by Four-sided Triangles » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:56 pm
by Alyakia » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:57 pm
by Conserative Morality » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:58 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:03 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Jesus Christ, how does this even look like a good idea to anyone?
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Four-sided Triangles » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:03 pm
by Third Mexican Empire » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:04 pm
by Yorick » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:05 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote:the whole notion of constant false rape accusations as revenge from bitter women is pretty much a myth.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:05 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote:So, are you going to put forth arguments or not?
by Wikkiwallana » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:07 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Four-sided Triangles » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:07 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.
by Pendragonia » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:08 pm
by Camicon » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:08 pm
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Yorick » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:08 pm
by The Corparation » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by The Cummunist State » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
by Alexlantis » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
Individuality-ness wrote:You are Alex, NSG's writer and lead procrastinator. *nods* :P
by Wikkiwallana » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.
I think it's our moral duty to bend over backwards in order to help people who have been historically oppressed. If this means a few innocent men go to prison in order to greatly reduce rape, doesn't the end justify the means?
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Olthar » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
by Nazi Flower Power » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm
by The Grand World Order » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:10 pm
by Terruana » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:11 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote:http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/16/the-new-page-of-consent/
This article proposes a different system to deal with rape than the current one. Rather than focusing on issues of consent, it presumes that the legal default of all women be "no." In other words, the law assumes that a woman did not want sex unless it can be proven otherwise. This would essentially be a reversal of the burden of proof.
Under this system, all accusations of rape would automatically be considered correct. Every woman who says she was raped was, by definition, raped.
Proponents of the system say that it would definitely cut down of the amount of rapes out there. They also allege that it would not be abused, or if it were abused, the abuse would be so absolutely minor as to be negligible. They also state that it doesn't hurt men at all, since a man is perfectly free to refrain from ever having sex at all if he wants to avoid any risk of being accused of rape.
Opponents allege that it would, in fact, be abused far more than the proponents seem to think. They also assert that it is not only counter to the fundamental notion of innocent until proven guilty, but it also technically criminalizes all heterosexual intercourse.
What does NSG think? Would this legal idea of rape be abused harshly, or is that simply conspiratorial thinking? It seems to be quite obvious that this would lower the overall amount of rape in the world, so the only questions are whether it's just and whether or not the potential for abuse outweighs the benefit.
I'm actually not sure myself. It would certainly lower the amount of rape out there, and the whole notion of constant false rape accusations as revenge from bitter women is pretty much a myth. On the other hand, the potential for abuse does exist. Of course, the potential can be completely avoided if a man simply elects to never have sex. I'm ambivalent here.
by Nazi Flower Power » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:11 pm
Olthar wrote:I guess next we'll have murder cases decided simply by the testimony of one alleged witness, then, right? And of course, if someone says that someone else stole something from them, they must be completely true; I mean, who would lie about that? In fact, why don't we just through out that whole "trial" thing and just have one guy dole out verdicts based on whatever he feels like at the time! That'll not only reduce crime across the board, but also lower taxes as we won't need to pay for all those ridiculous "trials" and "judges."
by Four-sided Triangles » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:11 pm
Olthar wrote:I guess next we'll have murder cases decided simply by the testimony of one alleged witness, then, right? And of course, if someone says that someone else stole something from them, they must be completely true; I mean, who would lie about that? In fact, why don't we just through out that whole "trial" thing and just have one guy dole out verdicts based on whatever he feels like at the time! That'll not only reduce crime across the board, but also lower taxes as we won't need to pay for all those ridiculous "trials" and "judges."
by Yorick » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:12 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Elwher, Gorutimania, Kingdom of azakstan, Lycom, Simonia, The Holy Therns, Umeria, Vanuzgard, Welskerland
Advertisement