Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, let's face it, robbie, you're putting yourself out on an immoral limb if youlook at a country with a domestic violence problem like India and then claim that - logically - there can be no such thing as marital rape because, even if a woman didn't want to have sex, a husband already had consent. If I called you a rape apologist, then I was quite right to. It's good to call a spade a spade when confronting beliefs like yours in so far as they pertain to what rape victims experience.
...you have termed me a rape apologist...
Originally posted by FMFand yet i came to the conclusion that it did constitute rape FMF and despite that you still stated that i was a rape apologist. why did you do that FMF and do you think its constitutes normal behaviour?
Well, let's face it, robbie, you're putting yourself out on an immoral limb if youlook at a country with a domestic violence problem like India and then claim that - logically - there can be no such thing as marital rape because, even if a woman didn't want to have sex, a husband already had consent. If I called you a rape apologist, then I was quite right to. I ...[text shortened]... e when confronting beliefs like yours in so far as they pertain to what rape victims experience.
This is twice you have been caught accusing people of harbouring values that they do not profess simply because you disagree with them making you not only a hypocrite but abnormal accoriding to your definition of what constitutes normality.
07 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFhere is the question that you seem to be either unwilling or unable to answer FMF, why is known only to you.
What "good idea" are you accusing me of having?
Do you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course I disagree with your premise in so far as it relates to reducing sex abuse. Victims are far less likely to come forward if they think the corporation is going to swing into action and try to keep the criminal acts committed against them secret.
No I did not i stated and its tedious to have to repeat it again that a child abuser may be less likely to come forward if they know that they will be turned over to the authorities. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Pretending to be" what? And what are you claiming it has to do with "children"? What "good idea"?
Do you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFlets ask you again,
"Pretending to be" what? And what are you claiming it has to do with "children"? What "good idea"?
Do you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen did you change your view? I recall you trying to back up your 'it just can't be rape form a Christian point of view' stance with scripture from the Bible. If you backed down from your overt rape apologist stance, then good.
and yet i came to the conclusion that it did constitute rape FMF and despite that you still stated that i was a rape apologist. why did you do that FMF and do you think its constitutes normal behaviour?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not "pretending to be" anything robbie. Your constant repetition of the phrase "a site that allows children" is meaningless ill-judged banter.
lets ask you again,
Do you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFwe are not talking of victims FMfF we are talking of child abusers, so lets ask you gain and see if we can get a straight answer because you seem rather incapable or reluctant to answer anything truthfully.
Of course I disagree with your premise in so far as it relates to reducing sex abuse. Victims are far less likely to come forward if they think the corporation is going to swing into action and try to keep the criminal acts committed against them secret.
Do you agree or disagree that a child abuser is more or less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported due to mandatory reporting.
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFI am sure you are not now lets ask you again,
I am not "pretending to be" anything robbie. Your constant repetition of the phrase "a site that allows children" is meaningless ill-judged banter.
Do you if you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?
a) good idea
b) not a good idea
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not "pretending to be" anything robbie.
I am sure you are not now lets ask you again,
Do you if you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?
a) good idea
b) not a good idea
07 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFFirst of all it was not my view, I was merely testing the premise that I had read about while looking at some court proceedings in the USA. Secondly Properknob convinced that despite consent it could still constitute rape. Marital rape infact.
When did you change your view? I recall you trying to back up your 'it just can't be rape form a Christian point of view' stance with scripture from the Bible. If you backed down from your overt rape apologist stance, then good.
