Where'd TRP and rape post go?

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is the second time I have had carefully constructed posts on the topic removed.

The moderators here do not believe I should be allowed to define my position in an adversarial debate, because doing so requires defining it relatively, thus describing (to some extent) opposition position as well. I have also been told that linking to threads where I am drawing context/content from is not allowed because those threads in TRP or TBP do not follow the rules of politeness of PPD.

I had a lengthy discussion with moderators the first time, which led to a [Meta] thread where I submitted a comment to this effect about the rules. There has been no rebuttal or explanation.

That, and some other encounters, leave me wondering if perhaps moderators either do not understand debates, or if they are not operating in good faith. Every discussion of rape seems to be off limits.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

My guess? It was a misrepresentation of TRP, blatant and malicious.

The original poster made references to rape apology in the sidebar... which as far as I know doesn't exist (I've read most of that stuff in detail).

The author included quotes from "radicals", which were heavily downvoted within TRP itself. To characterize TRP by the rantings of its most deranged members would be the same as characterizing feminism based on Valerie Solanas' beliefs ("As humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.")

From personal experience, I wondered how reasonable TRP would be. Someone posted a particular piece of what I thought was woman-hating. I suggested that it was unbecoming to be so hateful, and expected the downvotes to roll in... they never did, in fact people agreed with me.

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

She picks and chooses her quotes. I'd be interested in seeing the context, and the responses as well.

For instance, on spousal rape:

Any forcible exertion of will over somebody else's will is clearly wrong. Bodily autonomy should always be respected, and this applies in all scenarios, including marriage. Any debate on TheRedPill regarding the specifics of spousal rape is an argument of semantics and religion, and not one dismissing basic human rights. Nobody here advocates denying anybody else's autonomy, not even our moderators.

That's under "State Of The Subreddit May 2013" (I won't link this, as per the rules, but it's there if you'd like to read it for yourself.) It also appears that ZionController is no longer a mod at this time.

You can go to any social movement or group and find quotes from radicals in an effort to discredit said movement or group... but that doesn't make it an accurate analysis of said group.

Are you a feminist? Well Valerie Solanas is a feminist-- she even wrote a book about it! You must think that all men are aberrations of nature, and you endorse killing them.

Sound ridiculous? That's cause it is.

[–]SpermJackalope6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

First, The SCUM Manifesto was dark satire, and Valerie Solanis was literally crazy. She was not a leader of the feminist movement. RPS and ZionController are/were mods, the only "leaders" TRP sub has.

That "State of the Sub" post is a bunch of backtracking crap. First he says they believe in bodily autonomy, but then he goes on about how if a draft exist, clearly marital rape doesn't/shouldn't. And why the fuck is a self-proclaimed atheist (which RPS is) talking about the biblical view of rape and marriage?

Basically, I fail to see why people would discuss things like reasoning under which it would be okay to rape your wife, unless they wanted to rape their wives. It's like "Look, I'm not interested in fucking children, but let's discuss how children really can consent to sex with adults." (Here's looking at /u/applebloom, another member of TRP, although I think he actually qualifies as radical.)

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

It's a press statement-- someone from the group comes out and says something outrageous, they are dealt with accordingly, and a representative of the group comes out to clarify that this is not acceptable, and is not a belief held by the group in general. It's not "backtracking crap".

On draft vs. rape, in the VERY SAME DOCUMENT:

This will be the last time I address this: If we revisit the definitions, it is an exercise in hypothetical theory and not in itself an endorsement for rape.

Any attempts to conflate the two will be immediately removed and banned. It is a disservice and insult to victims who have actually suffered the terrible tragedy of rape.

Why do we talk about things that we don't, as a group, subscribe to (ie: religion)? Because individuals within the group do subscribe to some of these beliefs, because we like to think about the interplay among these beliefs, because people around us subscribe to these beliefs and thus have an impact on our lives.

The bible is a thing. Whether you believe in its teachings or not, they exist, have shaped western society in a historical sense, and are practiced by enough people to make an impact on the social climate at large.

Basically, I fail to see why people would discuss things like reasoning under which it would be okay to rape your wife, unless they wanted to rape their wives

My friends and I have had hypothetical discussions about how we might hide a body, but as far as I know, none of us intends to kill anyone or hide any bodies in the foreseeable future-- it's a thought exercise, nothing more. Maybe it doesn't interest you, maybe it offends you... that's fine, and you don't have to participate, but please don't conflate a debate over abstractions with "my personal to-do list for the next 24 hours".

[–]SpermJackalope6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are men who are making a living being "pick-up artists". As succinctly as I can describe most PUA advice, it encourages dudes to be sorta-aggressive douchers in order to get pussy.

Shit's in the news, making money on Kickstarter, attracting an audience online. This crap's been around since the 1970s, so I have to wonder, if it were complete bullshit, why it's still attracting such an audience 40 years later. Surely it must be working for enough somebodies that it's continued to propagate itself.

Speaking from personal experience, I have no idea why anybody would want to fuck a self-proclaimed PUA. I've been gamed and negged and "push-pulled" enough to know that my gut-level reaction to these men is "lol, fuck off". Additionally, I don't know why you'd want a woman around who thinks the fact that you're a shitbag is hot... but I can't speak for everyone. It must be working for a significant proportion of men and women, else I don't think it'd have such a long-standing and prolific presence.

[–]SpermJackalope8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThings1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cask_Strength_IslayJust a man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That "State of the Sub" post is a bunch of backtracking crap.

This, this is a huge problem I have. The only posts in TRP many seem to acknowledge are the ones that portray it in a bad light. Anytime it is pointed out that some inane comment made by some radical in TRP was actually downvoted in TRP it is chalked up to some other subreddit brigading and doing the downvoting. However, if I tried to claim that certain posts or comments were upvoted by opponents of TRP in order to shine it in a bad light I don't imagine anyone would be very receptive to that assertion.

And why the fuck is a self-proclaimed atheist (which RPS is) talking about the biblical view of rape and marriage?

This is even worse. Coming from someone that claims to to believe absolutely everything TRP preaches is wrong/morally bankrupt yet devotes a ton of time to talking about TRP view of rape, marriage etc.., this statement is absolutely one of the most ironic I've ever seen.

[–]fhqwhgads_ 7 points7 points7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yours got reported. Simple as that.

You've seen those two and they're still not deleted.

they're also not phrased with inflammatory language

Please direct me to the inflammatory language in my post and I will gladly edit it out.

This seems to be your mistake though. You personally feel strongly about the claims I've sincerely, honestly, and carefully made. That's not surprising: a debate about morals ("TRP is bad") is often going to raise stronger emotions than a debate about facts ("TRP is wrong; let's discuss statistics about cranial size").

But it is possible for something to be bad (and alternatively TRP is free to argue it is not bad, or is amoral). That's open for debate, or should be. It's possible for something, even unintentionally, to promote rape. I am allowed to argue that, even though you have strong feelings about it. This should not be viewed as inflammatory.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You've seen those two and they're still not deleted.

Discretions are made yes. I have no reason to even think of deleting a post unless it is reported. Yours was before even 4 comments were made. It's a lot harder for me to delete a post that was not reported/already has over 30 comments on it.

This seems to be your mistake though. You personally feel strongly about the claims I've sincerely, honestly, and carefully made. That's not surprising: a debate about morals ("TRP is bad") is often going to raise stronger emotions than a debate about facts ("TRP is wrong; let's discuss statistics about cranial size").

I'm not going to explain yet again why your post was deleted. This was not the reason.

But it is possible for something to be bad (and alternatively TRP is free to argue it is not bad, or is amoral). That's open for debate, or should be. It's possible for something, even unintentionally, to promote rape. I am allowed to argue that, even though you have strong feelings about it. This should not be viewed as inflammatory.

It wasn't viewed as inflammatory. It was inflammatory, not to mention misleading. Again, I've explained this. You did not make your first post to discuss. You made it to accuse. The other two posts that do not ask a question did not start out by attacking people. In my opinion you made the post for a reason, that reason was not to debate. You can argue this point all you want, any reasonable person knows my assessment is more than likely correct. If it isn't, which is very doubtful, that is where discretion comes in. Sometimes, as a mod, I have to make a decision that I think it best for the sub.

[–]soulcakeduck7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It was inflammatory, not to mention misleading. Again, I've explained this. You did not make your first post to discuss. You made it to accuse.

All evidence points to the contrary.

Misleading: except, I provided all context for every single thing discussed and proceeded slowly, carefully through each claim, qualified a number of those claims carefully, acknowledged (though I shouldn't have to) that my interpretation is not just "up for debate" but actually is the debate, and I have shown that I am not just willing, but eager to discuss any context that may be relevant, or counter arguments about how I've supposedly misinterpreted.

The only imaginable evidence that is apparently left to conclude I am being intentionally misleading is that you strongly disagree with my conclusions. You disagree so strongly, that apparently you think the only explanation is that I am being dishonest or insincere. If you have other evidence of my dishonesty or insincerity, I really want to see it.

Inflammatory: My post makes its claims as respectfully as possible. As I've said, unlike statistical evidence measuring brains, this is a topic that other people will also feel strongly about, but that is the only source of "inflammation." I've invited you, repeatedly, over the course of weeks to point out where this argument is being inflammatory but you have never directly responded.

Where am I inflammatory, and what should I do to make my claim while being less-so? I will gladly edit, an offer I made above as well.

(Aside: Thank you for deleting the initial response to my resubmission, which, among other things, mocked me for following the "question" rule you insisted I must follow. That is a great example of being inflammatory, which presumably you realized, for which I am grateful)

In my opinion you made the post for a reason, that reason was not to debate.

Baseless opinion, again, AGAIN I invite you to justify it.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Inflammatory: (esp. of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. synonyms: provocative, incendiary, inflaming, inciting, agitating, stirring, rousing, provoking, fomenting, rabble-rousing, seditious, subversive, mutinous.

Where am I inflammatory, and what should I do to make my claim while being less-so? I will gladly edit, an offer I made above as well.

The part where you deliberately misrepresent what others are saying. The part where you say that someone supports spousal rape, even though it is made clear(it literally cannot get any clearer)that they do not. The part where you cherry pick bits and pieces of comments to fit your false characterization of TRP members as rape apologists.

Baseless opinion, again, AGAIN I invite you to justify it.

Like I said, if it was to debate the least you could have done was not start off the post with misleading information. You know you did it. I've already pointed out where you did it.

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Inflammatory: (esp. of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. synonyms: provocative, incendiary, inflaming, inciting, agitating, stirring, rousing, provoking, fomenting, rabble-rousing, seditious, subversive, mutinous.

Great, that confirms that nothing I've said is inflammatory, since it is not intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. It is intended to describe the truth. It's only "provocative" insofar as I open-mindedly posted it in a debate sub to "provoke" an open discussion on the topic.

I'm also compelled to point out that this reply continues weeks of dodging the question.

The part where you deliberately misrepresent what others are saying. The part where you say that someone supports spousal rape, even though it is made clear(it literally cannot get any clearer)that they do not. The part where you cherry pick bits and pieces of comments to fit your false characterization of TRP members as rape apologists.

What's funny is that one reply to my resubmission, which also thought I had misunderstood a specific person, gave (IMO) a great description of that person's position which I agree with fully.

In other words, so far the only position being misunderstood in this debate is mine, insofar as you and others seem to interpret it to mean things it does not.

Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking the only way to "support spousal rape" is to say "I support spousal rape," which only one moderator said as explicitly. For the others, I explain why--even if they claim and perhaps believe they do not--the positions espoused are supportive of spousal rape.

with misleading information. You know you did it.

Nope, I did not, and do not. All I know is that I posted what I sincerely believe, that it's a position I have very strong evidence for believing, and that you disagree so strongly that you think it is not even debatable. Some debate sub that would be.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 6 points6 points6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're renowned for dodging debate as much as possible instead of engaging, and this is a great example: you have an open opportunity to explain what your words meant, or how your views have since changed, but you of course do not take it.

You've openly admitted that many of your detailed posts are merely trolling^[1][2] .

In contrast, I've stated my position plainly and given tons of supporting evidence, while being willing to discuss any part of it.

Your moderator team apparently pressured to shut down the first debate sub, and has threatened to ban anyone that contributes in this debate sub. Apparently nothing good can come of it and it creates problems for the mods in TRP.

There's damn good reason to suspect your contributions have ulterior motives. Meanwhile, with my post, all evidence continues to point to the contrary.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

It was blatantly misleading and took quotes out of context. I don't believe the post was made in good faith, any reasonable person can deduce that.

Not to mention the entire post violated sidebar rule #4. Nothing in the whole thing was worded neutrally.

For example the OP decided to take this snippet:

It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the nature of consent having been signed away earlier.

Tied it to his or her own thoughts on the subject(made it seem like this snippet pulled from a body of text agreed with his/her assertion) that

"Spousal rape is only a legal art, not a moral problem."

Even though in the post the quote was pulled from, the person clearly stated that

As the definition of marriage stands today (no implied consent) then entering into that marriage and then raping somebody is morally wrong, as per my values.

The OP did not want reasonable discussion. That much is obvious.

[–]soulcakeduck7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

took quotes out of context.

1) I provided full context for every single quote discussed.

2) If someone believes that, then that opens the door for an easy rebuttal. Show how the context changes the meaning. That's the point of a debate, not an appropriate role of a priori moderation.

3) You, personally, told me not to link to outside threads because they're sometimes offensive. So about context...

Nothing in the whole thing was worded neutrally. ... Not to mention there wasn't a SINGLE question in the entire post.

What does "neutral" mean? Clearly I have a position, and unless you want the discussion here to be 100% JAQing Off, it is stated as neutrally as possible.

The debate topic is quite clear. The "question" is what others think of my position.

Even though in the post the quote was pulled from, the person clearly stated that

As the definition of marriage stands today (no implied consent) then entering into that marriage and then raping somebody is morally wrong, as per my values.

Yes. That's 100% consistent with exactly how I represented it, and how you claim I represented it: as a legal art, not a moral problem. Without the legal prohibition, there is no remaining moral problem. See?

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Uh... I'm not sure if you are missing some bit, but the extra "context" you added just supports Soulcakeduck's description. This comment:

As the definition of marriage stands today (no implied consent) then entering into that marriage and then raping somebody is morally wrong, as per my values.

clearly supports the idea that spousal rape is only bad because it's against the law, not because it's morally wrong. That person explicitly stated that their morals are tied to the legal system, so it is wrong to rape your wife because it's illegal (this is why he says that it would be okay if marriage was, as he believes it should be, implied consent to sex forever).

I think you've fucked up here and don't realise how badly you've been affected by your bias. This is why you've conflated "inflammatory" with "being inflamed". Someone can be inflamed by a comment without that comment being inflammatory.

In the same way that a comment can be neutral even when it assigns a negative position to someone. Being 'neutral' simply means that the description is objective and impartial, not that it's "nice" or "polite".

I think if red pillers here are really arguing that many of their posters, mods, and sidebar authors, aren't explicitly supporting rape, then it's clearly an issue that needs to be debated since they obviously are supporting rape.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

That person explicitly stated that their morals are tied to the legal system, so it is wrong to rape your wife because it's illegal (this is why he says that it would be okay if marriage was, as he believes it should be, implied consent to sex forever).

No, they said that the current legal definition of marriage says that raping your spouse is wrong and that the legal definition is in line with their values. (AS PER)= in accordance with. (IN ACCORDANCE)= in agreement with something; in conformity with something. (AGREEMENT)= harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling; a position or result of agreeing. I really don't understand why I have to keep having this same exact argument with multiple intelligent people.

As for the accusations of bias - I've already said I'm not doing anything with this submission. I'll leave it to the other mods to deal with, which is only fair since I'm being accused of it.

[–]soulcakeduck4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

How anyone can read that and come up with the conclusion that you come to here is ridiculous.

Lol. No. It's not. The very same comment explicitly says that without the law, there is nothing morally wrong. The entire point of the comment is to draw this distinction.

If this were not the law, and two people entered into a mutually consenting marriage, then it is not morally wrong to have sex with previous stated consent.

Explain what those words mean.

It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the nature of consent having been signed away earlier

Explain what those words mean.

Or even just use your own excerpt:

As the definition of marriage stands today (no implied consent)

What do THOSE words suggest? Perhaps that what follows is only applicable in the case of our current legal definition, with no implied consent, but does not apply in other definitions...?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

Don't pretend you speak for me.

Rape is sex without consent. Rape is immoral. Therefore the definition of consent is important in determining what sex is moral and what sex is not.

Sex without immediate consent in marriage is wrong, and I agree with this position. I wrote that. Months ago.

Edit: Obviously if our culture said everything is consent, even the word "no," then we could argue that the system is unjust. That is not the case. The case today is that both men and women need a framework to communicate consent. There are pretty standard guidelines that say that lack of consent, or dissent, is rape. So, we need to ensure both parties are operating on the same definition of consent. Which is why the legal definition effects the morality of the position.

If a woman says "yes" because she thinks she can just say what ever she wants and call it rape, it is not immoral for a man to perform on that consent, because of the legal standard of the concept of consent. She may not have truly wanted it, but she would've done better to abide by the legal standard of consent if that was her intention and say "no".

This is, of course, leaving out compounding factors such as coercion or threat of force.

[–]soulcakeduck4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I don't pretend to speak for you, so your words have a lot of weight in this discussion.

Sex without immediate consent in marriage is wrong, and I agree with this position. I wrote that. Months ago.

You also wrote that this is because of the legal definition of consent, which seems to be what this comment indicates as well. And you discussed a hypothetical where the legal definition did not permit spousal rape, and said having sex without immediate consent would then be morally acceptable, because "spouse said yes to marriage, knowing it implied legal consent."

It does not seem to me that anything in this latest comment changes any of that, but I'd value your input if you say otherwise:

Are you saying that in a world where the law does not recognize spousal rape, there is a moral problem with sex with your spouse without immediate consent?

If not, then I don't think you're contradicting my description. We would then agree about what you are saying.

[–]Bluepillschool1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bluepillschool3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bluepillschool2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The reason I think you misrepresent me:

I don't really care much for the marriage contract. I think that religious people who see the bible saying "don't deny each other" is an interesting concept, and so we started up a discussion on whether or not such a sex-contract would even be feasible. That was why I was talking about it. I haven't heard anything that makes a long-term consent contract feasible yet, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

As you already know I lean libertarian, and consider the idea that if a man or woman wanted to get into a shitty contract, it should be their right. Who am I to say what people can and cannot do?

There should always be an escape clause, in my opinion.

I also would never get married. I'm not religious.

I wasn't engaged in the conversation because I endorsed husbands beating their wives and having sex with them. I was engaged because it was an interesting concept, in the light of other long-term consent contracts that currently exist.

The reason a lot of people dislike blue pill argument style is because the very discussion is interpreted as endorsement of the concepts discussed.

I've been purposefully difficult over the past year regarding this question because the very accusation that I endorse rape was completely unfounded and missed this very point. Why would I answer to stupid setup questions regarding rape when the only people asking were doing so in bad faith?

[–]soulcakeduck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are still missing my point. I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. The legal definition of consent is important because it would define what actions you took.

For instance, if the legal definition of marriage included perpetual consent, I would expect people who don't like that idea to avoid marriage.

I think that any country that does not have a clearly defined way to decline consent is unjust, and that would be a totally different discussion.

If you would stop suggesting that characterization is a misrepresentation and then repeating it every time the topic comes up, there would be fewer headaches related to it. But that's your call of course.

I was very clear about this the first time it came up. Everybody's been so hellbent on proving that they think they know my position better than me, it's been a pain in my ass rewriting the same thing over and over, of course I'm not going to waste my time defending against baseless accusations every time it happens.

[–]soulcakeduck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I grasp your point just fine. You do not grasp mine, which is:

I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent.

That's it. Nothing more.

I am not misrepresenting you at all. That is all I am saying about you, and you say it yourself.

From now on, I might even just limit myself to that quote instead, because it makes the point very clearly and directly. In fact, I'll go edit this submission to add it in for you, hopefully clearing up any concern of mischaracterization.

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If the law enabled perpetual consent, there would be no lack of consent

Your own words elsewhere were 'against the immediate will' of your partner. This is at best a semantics argument. Clearly, we're both talking about "perpetual consent" provided by a marriage contract, and a partner that at the immediate moment does not want to have sex. Right?

The fact that you want to define "immediate will" to have sex as unrelated to "consent" in a world of perpetual consent marriage contracts doesn't distinguish your view from my description. It's more reinforcement. For you, there is no moral problem, no lack of consent, if the law does not recognize spousal rape as illegal.

One suggests a lack of consent.

Really, no. It suggests a lack of immediate consent, while referring to hypothetical, married/perpetually contracted consent couples.

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It was blatantly misleading and took quotes out of context.

Is she supposed to copy-paste every post and blog article in its entirety? She quoted what she thought was relevant, the appropriate reaction would have been for others to point out context they thought was relevant that she missed.

Not to mention the entire post violated sidebar rule #4. Nothing in the whole thing was worded neutrally.

"Please, ladies, talk about sexual assault nuetrally."

As the definition of marriage stands today (no implied consent) then entering into that marriage and then raping somebody is morally wrong, as per my values.

That doesn't sound like they actually think rape is wrong, to me. Sounds like they're just saying it's illegal/not socially accepted. But if raping your wife was legal/socially accepted, it'd be totes fine.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is she supposed to copy-paste every post and blog article in its entirety? She quoted what she thought was relevant, the appropriate reaction would have been for others to point out context they thought was relevant that she missed.

No, she's just not supposed to misrepresent a person's position. Like you do to me here:

"Please, ladies, talk about sexual assault nuetrally."

Somehow you turned "Nothing in the whole thing was worded nuetrally" into that.

That doesn't sound like they actually think rape is wrong, to me. Sounds like they're just saying it's illegal/not socially accepted. But if raping your wife was legal/socially accepted, it'd be totes fine.

If that's what they actually thought don't you think they would convey that thought. What was actually said was "as per my values." How you can take that and come to the conclusion that you did is because you either want to misrepresent someone's position, or you need to go back and reread it. It says that the law aligns with their values, not that if the law was different then their values would be different. That's so obvious I can't believe I have to explain it.

[–]SpermJackalope3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

Where'd TRP and rape post go?

Comments

2 and #3 posts in this sub have no questions submitted. They've been left up, for a lot lot longer than my post was.

Title	Where'd TRP and rape post go?
Author	SpermJackalope
Upvotes	5
Comments	73
Date	September 12, 2013 11:09 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m8n7i/whered_trp_and_rape_post_go/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/whered-trp-and-rape-post-go.286801 https://theredarchive.com/post/286801