Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5101112131415
Results 211 to 225 of 225

Thread: Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

  1. #211
    BadWoolf JuniperWoolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    4,433
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    Unfortunately, that fact works both ways.
    Yes, it does. And when you're given an example of a ban which has no apparent benefit OR cost, the answer is always to NOT inhibit the rights and freedoms of the people, not to limit them regardless when there is no benefit to doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    The reality is that Canada's murder and rape rates (as well as those of most of the modernized nations with strict gun control laws) are well below those of the United States...
    Nations which DO AND DON'T have strict gun laws have crime rates below those of the United States, for various reasons which have nothing to do with gun laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    and yet you would argue in favor of liberalizing Canada's gun laws by pointing to the US as a great example.
    Actually the nation which I obviously wish to emulate is Switzerland (which you're still steadily ignoring), because they have the LOWEST crime rate in the world and they maintain their freedom to defend themselves, their families and their nation. My argument included the United States because after all but one passed concealed carry laws, the crime rate didn't increase as predicted, which made them a fitting example of the notion that concealed carry doesn't increase crime. What's not logical about that? It doesn't mean I want Canada to copy the United States justice system.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    Is it an assumption. ... but it would seem like something of a logical assumption, as opposed to the nonsense you've been flinging about.
    An assumption based on nothing is worth nothing, and on what are you basing your assumption that limiting law-abiding citizen's access to firearms is somehow going to decrease violent crime? You're ignoring the rationale that criminals DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW. If you make a law against guns, they don't follow it because breaking laws is what they do. Disarming potential victims only makes things easier for criminals. What do you think would happen tomorrow if every store clerk in the United States was forced to give up their weapon? Well, I assume you'd see a lot more store robberies, based on the theory that people don't like getting shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    Access to a gun makes it all the more likely that a suicide attempt made in the spur of the moment... during some deep depression... will end up as a fatality.
    I could argue, but why should I bother? Your insistance on this point has no bearing on the debate. How is inhibiting someone from taking a gun outside of their home stopping them from shooting themselves in the head?

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    Conceal Carry laws have not existed in most of the US for anywhere near 20 years.
    Yes they have, as this GIF from wiki shows. Some have been in place for longer than 20 years, the majority for about seventeen years (which kind of IS close to 20 years, in case you failed grade two math).

    American gun laws previous to concealed carry were comperable to those which Canada currently has, they really aren't very strict. We can have guns in our houses (some of which don't require any sort of registration) and in our cars, my dad trudges his through the woods. You're arguing that if gun laws become more relaxed in Canada the crime rate will climb, and there's an example in existance which shows that it didn't do so in a nation with a very similar culture, a very close demographic and similar gun laws. Tell me how that's irrelevant. The fact that the United States had a comparably high crime rate and still has a comparably high crime rate is irrelevant: what matters is the degree of change (CHANGE! That's what matters when you're analyzing data, the dependant variable in relation to the independant) what matters is whether or not there's a noticable change in crime rate (dependant) with a change in the law (independant). The gun laws in America have become much more lax since the early 90's (a significant degree of change), yet crime did not increase.

    And if you still disagree and insist that all of this is "inconclusive," then I refer you to my first point at the top of this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    On the other hand... as another member from Australia asked, "if it's not broke, why fix it?" This seems to be the central question that you cannot answer?
    Actually I have answered it, just a few hours ago. Ironically, you fail at reading comprehension.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    And again you have failed to prove that. A. Crime is so rampant in Canada that it warrants such action
    The rate of crime doesn't matter and shouldn't influence a decision on this issue, which I've said several times now:

    Quote Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf View Post
    Why does that matter? Canada is a more stable country for a number of reasons (although it's never been tied to our gun laws, which by the way are comparatively lax when compared to those of many other statistically less safe nations, such as the UK), and your typical "dark alley" rape is rare - but it still occurs, so women should have the legal right to defend themselves. You're trying to tell my why they shouldn't have that right, and you're giving me the obviously disproven creative thought exercise that it will somehow cause rape and violent crime to become more frequent.
    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    B. The right to bear arms as it exists in the US has led to less crime than exists in Canada or other modernized nations with strict gun controls C. The right to bear arms has led to a decrease in crime in the US.
    Actually I've said that gun laws have nothing to do with the crime rate, several times. Criminals will commit crimes, they're criminals. The fact that Canada is more stable than the United States is due to many factors, but gun laws have never been successfully correlated to crime rates in any capacity, and if banning guns doesn't make people more safe then guns shouldn't be banned and people should have the legal right to make the concious decision to fight back against assailants.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    As for the rise of a potentially tyrannical government, that would seem to be your own little paranoia, but as we have already pointed out, it's highly unlikely that citizens armed with handguns and rifles are likely to win a war against any modern Western military force under government control.
    Really? A nation in which 420,000 homes contain assault rifles would be helpless if ever a WWII-like event were to occur again? I fail to see the logic behind that. And you're saying that fearing a potentially tyranical government in times of future economic and social upheaval is "paranoia?" There are still people alive today who were forced into concentration camps during WWII and into labor camps during the Cold War. Even if resistance did fail, I'd rather have a chance of protecting myself, my family, my property and my nation than to just say "oh, alright" and go along with it. Your whole "resistance is futile" attitide is more than a little sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    duly reported.
    ****, my loose tongue is always my undoing, and not just on litnet. I knew you were pushing me so that I'd say something back in order to get the thread closed or nail some IP to me (or to have an excuse to stop posting, *ahem*), and yet I did anyway (so congratulations, I guess). I should have used the word jerk, or even "disrespectful" to be on the uber safe side. My point (which you ignored, as you often do) would have been maintained and I wouldn't have gotten too close to forum rules - although, I should point out that I didn't call you anything but rather that I said you are "acting" like a dick and detracting from the topic, which you are.

    So if any mods are watching: um... sorry. Again.
    Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 04-29-2012 at 12:39 PM.
    __________________
    "Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
    -Pi


  2. #212
    Account closed.
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    540
    stlukesguild,
    This could have been a wonderful debate, although I did enjoy this thread immensly. Instead, you chose to insult Juniper, who had done a superb job here with her arguments, actually if this was a debate I would say she won. I wonder if ageism is involved somehow; I've seen it here before, where a young person will post an argument and an older person will resort to belittling, or trying to. I don't like it, as an older person one of the reasons I come here is to hear from young people, and as a teacher I would think you would too.
    And to keep it on topic- there is nothing I enjoy more when I am watching the news is to learn that either a store owner has pulled out a gun and scared a robber away, or that an old granny has beaten up one-which has happened more than a few times lately.

  3. #213
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    5,046
    Blog Entries
    16
    This isn't the first time StLukes and Juniper have gone at it--I'm not sure what the genesis of their dislike for each other is. Frankly, it's always baffled me; they seem like two members who should get along just fine. I think they got into one argument and never forgot it, so any time either of them sees the opportunity to disagree with the other, they jump on it. I've had my share of LitNet posters in which I've done the same.

    Really, though, it's not like StLukes's insults were all that bad. He compared her to Annie Oakly, big deal--that's almost not even an insult depending on how you look at it. Still, reporting juniper was a bit lame. I'll be pretty pissed if she ever gets banned.
    Quote Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf View Post

    re. The United States: not everyone has a gun on them obviously, but no one knows if they do or not as it is a Concealed Carry nation. It's strongly argued that if a criminal doesn't know if a person is or isn't armed this acts as a deterrance. They've come to this conclusion by interviewing gangsters in prison (they love gun laws that inhibit law abiding citizens to carry weapons apparently - less risk). I learned about it a good five or six years ago in highschool Social Studies, but I'll look for some proof.
    Well, if a criminal not knowing whether or not someone has a gun is a deterrent, it must not be much of one.

    Quote Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf View Post
    I should point out that I didn't call you anything but rather that I said you are "acting" like a dick and detracting from the topic, which you are.
    The mods don't make that distinction. If they did, I would be just fine.

  4. #214
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    If Juniper ever gets banned it will have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with her habit of pushing the boundaries concerning personal insults. I somewhat suspect if I were to suggest that she was acting like the female equivalent of what she has suggested I am acting like, I'd be in for some serious infraction points... and deservedly so.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  5. #215
    Account closed.
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis View Post
    This isn't the first time StLukes and Juniper have gone at it--I'm not sure what the genesis of their dislike for each other is. Frankly, it's always baffled me; they seem like two members who should get along just fine. I think they got into one argument and never forgot it, so any time either of them sees the opportunity to disagree with the other, they jump on it. I've had my share of LitNet posters in which I've done the same.

    Really, though, it's not like StLukes's insults were all that bad. He compared her to Annie Oakly, big deal--that's almost not even an insult depending on how you look at it. Still, reporting juniper was a bit lame. I'll be pretty pissed if she ever gets banned.

    Well, if a criminal not knowing whether or not someone has a gun is a deterrent, it must not be much of one.
    But it is one- the more criminals who know that when they go in to a store to rob it knowing that people are beginning to retaliate is a good thing, and it is starting to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    If Juniper ever gets banned it will have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with her habit of pushing the boundaries concerning personal insults. I somewhat suspect if I were to suggest that she was acting like the female equivalent of what she has suggested I am acting like, I'd be in for some serious infraction points... and deservedly so.
    I haven't seen this, and you need to acknowledge your part in it.

  6. #216
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    University or my little estate
    Posts
    2,386
    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    If Juniper ever gets banned it will have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with her habit of pushing the boundaries concerning personal insults. I somewhat suspect if I were to suggest that she was acting like the female equivalent of what she has suggested I am acting like, I'd be in for some serious infraction points... and deservedly so.
    .......

    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    Well hell... we already know Alex POV on the Holocaust: nothing wrong with cooking a few million Jews if that's your thing. I mean who are we to impose our standards upon others?

  7. #217
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    5,046
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by KCurtis View Post
    But it is one- the more criminals who know that when they go in to a store to rob it knowing that people are beginning to retaliate is a good thing, and it is starting to happen.
    Or criminals are just going to go into situations more willing to commit violence.

  8. #218
    Registered User Delta40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fremantle Western Australia
    Posts
    9,902
    Blog Entries
    62
    This really should be a thread on guns as far as I'm concerned.

    Are women responsible for getting raped? Not if they live in the US and carry a gun!!!!!
    Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb

  9. #219
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    5,046
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Delta40 View Post
    This really should be a thread on guns as far as I'm concerned.

    Are women responsible for getting raped? Not if they live in the US and carry a gun!!!!!
    The discussion on rape went ad far as it could go, i.e., that a woman isn't responsible no matter her appearance. What else is there to discuss when it comes to the OP?

  10. #220
    Registered User Delta40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fremantle Western Australia
    Posts
    9,902
    Blog Entries
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis View Post
    The discussion on rape went ad far as it could go, i.e., that a woman isn't responsible no matter her appearance. What else is there to discuss when it comes to the OP?
    I'm sorry. I'll trust your judgment. By all means carry on the US gun discussion (I so ****ing care about that btw) and the thrilling saga between Juniper and St Luke
    Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb

  11. #221
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    Nations which DO AND DON'T have strict gun laws have crime rates below those of the United States, for various reasons which have nothing to do with gun laws.

    The vast majority of the nations with both strict gun control laws and higher crime rates than the US tend to be third-world nations lacking a government that is able to consistently enforce any basic notion of control.

    Actually the nation which I obviously wish to emulate is Switzerland (which you're still steadily ignoring), because they have the LOWEST crime rate in the world and they maintain their freedom to defend themselves, their families and their nation.

    OK... let's look at the Swiss:

    The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30. Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

    Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.

    In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

    When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

    The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

    This doesn't sound anything like what exists in the US, nor your concept of Conceal/carry laws that would allow the citizen to walk around town fully armed.

    Yes they have, as this GIF from wiki shows. Some have been in place for longer than 20 years, the majority for about seventeen years (which kind of IS close to 20 years, in case you failed grade two math).

    I never loved math, but I can read a map... perhaps you have a degree of difficulty there? According to your GIF... and the Conceal?Carry article from which it comes there was one state in 1996 that allowed "Unrestricted" Conceal Carry... or the right to carry a concealed weapon without any license. At the same time, there were 5 other states, all largely rural with the exception of Illinois, that were under Shall Issue law. A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits. The rest of the nation fell under May-Issue:

    (A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police). The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met. While an applicant must qualify for a permit by meeting criteria defined in state law, local jurisdictions in May-Issue states often have locally-defined requirements that an applicant must meet before a permit will be granted, such as providing adequate justification to the approval authority for needing a concealed carry permit (self-defense in and of itself may not be sufficient justification in some areas where justification is required). Issuing authorities in May-Issue states often charge arbitrarily-defined fees that go well beyond the basic processing fee for a CCW permit, thereby making the CCW permit unaffordable to most applicants.)

    And No Issue: A No-Issue jurisdiction is one that--with very limited exceptions--does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun in public. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized).

    The majority of the US states did not fall under "Shall Issue" or "Unrestricted" rights to carry concealed weapons until well into the mid-1990s and even then, most of the more populated and urban states did not follow suit.

    what matters is the degree of change

    Again, it is impossible to measure such "change" without a clearly defined "before and after". The US citizens have had the right to "bear arms" since the Revolutionary War. The difference between Conceal/Laws and the reality prior is that before if one were carrying a weapon it had to be kept in the open and in most instances, unloaded. Conceal/Carry allows me to wear a fully loaded .45 automatic under my jacket in a holster as I go out for the evening meal at the local restaurant or bar. Now there's a lovely picture... alcohol and handguns... and we all know alcohol has never led to hostility or irrational acts.

    Actually I have answered it, just a few hours ago. Ironically, you fail at reading comprehension.

    No... you haven't answered the question. What is broken? Where is this excessive crime rate in Canada that cries out for the right to go about armed?

    As for your questioning my reading comprehension...

    The rate of crime doesn't matter and shouldn't influence a decision on this issue, which I've said several times now:

    Canada is a more stable country for a number of reasons (although it's never been tied to our gun laws, which by the way are comparatively lax when compared to those of many other statistically less safe nations, such as the UK), and your typical "dark alley" rape is rare - but it still occurs, so women should have the legal right to defend themselves.


    OK... in other words Canada should change its laws in order to assuage your personal paranoia? We know it has nothing to do with your concern for the rights of others... which you have made clear on more than one occasion that you have absolutely no concern for. This is really all about you.

    Criminals will commit crimes, they're criminals.

    And they will continue to rape and rob and murder regardless of whether you have a gun or not. One might point out that the highest rape and murder rates in the US are among the inner-city urban population... where handguns are far more prevalent than anywhere else.

    Really? A nation in which 420,000 homes contain assault rifles would be helpless if ever a WWII-like event were to occur again?

    Tell me just how many Japanese Zeros were brought down by citizens with handguns or rifles? The armaments carried by any modern military force of today is exponentially far more destructive than the weapons of WWII. It is highly unlikely that a US division of Abrams tanks, armored cars, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles supported by Apache and Black Hawk attack helicopters are likely to be brought down by a gang of citizens armed with pistols and rifles. But again... fear of the rise of a tyrannical government or even foreign invasion in no way justifies the desire for the right to carry concealed weapons. You might just as well stockpile your rifles and handguns at home waiting for the revolution.

    Alex... my comments aimed in your direction obviously referred to your participation in the since locked thread on Hitler and the Holocaust. I think it was you who tried to justify Hitler's action based upon the culture he'd been born in... and considering this post:

    You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.

    I suspect I'm right. But if I have mistaken you for another, my apologies.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  12. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    5,046
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Delta40 View Post
    (I so ****ing care about that btw)
    No one's forcing you to participate.

  13. #223
    Registered User Delta40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fremantle Western Australia
    Posts
    9,902
    Blog Entries
    62
    Of course. This is an open forum where anyone can join in isn't it. Has it occurred to you that some members might not have an objective view of rape but rather a subjective view because they have been raped themselves. So while these heated debates go off topic, because some members are strong advocates for their own point of view and nothing else, the member who has already been silenced by the act of rape is silenced once again - since the jury of participants already reached their view and you decided there is nothing more to be said?
    Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb

  14. #224
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    5,046
    Blog Entries
    16
    If you or anyone else has something to say about it, I'd suggest saying it rather than talk about saying it. Seems simple enough.

  15. #225
    Registered User Delta40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fremantle Western Australia
    Posts
    9,902
    Blog Entries
    62
    Not after this disgusting display of showmanship between members. I honestly can't imagine who has the biggest penis here.
    Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5101112131415

Similar Threads

  1. Tess - Raped - Yes or No?
    By smartie_pants88 in forum Tess of the d'Urbervilles
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 06-11-2017, 12:30 PM
  2. A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin
    By Mutatis-Mutandis in forum General Literature
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 11:14 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 03:14 PM
  4. Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?
    By coberst in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-19-2009, 10:44 AM
  5. Are poor people responsible for their suffering?
    By Mr Hyde in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 01:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •