Does a woman ever deserve to be raped?

[mifje]

Originally Posted by MARADONA

I didn't know...beh in Netherlands the rules are like the ones we have 50 years ago...that's strange.

This your our goverment talked about a new rule saying: If a person commits a severe crime such as rape they should go to jail with only a few special exceptions due to circumstances. I never heard what went from it or what the circumstances were. Reason for this debate was that around 30-40% of the convivted rapist never have to see jail.....

[MARADONA]

Originally Posted by mifje

This your our goverment talked about a new rule saying: If a person commits a severe crime such as rape they should go to jail with only a few special exceptions due to circumstances. I never heard what went from it or what the circumstances were. Reason for this debate was that around 30-40% of the convivted rapist never have to see jail.....

I see...beh i still think it's strange...here in Italy we a lot of rapists...specially from others countries...
so for a matter of public security we have got to do something about it...but to me the situation is not changed.
In my city everyday someone get raped...and that's awful...honestly is sometihing i can't take.

[the savage]

Do I think that a woman ever deserves to be raped. No, but there are situations were I wouldn't feel sorry that it happened, like the false accusation or a woman dressed like a whore who gets drunk and wanders off alone. A guy does that and gets mugged/killed people with think what a stupid shit, so I don't think it should be different for a woman.

[mifje]

Originally Posted by Noir

I don't get it.

What it means is when a woman have a short dress and get drunk and walks home alone he/she doesn't feel sorry for the woman....

I don't agree but that is the fun of discussing things. Personally I think a woman should be able to do without thinking that she might get raped..

[theDarkOne]

Originally Posted by the savage

a woman dressed like a whore who gets drunk and wanders off alone. A guy does that and gets mugged/killed people with think what a stupid shit, so I don't think it should be different for a woman.

Wow,i didn't know they had the internet in the 1950s

[shysnale]

The way I understand justice is the crime/repair system never works by punishing the criminal the same way he harmed the victim. For instance, you can do jail time for driving a car without a licence or paying cute sums of money for spreading wrong nasty infos on someone. Justice will never organize a public gathering with the guilty person saying 'ok that was bullshit I apologize Mr X is a good guy after all' it doesn't work like that. The guilty guy has to pay for his crime in another way and this helps fight the eye to eye thing and the temptation for people to do their own justice and not to fall in the vengeance power trip.

So saying a flashing teasing woman deserves to be raped would be saying a second hand cars seller deserve to be sold a crappy car and be forced to drive it for several years.

[Sternenlied]

"Deserving" once again has no point at all.

People like our "the savage" here just use the term "deserve" it to excuse actions by others.
It doesn't matter what the victim (in this example a woman) does ... she can get drunk, dress however she wants, go wherever she wants, even say whatever she wants ... if somebody rapes her, attacks her, etc. ... it is still HIS own personal decision to do so. Claiming she deserves it by her actions is simply a way to deflect responsibility, trying to find a cheap way out.

I agree actions we execute have consequences and we should always consider some might have consequences we don't like. If we hurt someone or anything like that we should be aware this person might hurt us back. BUT: What this person does exactly is out of our hands. So again - nobody "deserves" to be raped since it's always another person's decision to rape someone, not the victims.

People, justice systems, governments, whatever ... who decide to put blame on the victims - especially when based on clothing, walking route, etc. - are just sad and I despise this kind of thinking.

[Number7]

At the risk of putting my reputation on the line I'm going to say yes. Some women do terrible terrible things and they deserve to be punished, now don't get me wrong, I don't think rape should be a legit punishment, however say Hitler had been female and was raped, would anyone be saying how terrible it was?

It's hard to phrase this well, all in all I think rape is a horrible thing and should not be used, but there are people who I wouldn't care for if it happened, to, the same as there are some people I wouldn't mind see dead.

[mysterious-sexism]

Originally Posted by rasputin

Well, I'm talking morally here. For instance, there are cases in which a woman clearly falsely accuses a man of having raped her. This is not a light charge. Any innocent man who is accused of a crime like that will have his life ruined.

In a case like that, suppose after the dust has settled, the man is not convicted ( his reputation went to the dogs, though...) and then you learned that, a few months down the line, that woman gets gang raped, this time for real, but the guys who did it escape justice.

Will you be feeling sorry for her? Or you will be saying: "Fuck the bitch. She deserved it..."

Ironically, I couldn't think of any situation that would make me feel that rape was OK. Murder, yes. Beating up, yes. But then when you mentioned that situation it got me thinking.

Society has a tendency to immediately put blame on the guy in ANY rape possibility scenario. The truth is that there is a huge list of cases that were reopened in the 90s of possible rapists, when DNA testing became a possibility and semen did not match the rapists. Lots of men were released after having their youth lost and their respect. Many men had themselves been raped in prison as a kind of brutal vengeance by other inmates.

I remember there was one case where a man was in prison and when released after 15 years of serving time and being proven innocent, the court said "You may exit through any door you choose".

Touching? Kinda. Realistically it's not big thing what fucking door he walked out of. He's got 15 years of reputation to fix, probably a lost family, a wife that walked out on him, children who have been ashamed to call him a father. Disowned family. No job. Great.

What happens to that bitch? Well...I was considering that rape might not be such a bad option.

But here's where the border becomes gray. I don't know how many women would accuse rape for no reason. There are many cases where a woman HAS been raped, and the rapist threatens her to place the blame on someone else. Is there no pity for a woman like that? She may have been protecting her children, her family, something. And I don't think it's enough to say that "the legal system would have protected her" because we all fucking know about our legal system. **OJ Simpson case cough cough**

So, I'm going to keep my vote for no. Whatever the case, no woman deserves to be defaced in such a manner.

But then again...I don't practice eye-for-an-eye philosophy. I'm not forgiving...far from that....but def. not eye-for-an-eye.

[Uncle Al]

Only proffesional rape must be supported.

[rasputin]

Since a few people still seem to be a bit confused in regards to my position on this matter, and I can't possibly address each and every one of those who do, I've decided to present my view in a clearer format. Maybe that will help them some?

Anyways, if some of you still have a bone to pick with my explanations, please do not hesitate to do so. But be warned! I consider my explanations clear, concise, and to the point. Please don't make me repeat myself. If I have already answered a question, then it's answered. Also, don't come to me with examples of women who are raped during the Neolithic by the elders of the tribe because they didn't cook the mammooth leg properly. I'm not talking about that. OK?

Glad we got out of the way.



1 )Why do you say that some people (women, in this case) “deserve” to be raped?

Because they do. Not all women, not all the time, but some women, sometimes, yes. I’m not talking about innocent angels here. I can’t seem to emphasize this notion enough. A few here on this board can’t shake the notion that I’m NOT talking about women who have done harm to no one.

They seem to believe that, well, if you say that some women deserve to be raped, then all of them do, and very soon we will be having to open a Raping Board Punishment Department down in Toledo under the supervision of the Federal Government, and paid for by the tax payers, with a never ending stream of innocent darlings waiting in line anxiously for their defilement.

No. I’m referring to women who clearly committed despicable acts, such as knowingly falsely accusing a man of raping her, for instance. That’s a despicable thing to do, and not enough jail time on her part (which, in the US never happens anyways…) will ever undo the damage she’s done.

2) Does every woman who falsely accuses a man of raping her deserve this harsh treatment?

No. Sometimes the woman falsely accuses a man of raping her without knowing it.

3) How can you possibly not know who raped you?

Well, maybe it was dark and she mixed him up with someone else. In this case, it is not her fault. Maybe she was under the effect of drugs...

Anyways, this doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped… it only means that perhaps someone else did it. She is just misidentifying her assailant.

That’s why I make the distinction: “knowingly.”

"Knowingly" means if, for instance, she cries rape for vindictive purposes. To get back at him. Or over a custody dispute during a divorce proceeding. That kind of thing.


4) Isn’t saying that someone “deserves” to be raped the same as advocating rape as punishment?

No, of course not. In fact, it has nothing to do with that. Only people who are not thinking clearly can possibly not understand the difference.

5) Well, I don’t understand it. Can you clarify for me?

With pleasure: Saying, “the bitch deserved it” after the fact is NOT advocating rape. It’s simply a philosophical conclusion, if you will.

I will never be part of a Neighborhood Vigilante Group that advocates castrating pedophiles, for instance, although deep down in my heart, I know those fuckers deserve to have their balls cut off.

6) But that’s a contradiction. Why would you NOT advocate rape or castration, if you rightfully think the perpetrators deserve it? I don’t get it. Surely when you say: "He deserves jail time," you mean he should be placed in jail, right? So why when it comes to jail "deserve" means "deserve," but when it comes to rape "deserve" doesn't mean "deserve?" I don't get it.

Because the “deserving” part in the rape case is simply a sentiment. It’s not action. It’s a conclusion after the fact. And yes, since rape and sexual mutilations are dehumanizing acts, I would not want to participate in them because if I did, they would dehumanize me, not the bitch, or the pedophile.

In other words, there are punishments that people deserve but that, as a society, we would not want to meter out.

7) Why?

Because it dehumanizes US, not the perpetrator.

Jail, however dehumanizing, is not dehumanizing in the same terms rape or mutilation are ( although perhaps some people who are sitting in jail right now would beg to disagree...) So saying that someone deserves jail, and carrying out that kind of justice would not deprive me, of my humanity. After placing a rapist in jail, and throwing away the key, I'm not worse off in my self image as a human than I was before.

But if I and my buddies beat the crap out of him, and cut him up pretty badly, that kind of demon, which should never be let out of the bottle, does us no good in the long term. It's a very dangerous exercise and it debases us much more than it debases the pedophile.


8) Can you give me concrete examples rather than imaginary ones?

Well, don’t you think that the Nazis after Nuremberg “deserved” to be placed in concentration camps, starved slowly for a while, work for free as long as they could, and then marched off to a gas chamber to end their misery?

No?

I do.

Would I advocate that that be done to them? No. I wouldn’t.

9) Why not?

Because if we engaged in that kind of retribution, tit-for-tat, it would dehumanize us. It would be debasing us, not the Nazis. It’s not that they don’t “deserve” it. They deserved plenty and far more than what they got. Being hanged by the neck was too merciful for those fuckers.

The moment the Nazis decided that certain humans were not worthy of living simply because of their race, ethnicity, skin complexion, religious affiliation, or sexual preferences, they renounced their own humanity. We didn’t do it, they did. Sending them to a concentration camp would not make them less human. They were monsters by their own volition.

So how can you dehumanize someone who has chosen to behave like an animal on his own free will?

And the same goes for a bitch that causes untold harm to an innocent man who did nothing to her. It’s not her “humanity” I’m concerned with. It’s the humanity of the man she hurt and the people whose lives she destroyed what I’m focusing on. Fuck the bitch. She is worth very little to me.

And also, I'm concerned about the humanity of those who, in a fit of anger, decided to exact justice on their own. In the long run, it will do more harm to them, than to the bitch.

But the woman? Oh, I'm glad you asked!

She deserves to be raped up the ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday. There, I said it again.

Am I advocating that?

No. I’m not saying it should be done, legally, or illegally. In fact, if I see a gang of angry guys circling around the cunt with rape intentions in their eyes, I would try to stop them… providing my life is not on the line, of course.

But not because rape would debase her, but because rape would debase those men, and our society, further.

That’s why.

10) So for you, the deserving part is just an expression? An opinion? A sentiment?

Well, since I’m not advocating anyone, no matter how guilty, to be really raped… how would you call it?

I keep repeating this, it seems, to no avail: “If a woman who knowingly cried rape and destroys the life of a man, later on gets raped herself, I will quietly say: bitch deserved it.”


Therefore, and hopefully for the last time, I’m not saying she should be raped, and let's go and do it. I’m saying she’s done enough to earn it. And if it happens, I’ll simply not give a damn. Because, morally speaking, she deserved it.

I may not be a good Christian, but then again, I never claimed to be one.

I may sound vindictive, but what is law and justice if not retributive? Who knows what the lines are anyways? Is a good ass kicking "vengeance," but jail, not? Those are human conventions we will never probably completely agree on and I don't expect to find agreement on them right now, right here. I'm just expressing an opinion.

Is that clear now?

11) Not really.

You are dumb.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Noir

Actually those suspected of being nazis were sent to the very same concentration camps after WWII had ended. After WWII over 2* million german people were killed during the expulsion of germanic people from eastern Europe. Up to 2 million german women were raped by the invading soviet soldiers and some of them were also murdered or they committed suicide...

* Most widely accepted estimate with 3 millions being the highest.


Just since you were referring to the kind treatment taking place after WWII I thought I'd point out something with couple of examples.

Well, we went from Nazis, to suspected of being Nazis, to German people.

Which, again, has very little to do with what I was talking about.

My whole point was of the "deserving" one, not who got it and who didn't after WWII.

It is a moral point, nothing more, nothing less, Noir. I'm not discussing history here and if my example isn't good enough for you, you are welcome to give me a better one.

Now, if you want to discuss the accuracy of my historic knowledge, ( which, frankly, I fail to see what the fuck it has anything to do with this thread...) then open another thread, and we can talk about it.

Certainly, most of the German women who were raped by the Soviets did NOT deserve to be raped, since we can all assume that they were not directly responsible for the disasters the Nazis caused.

So that example -although real- is the same as the "Neolithic women" thingy I warned about from the get go in my message.

And no, the Nazis didn't end up in concentrantion camps in the same way the Jews did. Far from that. And especially those of a high rank.

Many of them, like Goering, for instance, at least in the beginning, were placed in custody with their families, ate good food when the rest of the country was starving, and were treated fairly well, considering the atrocious crimes they had been responsible for.

Rudolph Hess was treated well, and with decency. Same with Albert Spear, etc.

But anyways, that was not the point of my post. If there is a historical inaccuracy here and there, then be it. I'm trying to make a moral point, not to write history.

Noir, I have noticed that you sometimes have the tendency to "correct" people on things that are not too important and your corrections, regretably, do not advance the discussion.

The other day, when a girl introduced herself to the board, you were the first to respond with "this is not the place to do it, but welcome anyways."

It gets to be a little abnoxious, since, like I said before, it does not do anything to advance a discussion, or really ( like in the case of the new board member...) feel "welcome."

Can you please refrain from doing that? If I may say so, it's a waste of glorious time.

Thanks.

[Sternenlied]

Well rasputin, although quite hilarious sometimes I actually read through your whole "FAQ" ... the one thing interesting to me however (from the beginning) is your use of the sentiments "moral" and "innocent".
Based on what exactly?
You failed to clarify those every time you brought them up.
Who is innocent and who is not? By who's standards? Judged by whom? What makes people innocent or guilty (and thus "deserving")?
Same with morals. What morals are you talking about? Yours? US American ones? European ones? Which ones? Christians ones? Which ones?
Morality as well as innocence is no absolute term or understanding among mankind.

[rasputin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Noir

As I stated in my previous message those were examples about the way losers were treated after WWII and in my opinion it does matter if a metaphor can be backed up especially when we are talking about stuff like nazis which still have a tremendous amount of emotions associated with them.

But I wasn't referring to the ones who were treated badly! Whatever happened to them, they deserved it... So giving me examples of Nazis who were treated badly is useless, Noir.

I was referring to those who were not treated inhumanely by the Allies. And, in my view, it was OK. Once captured, Nazi or not Nazi, they should not have been treated the same way they treated the Jews when they were in power. Doing so would have debased the captors and made them not better than their prisoners.

You either don't honestly understand my point, or you are simply intellectually unable to do it.

Either way, I feel I'm wasting my time...

I don't know why you like to argue nonsense?

If I'd say "today criminals are being treated too kindly just like the jews were during WWII" I'd assume there would be no need to clarify what I was aiming at with that statement?

What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing I said remotely resembles the nonsense you've just written.

I never said that the Nazis were treated "nicely." And if I did, please refer to the fragment where I stated so.

Most of them were treated with certain amount of decency, compared with the crimes they were charged, that's all. (Now you are going to start arguing "what do you mean by decency? Define decency!" )

I don't even know what the hell you are debating, and I have the feeling you don't, either.

You are right about me correcting not so relevant things casually

I'll say. It's really tiresome, and notice that ever since you've addressed my last post, nothing in regards to what I wrote has been said that really either refutes my post, or clarifies it. We are just wasting time arguing whether the Nazis were treated well, regularly well, not as well, or worse than the Jews.

Complete nonesense, in other words.

but I still wouldn't see the advacement of the discussion as the main goal when different kind of blank areas can direct the whole conversation to the wrong direction.

Because whenever you are concerned, Noir, just about every area is the wrong direction.

You are like Aunty Polly. Always with her admonishing little finger.

You come with "corrections" that are not necessary, do not deflect from the major point in my post, and in the end, we are wasting time without advancing a bit in the whole discussion.

My example was a passing, and valid one. I suspect everybody got it. Everybody but you, that is.

If it is not exactly, minutely, absolutely, 1000% evangelically accurate... well, it's not important, Noir. It's not really important. An example, a metaphor, is simply a tool that helps clarify a more important point. It's NOT "the" point.

Surely you should at least get that part of the argument, right?

After all some person might understand some unclarified reference you were doing in a completely different way that it was intended and in the end you might just end up having a flame war in RR because of something like this.

So far, nobody else has. I guess they are a bit smarter than you give them credit for, Noir.

In fact you are the only one confused here. Everybody else seems to have gotten it.

For example when Rudolf Hess was imprisoned for 50 years after giving up everything he had in an effort to create a peace treaty between UK and Germany I do not quite see how this is usable example about the treatment of high ranking nazis considering how the man even spent almost whole war in England.

I'm familiar with the Rudolph Hess story. And I still don't know what your point is since my argument from the beginning was that the Allies did not treat the Nazis the same way the Nazis had treated the Jews. I never said the Allies were impeccably perfect on the treatement of the Nazis. I never said they didn't kill anyone during the war. You came up with unnecessary clarifications we are both wasting our time re visiting now. You did, not I.

Was Rudolph Hess treated unfairly? It's possible. To this day I don't know why he spent the rest of his life in Spandau but others, who were in a similar position as he had been, didn't. Besides, I don't know that Rudolph Hess ever murdered anyone, anyways. So that's that.

Maybe he was treated unfairly. But unfairly is a far cry from suffering starvation, maltreatment, and gas chamber in a concentration camp. As far as I know, his loved ones were not murdered. Which is not something we can say in regards to the regime he supported and the man (Hitler ) whose very word he basically worshipped at one time.

And you bringing up examples of Nazis who were killed during the war ( or innocent people, as well...) does not detract a bit from my original thesis: that they deserved to be treated harshly, but I wouldn't have advocated that it be so.

That's all I'm saying, and if you have anyting to add to that, or disagree, then please do it or else hold your peace.

This might have less importance than my previous message had but it should still work as an example how referring to a certain case can confuse someone more than clarify something.

So far you are the only one who seems confused. Nobody else is. So if by responding to your nonsense I am helping you to see the light, please give me a couple of thank yous when you have the time and are in the mood for gratitude.

It's the least you can do, really...

Er, only thread like that I can remember is this one and while it might not be the friendliest issue to notify someone about there still is a reason for trying to gather all the introductions in one thread.

Fine, but you don't "welcome" someone with "well, this is not the place for introductions," etc. Just say "Hello," and let it die there. If the formalities of the introduction are so important to you, simply send her a PM and let her know of the mistake she made. It's not something you do publicly, like this is such a strict place... I don't know. It's not important. Live and let live.

Edit: Guess I forgot to write down in my earlier message about the examples being there just to give a picture about how harsh the treatment of axis members actually was at the best.

If it doesn't detract from my central thesis ( the Nazis deserved to be treated the same way they had treated the Jews, but I'm fine that they were't...) then your examples are worth nothing.

If you disagree with my central argument, tell me why.

If you disagree with my example, please keep it to yourself since by not understanding what I was aiming at, you are just sounding very confused indeed.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Well rasputin, although quite hilarious sometimes I actually read through your whole "FAQ" ...

Good girl. And I don't mind you laughing it up. It's usually the frustrated response of those who can't refute what I say.

the one thing interesting to me however (from the beginning) is your use of the sentiments "moral" and "innocent".

Can you pinpoint exactly how I used them, and what your disagreement is with my use of those words?

Based on what exactly?

Oh, nothing much. Just notions of right and wrong?

You failed to clarify those every time you brought them up.

I didn't fail at anything since nobody was asking. Are you asking?

Who is innocent and who is not?

Paul killed Peter for fun. Paul is guilty. Peter is innocent.

Any other question?

By who's standards?

Excuse me, by "whose standards" do you assume rape is wrong, Stern? Or rape is not, really, wrong? It's just a common social agreement that we kind of decide upon?

Funny that you girls get all bent out of shape when someone suggest that some women deserve to be raped, but then turn around and pretend that "innocence" really does not exist in its absolute sense ( it's relative... ) and "standards" are really a matter of personal opinion.

I wish you would make up your minds, already. I know, I know... females!!!!!

Judged by whom?

Preferably by the person who was wronged. If the person who was wronged is dead, then it is up to us to elucidate the whole mess.

You ask the silliest questions, Stern. Is that why they say you are so "tough" to debate?

What makes people innocent or guilty (and thus "deserving")?

His/her actions, and the harm that may cause to others.

Same with morals. What morals are you talking about?

The ones that govern all decent people. Now, please, don't ask me to define "decent." ( Another "relative" term... )

Yours?

Mine, or the society I live in. What? You got a problem with that?

US American ones?

Preferably, but if you can find better ones, you are welcome to show me.

European ones? Which ones? Christians ones? Which ones?

Why do you make a difference between European and Christian "morals"? Aren't most moral principles amongst most European countries influenced by the Christian tradition?

But if they are not, what, in you opinion, is huh... um, "European" morals? And what's the difference between "European" morals, and "Christian" ones?

I would like to know the difference. I'm learning here...

Morality as well as innocence is no absolute term or understanding among mankind.

"Innocence" in terms of what? "Innocence" in terms of "he commited the crime," versus "he didn't commit the crime" is a universal principle. There is no "relativity" or ambiguity. You are really, reaaaally confused here, my dear.

And when it comes to the examples I gave in the post you had so much fun with, I suppose there is no "middle ground" you can possibly come up with, which would lend itself to confusion, right Stern?

Even a clearer example, just for your benefit:

Peter raped Stern.

Stern is a 7 year old girl.

Peter is guilty.

Stern is innocent.

Now, what part of this equation are you having problems with, my dear? Let me know. It's a bit worrisome.

[rasputin]

OK, I'm having a lot of fun with little Stern here, but, regrettably, I have better things to do. So perhaps I'll be back tomorrow.

Stern: please don't stop responding. I simply love to make you squirm and cringe. If you like the abuse, I promise I'll dish out so much, you'll have the best orgasms of your life.

And that's a promise!

[Sternenlied]

Oh boy ... so much rubbish.
Sorry rasputin but although you're quite adept at trying to hide it and put it on the ones actually seeing through your crap you're the one just too intellectually unable to understand OR make an actual point, neither Noir nor me.
The only thing true you said was this:

Either way, I feel I'm wasting my time...

So why keep it up?
Feel free to pretend it gives you fun to "make me squirm" (and sometimes I actually do reading through the manifestations of your stupidity) but we all know you're simply the next crybaby having nothing better to do in his life.
I know, I know, you desperately need to feel special at least once and I am really sorry I have to be the one to break it to you but ... you're not. You're just another one to come along. Not the first one, certainly not the last one.

So just give it up and spare yourself another public humiliation when spilling another long and boring post without any reasonable content by simply realizing you already lost your argument.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Oh boy ... so much rubbish.
Sorry rasputin but although you're quite adept at trying to hide it and put it on the ones actually seeing through your crap you're the one just too intellectually unable to understand OR make an actual point, neither Noir nor me.
The only thing true you said was this:



So why keep it up?
Feel free to pretend it gives you fun to "make me squirm" (and sometimes I actually do reading through the manifestations of your stupidity) but we all know you're simply the next crybaby having nothing better to do in his life.
I know, I know, you desperately need to feel special at least once and I am really sorry I have to be the one to break it to you but ... you're not. You're just another one to come along. Not the first one, certainly not the last one.

So just give it up and spare yourself another public humiliation when spilling another long and boring post without any reasonable content by simply realizing you already lost your argument.

Notice how little Stern does NOT address any one of my points, and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks?

Hey, girl. How can I have possibly "lost my argument" when you have not been able to refute anything I said?

You asked, I responded. You peed in your panties, and cried foul like the little girl you are.

I can't blame, you really: when you saw you couldn't refute my response, you simply resorted to calling me names. Which is natural: what else could you have possibly done? Debate me? Please! You simply do not have what it takes to do it, hon.


Exactly. How does it feel to be confronted with a man who is not afraid of you, my little German female of the canine species? Someone who not only laughs at your "challenges" and "debating abilities," but paints you into a dialectical corner in ways that nobody else seems to dare do here, Stern?

Please do share. Interested parties want to know!!!!:

The image of a humilliated Stern. The "tough" "smart" lady that everybody fears!!!

But in the name of fairness, I would like to give you a second chance at trying your hand and see if this time you manage to look less pitiful than you did last time. I'm a fair man, and I would like to see if you can redeem yourself. I'm kind of "Christian" that way...

Hello! This is your daddy, Rasputin, speaking!

OK. Now, that I've got your attention, your daddy will give his little girl something to do with her pathetic free time. Something constructive. Something you could be proud of for a change.

Daddy orders you to go back to his earlier post ( the Question and Answer post...) and, upon re reading it ( I know you kind of read it the first time, but I'm absolutely certain you must have not understood a damned thing... ) I would like you to come back and tell me exactly what it says.

Did you understand my orders, my child?

No. You didn't understand.

OK.

One more time. Let's make it easier so you don't get confused.


1) Daddy wants you to go back to his earlier post ( Questions and Answers...)

2) Read it several times until you finally think you've gotten it.

3) Don't trust your intellect! Always ask a male relative, or a male friend to clarify things for you, Stern! You know that trusting your intelligence is mighty dangerous!

4) Once your male relative/friend explains it to you, and he supervises your understanding to his satisfaction, daddy wants you to come back here and explain it to me and to the whole board.


Daddy truly wants to know what is it that you understood ( up to now, daddy suspects, probably nothing...)

Then, and only then, daddy and his little girl will discuss the merits of little girl's understanding, and daddy, with his patriarchal hand of wisdom, will lead little girl into the sunrise of a better future!


Now, go to work, my girl!

Daddy will be very upset if you don't do your homework!!! It's for your own education; your own edification. Daddy is very worried about his little girl's future, what with her inability to think not even at the level of a baboon and all.

After daddy is done with you, you will be a new, more obedient little Stern.

Promise.

[rasputin]

Wow! Up to eleven people now have voted for the fact that, sometimes, a woman deserves to be raped! And only yesterday there were fewer than six, if memory serves...

Could it be something I said? 11 against 15!!! The tide is turning faster than McCain beating Obama at the last minute!!!

Hey, if some of you earlier posters who voted "No" in the beginning would like to change your vote, please feel free to announce it here and we will count it against your earlier decision.

Don't fret. It's OK. We all make mistakes.

[somedude]

Originally Posted by rasputin

Notice how little Stern does NOT address any one of my points, and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks?

Hey, girl. How can I have possibly "lost my argument" when you have not been able to refute anything I said?

You asked, I responded. You peed in your panties, and cried foul like the little girl you are.

I can't blame, you really: when you saw you couldn't refute my response, you simply resorted to calling me names. Which is natural: what else could you have possibly done? Debate me? Please! You simply do not have what it takes to do it, hon.


Exactly. How does it feel to be confronted with a man who is not afraid of you, my little German female of the canine species? Someone who not only laughs at your "challenges" and "debating abilities," but paints you into a dialectical corner in ways that nobody else seems to dare do here, Stern?

Please do share. Interested parties want to know!!!!:

The image of a humilliated Stern. The "tough" "smart" lady that everybody fears!!!

But in the name of fairness, I would like to give you a second chance at trying your hand and see if this time you manage to look less pitiful than you did last time. I'm a fair man, and I would like to see if you can redeem yourself. I'm kind of "Christian" that way...

Hello! This is your daddy, Rasputin, speaking!

OK. Now, that I've got your attention, your daddy will give his little girl something to do with her pathetic free time. Something constructive. Something you could be proud of for a change.

Daddy orders you to go back to his earlier post ( the Question and Answer post...) and, upon re reading it ( I know you kind of read it the first time, but I'm absolutely certain you must have not understood a damned thing... ) I would like you to come back and tell me exactly what it says.

Did you understand my orders, my child?

No. You didn't understand.

OK.

One more time. Let's make it easier so you don't get confused.


1) Daddy wants you to go back to his earlier post ( Questions and Answers...)

2) Read it several times until you finally think you've gotten it.

3) Don't trust your intellect! Always ask a male relative, or a male friend to clarify things for you, Stern! You know that trusting your intelligence is mighty dangerous!

4) Once your male relative/friend explains it to you, and he supervises your understanding to his satisfaction, daddy wants you to come back here and explain it to me and to the whole board.


Daddy truly wants to know what is it that you understood ( up to now, daddy suspects, probably nothing...)

Then, and only then, daddy and his little girl will discuss the merits of little girl's understanding, and daddy, with his patriarchal hand of wisdom, will lead little girl into the sunrise of a better future!


Now, go to work, my girl!

Daddy will be very upset if you don't do your homework!!! It's for your own education; your own edification. Daddy is very worried about his little girl's future, what with her inability to think not even at the level of a baboon and all.

After daddy is done with you, you will be a new, more obedient little Stern.

Promise.

Warning for personal insults outside the Rowdy Room!
I suggest you let this drop while you still have legs to stand on Rasputin...