charged with was rape. I'm saying that that is not and should not be the case.

Seriously? Fucking seriously.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A woman has to tell you "Fuck me!" or get naked, open her legs, and invite you with a seductive gesture for you to do SHIT to her! Is that crystal clear or do I have to draw a picture with full pornographic detail about it?!

Not to derail the thread, but have you ever had sex with a woman?

No still a virgin. I was exaggerating for the sake of being pedantic

Point is, she has to consent to it. If we were to have sex with everyone without their consent then hell, we'd be like cavemen.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What does this even mean.

Do you think I consider all acts to either be rape or legal? That any illegal act is rape? What?

You're literally making no sense.

You're saying that I'm saying you either opt out of sex with every individual person on earth or you're "fair game." That only makes sense if the only crime someone could be charged with was rape. I'm saying that that is not and should not be the case.

Champ, you're not making any sense. I'm gonna ask the referee to end the bout before you get hurt.

[Neo Art]

No, there really isn't.

Killing someone illegally who didn't consent isn't murder. If they actively expressed they didn't consent however, it's murder.

This is, actually, a poor argument, for someone nitpicky reasons. "lack of consent" is not an element of murder. It's illegal to intentionally kill someone regardless of whether they consent to it. You can fully and enthusiastically ask me to kill you, still murder if I do.

A better argument is trespass. It's illegal to enter into my property without my consent. Regardless of whether I have explicitly told you that you can't enter, or whether I have not explicitly told you that you can, entering without my consent is still trespassing.

Das-Bal's....nonsensical little tirade however, is more akin to saying "it's only trespassing if I SPECIFICALLY TELL you you can't come into my house, and you break down the door. If you just walk into my house while I'm sleeping and I don't know you're not there, it's not really trespassing!"

Yes, it's really that fucking stupid.

[Samuraikoku]

When I make complex arguments people start talking to strawmen, I'm trying to hold their attention with a series of simple arguments.

I think this is what's going on here, the problem is what he calls simple aren't even arguments. He cannot seem to defend them.

[Nadkor]

I'm so sorry. Somewhere along the way, someone, most likely a teacher, or someone else responsible for explaing how to form complex arguments, failed you horribly.

I am so, so sorry for that.

When I make complex arguments people start talking to strawmen

I refuse to believe that this has ever happened.

[EnragedMaldivians]

That's because anti-consent doesn't exist.

Sure it does. There is a difference between "I didn't tell you to do this" and "I told you not to do this."

I don't really think I could sleep at night if I had, at any point in my life, held opinions that are as obtuse and disgusting as the ones you're expressing here.

There is no difference as far as the issue of consent is concerned in both of those examples. Maybe the order of the words, where the syntax is placed, which words are used et cetera, make them different from the semantic standpoint you seem so invested in - but again, as far as consent is concerned, there is no fucking difference. What on earth is your purpose in trying to make a distinction here?

[Neo Art]

I think, like TED, you're assuming more than there is. I don't really blame you. I mean, we expect there to be at least a little nuance to his argument. His whole whine however seems entirely to consist of that he just doesn't like CALLING it rape.

No, really, I know that seems obscenely sophoric, completely juvenile, nonsensically petty, and generally too simplistic to ACTUALLY be his point, but I swear to god, it is.

It really is just that petty and insignificant.

I get that, but I guess I'm just holding out hope that we're both wrong and that Des-Bal has the intellectual capacity and complexity to construct nuanced arguments worthy of someone over the age of 10.

We're not.

It really is just that petty and insignificant.

[Anachronous Rex]

Not to derail the thread, but have you ever had sex with a woman?

No still a virgin. I was exaggerating for the sake of being pedantic

Point is, she has to consent to it. If we were to have sex with everyone without their consent then hell, we'd be like cavemen.

Cavemen didn't actually do that. Ignore Quest for Fire.

[The Truth and Light]

Killing someone illegally who didn't consent isn't murder. If they actively expressed they didn't consent however, it's murder.

This is, actually, a poor argument, for someone nitpicky reasons. "lack of consent" is not an element of murder. It's illegal to intentionally kill someone regardless of whether they consent to it. You can fully and enthusiastically ask me to kill you, still murder if I do.

A better argument is trespass. It's illegal to enter into my property without my consent. Regardless of whether I have explicitly told you that you can't enter, or whether I have not explicitly told you that you can, entering without my consent is still trespassing.

Das-Bal's....nonsensical little tirade however, is more akin to saying "it's only trespassing if I SPECIFICALLY TELL you you can't come into my house, and you break down the door. If you just walk into my house while I'm sleeping and I don't know you're not there, it's not really trespassing!"

Yes, it's really that fucking stupid.

Caveat: it's not trespassing, it's just something SIMILAR to trespassing.

Which makes it stupider.

[Samuraikoku]

This is, actually, a poor argument, for someone nitpicky reasons. "lack of consent" is not an element of murder. It's illegal to intentionally kill someone regardless of whether they consent to it. You can fully and enthusiastically ask me to kill you, still murder if I do.

A better argument is trespass. It's illegal to enter into my property without my consent. Regardless of whether I have explicitly told you that you can't enter, or whether I have not explicitly told you that you can, entering without my consent is still trespassing.

Das-Bal's....nonsensical little tirade however, is more akin to saying "it's only trespassing if I SPECIFICALLY TELL you you can't come into my house, and you break down the door. If you just walk into my house while I'm sleeping and I don't know you're not there, it's not really trespassing!"

Yes, it's really that fucking stupid.

Caveat: it's not trespassing, it's just something SIMILAR to trespassing.

Which makes it stupider.

You both trespassing apologists.

[Neo Art]

This is, actually, a poor argument, for someone nitpicky reasons. "lack of consent" is not an element of murder. It's illegal to intentionally kill someone regardless of whether they consent to it. You can fully and enthusiastically ask me to kill you, still murder if I do.

A better argument is trespass. It's illegal to enter into my property without my consent. Regardless of whether I have explicitly told you that you can't enter, or whether I have not explicitly told you that you can, entering without my consent is still trespassing.

Das-Bal's....nonsensical little tirade however, is more akin to saying "it's only trespassing if I SPECIFICALLY TELL you you can't come into my house, and you break down the door. If you just walk into my house while I'm sleeping and I don't know you're not there, it's not really trespassing!"

Yes, it's really that fucking stupid.

Caveat: it's not trespassing, it's just something SIMILAR to trespassing.

Which makes it stupider.

It's not trespassing, and we shouldn't call it trespassing, and it's not as bad as ACTUAL trespassing, and we shouldn't punish it like we punish trespassing.

For....some reason.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Cavemen didn't actually do that. Ignore Quest for Fire.

^ I meant "cavemen" as in "uncivilized", not as in scientifical cavemen.

Only someone who is not civilized or social would think rape is actually what Des-Bal think it is.

[Trotskylvania]

A woman has to tell you "Fuck me!" or get naked, open her legs, and invite you with a seductive gesture for you to do SHIT to her! Is that crystal clear or do I have to draw a picture with full pornographic detail about it?!

Not to derail the thread, but have you ever had sex with a woman?

Given the average age and inclinations of the NSer crowd, probably not.

[Nadkor]

Killing someone illegally who didn't consent isn't murder. If they actively expressed they didn't consent however, it's murder.

This is, actually, a poor argument, for someone nitpicky reasons. "lack of consent" is not an element of murder. It's illegal to intentionally kill someone regardless of whether they consent to it. You can fully and enthusiastically ask me to kill you, still murder if I do.

A better argument is trespass. It's illegal to enter into my property without my consent. Regardless of whether I have explicitly told you that you can't enter, or whether I have not explicitly told you that you can, entering without my consent is still trespassing.

Das-Bal's....nonsensical little tirade however, is more akin to saying "it's only trespassing if I SPECIFICALLY TELL you you can't come into my house, and you break down the door. If you just walk into my house while I'm sleeping and I don't know you're not there, it's not really trespassing!"

Yes, it's really that fucking stupid.

"It's not trespass if there's not a 'No Trespassing' sign - it's just a violation of your proprietary rights"

[Neo Art]

When I make complex arguments people start talking to strawmen

I refuse to believe that this has ever happened.

I mean, we just saw someone who spent the last several pages flail around like a dying fish on the boat exclaim "well, when I try to be smart you people just don't understand!"

This literally happened. You saw it. You can't unsee it.

[Norstal]

I'm so sorry. Somewhere along the way, someone, most likely a teacher, or someone else responsible for explaing how to form complex arguments, failed you horribly.

I am so, so sorry for that.

When I make complex arguments people start talking to strawmen, I'm trying to hold their attention with a series of simple arguments.

Like I said, chloroform.

Apparently if they don't give consent, but doesn't outright deny it, it's not rape.

[Arglorand]

Caveat: it's not trespassing, it's just something SIMILAR to trespassing.

Which makes it stupider.

It's not trespassing, and we shouldn't call it trespassing, and it's not as bad as ACTUAL trespassing, and we shouldn't punish it like we punish trespassing.

For....some reason.

Because it's just "not tresspassing".