When does common sense advice becoome victim blaming?

[Kynge of Begrem]

I don't give a toss what the Bible says. It has as much relevance on the topic of rape as the Quran, Torah, Dianetics or the Illiad.

So he gets a pass on it then?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

If you don't "give a toss" what the bible says, why have you waded into a discussion on the OT biblical law on rape during the time period when the Jews were God's chosen people, 2,000+ - 3,000 years ago? Your ignorance of what's being discussed is shown by your mentioning of "drugged". It's best for you to know what you're actually responding to before (figuratively) running your mouth.

That is not the context you mentioned it in, in this thread and you know it.

 

[Monniehawk]

The bible doesn't mention people being drugged so as to be raped back in Moses' day. So, applying what may occur nowadays as a standard for a time 3,000 years ago is being disingenuous. Different time, different outlook, different law.

And vice versa?
Revisionism ......from a fundamentalist?

 

[tesseract]

And vice versa?
Revisionism ......from a fundamentalist?

You say the words, but back it up with nothing!

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

You say the words, but back it up with nothing!

Unlike you, given you say the words and when called to account run away from them squealing that you meant something different

 

[Malifice]

If you don't "give a toss" what the bible says, why have you waded into a discussion on the OT biblical law on rape during the time period when the Jews were God's chosen people, 2,000+ - 3,000 years ago? Your ignorance of what's being discussed is shown by your mentioning of "drugged". It's best for you to know what you're actually responding to before (figuratively) running your mouth.

There is no such time period. You're confusing history with the Bible now.

What is 'God's view when women are too scared to scream? Or mute? Or beaten senseless first?

It's OK to rape those ones?

Is it possible you're wrong here, and you're misinterpreting this 'law'?

 

[tesseract]

There is no such time period. You're confusing history with the Bible now.

IYO. And you're dismissing history because of the source.

What is 'God's view when women are too scared to scream? Or mute? Or beaten senseless first?

The bible didn't get into the nation of Israel's laws quite that specifically, so I can't quote God's view as to that. What I can, and have spoken of, though, is the law on a woman not screaming when being raped. Her not screaming made her a willing participant in the eyes of the law of the time. If she's a willing participant, it's not rape, but rather fornication or adultery. I also commented on how the law of the time didn't deny women their agency by rationalizing "too scared to scream".

It's OK to rape those ones?

It's never OK to rape anyone.

Is it possible you're wrong here, and you're misinterpreting this 'law'?

Of course it's possible, but you haven't displayed where I'm wrong.

 

[Malifice]

It's never OK to rape anyone.

Why didn't God just say this then?

 

[tesseract]

Why didn't God just say this then?

I assume some specifics were provided so as to constitute what was considered rape and what was not.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

There is no such time period. You're confusing history with the Bible now.

What is 'God's view when women are too scared to scream? Or mute? Or beaten senseless first?

It's OK to rape those ones?

Is it possible you're wrong here, and you're misinterpreting this 'law'?

You're being dragged into his dissembling- you saw his post, it had nothing to do with 3000 years ago, no biblical contest, it was a blanket statement making women complicit in being raped.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

IYO. And you're dismissing history because of the source.



The bible didn't get into the nation of Israel's laws quite that specifically, so I can't quote God's view as to that. What I can, and have spoken of, though, is the law on a woman not screaming when being raped. Her not screaming made her a willing participant in the eyes of the law of the time. If she's a willing participant, it's not rape, but rather fornication or adultery. I also commented on how the law of the time didn't deny women their agency by rationalizing "too scared to scream".



It's never OK to rape anyone.



Of course it's possible, but you haven't displayed where I'm wrong.

Can you please confirm/deny this, because I may simply be misreading your post:

Does the bible state or imply that "Her not screaming made her a willing participant in the eyes of the law of the time. If she's a willing participant, it's not rape, but rather fornication or adultery"?

I've never read the bible, so I have no idea if this is true or not and, as I mentioned, I may have misinterpreted your last post.

 

[tesseract]

Can you please confirm/deny this, because I may simply be misreading your post:

Does the bible state or imply that "Her not screaming made her a willing participant in the eyes of the law of the time. If she's a willing participant, it's not rape, but rather fornication or adultery"?

I've never read the bible, so I have no idea if this is true or not and, as I mentioned, I may have misinterpreted your last post.

The nation of Israel's laws concerning sexual immorality in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 22:13–29

13 “If any man takes a wife and zgoes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip2 him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels3 of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin4 of Israel. And she shall be his wife. aHe may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and bthe men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has cdone an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. dSo you shall purge the evil from your midst.

22 e“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. dSo you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.


25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

28 g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

 

[Malifice]

The nation of Israel's laws concerning sexual immorality in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 22:13–29

13 “If any man takes a wife and zgoes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip2 him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels3 of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin4 of Israel. And she shall be his wife. aHe may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and bthe men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has cdone an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. dSo you shall purge the evil from your midst.

22 e“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. dSo you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.


25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

28 g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Explains your views on feminism nicely.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Explains your views on feminism nicely.

More than that, it explains his views on women as chattel and lack of empathy for rape victims.

He believes if a man rapes a woman, it is just punishment to fine him and force them to marry. No compassion for the victim, no care for her rights, force her to marry her rapist. This in 21st century Australia, yet he is not a complete pariah on this site.

 

[Monniehawk]

You say the words, but back it up with nothing!

Asking questions, not answering them.
Over to you.

 

[GETTUCKED]

Ask one of those calling me out to provide you with a full quote of where I initially mentioned such. Such will kill a few birds with one stone, so to speak.

I dont wish to ask them because apparently they are misunderstanding you. That is why i asked you.

So basically you are saying that if anyone reads what you write, then before commenting they need to read through your post history to find the extended version and find the context?

Wouldnt it be better to each time explain yourself fully before making comments such as what you have? There are always new eyes looking over these threads so probably a good idea if you dont want to be misunderstood.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I dont wish to ask them because apparently they are misunderstanding you. That is why i asked you.

So basically you are saying that if anyone reads what you write, then before commenting they need to read through your post history to find the extended version and find the context?

Wouldnt it be better to each time explain yourself fully before making comments such as what you have? There are always new eyes looking over these threads so probably a good idea if you dont want to be misunderstood.

He has me on ignore, and has since I exposed his systematic plagiarism of US hate sites, perhaps you can ask him if a woman is complicit in rape if she doesn't scream?

 

[Maggie5]

I dont wish to ask them because apparently they are misunderstanding you. That is why i asked you.

So basically you are saying that if anyone reads what you write, then before commenting they need to read through your post history to find the extended version and find the context?

Wouldnt it be better to each time explain yourself fully before making comments such as what you have? There are always new eyes looking over these threads so probably a good idea if you dont want to be misunderstood.

At the same time can you also ask him not to cut and paste a wall of writing?
Just as well it is not paper as a forest would have been lost.

 

[tesseract]

Asking questions, not answering them.
Over to you.

When you stated "And vice versa?", such is a statement, not a question. The question mark tacked onto the end is out of place.

Revisionism ......from a fundamentalist?

Back up your claim that what I've stated is revisionist.

If you suspect I'm a fundamentalist, explain what makes you believe so.

Btw, I've already provided a direct quote from the bible, so as to back up what I'm saying. So, given the direct quoting of the bible, it's not revisionist.

 

[tesseract]

I dont wish to ask them because apparently they are misunderstanding you. That is why i asked you.

If you're unwilling to ask them, that's not my problem. Getting them to quote my post in full resolves your issue. There's always the use of the search function for my post. The reason for my wanting you to ask those supposedly 'misunderstanding' me is that it will show that they're, in typical ideologue and troll fashion, strawmanning what I've said. Btw, I've recently, again, provided scriptural evidence for what I've stated.

So basically you are saying that if anyone reads what you write, then before commenting they need to read through your post history to find the extended version and find the context?

"Post history" implies every post I've made on BF. What I ask is that folks inform themselves of the post being discussed before commenting on it. If those calling me out won't quote in full what I've said, it's a fair indication that they're making s**t up. When I speak of the bible, I usually provide where the scripture can be found so as people can look for themselves if they choose. Providing such also shows that I'm not just making it up.

Wouldnt it be better to each time explain yourself fully before making comments such as what you have? There are always new eyes looking over these threads so probably a good idea if you dont want to be misunderstood.

I have explained myself fully. There are ideologues and/or trolls who simply wish to twist my words for their own purpose. They can't or don't want to argue the point made, so instead they choose to strawman the post so as to attack me personally and thus attempt to discredit what I've said in that fashion.

Btw, why should I cater to every newbie that enters the thread. Are these people incapable of reading, or is it a case of them being too lazy?

 

[tesseract]

At the same time can you also ask him not to cut and paste a wall of writing?

No, no, no, couldn't dare have someone copypasta in order to back their claims... that's just not the feminist way. Feelings, anecdotes and unverifiable (supposedly) lived experience is the feminist way.

 

[tesseract]

Explains your views on feminism nicely.

I'm sure you have some rationalizations for your statement to explain to the class, so please do so.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Dance Tessie dance

 

[fleabitten]

More than that, it explains his views on women as chattel and lack of empathy for rape victims.

He believes if a man rapes a woman, it is just punishment to fine him and force them to marry. No compassion for the victim, no care for her rights, force her to marry her rapist. This in 21st century Australia, yet he is not a complete pariah on this site.

The bible's pretty horrible and the passage is misogynistic, no doubt, but I don't think tesseract (or other Christians who would defend the verses quoted) is reading that last part as rape. She's been "violated" in the sense that she's no longer pure, and "seized" in the sense that she was taken away from her family (without the permission of her father). I think it's supposed to describe consensual sex outside of marriage and how to atone for the loss of honour to the woman's family. Sexist bullshit but not necessarily rape apology.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

The bible's pretty horrible and the passage is misogynistic, no doubt, but I don't think tesseract (or other Christians who would defend the verses quoted) is reading that last part as rape. She's been "violated" in the sense that she's no longer pure, and "seized" in the sense that she was taken away from her family (without the permission of her father). I think it's supposed to describe consensual sex outside of marriage and how to atone for the loss of honour to the woman's family. Sexist bullshit but not necessarily rape apology.

Unfortunately, he has actually argued that if a woman doesn't scream it is not rape, that being forced to marry a rape victim is just punishment for a rapist and has used that passage of the bible to justify it. Seriously.