Jerry Springer may run for US Senate

Brian, between your frenzied reverie about the time you lost your virginity by the stealthy plan of drugging a girl, and then the frenzied reverie where you relate the manner in which you followed that up by tricking a girl into bed with a “Fight Club” Halloween mask, I’m not quite sure exactly what you are trying to say. Are you looking for my condonment? Okay, I approve - hey, you got little enough to work with, more power to you - but I’m pretty sure the law doesn’t take into account illegal financial arrangements (ie: bounced check) or a girl’s stupidity (ie: pretending to be Brad Pitt) when gauging rape cases.

Because, if the latter, objectively how would that work? If that were the case, you’d be under inditement for raping every girl you’ve ever slept with, since you were clearly taking advantage of someone who musta been pretty retarded. If the former, you are legally condoning prostitution and equating the most dastardly crime short of murder to the sort of muffed financial skills that rent-to-own agencies thrive upon.

Either way, that doesn’t even begin to explain away the fact that forcing yourself upon somebody by drugging them is obviously a hell of a lot different than the sort of understandable chain of events that could lead someone into bouncing a check.

Also, could you explain the gag to me about “not letting me back into the States”? It sort of flies in the face of the general consensus that people in America speak English a hell of a lot more poorly than people in the British Isles. Or was that some sort of compliment, seeing as how the sentence you were criticising is grammatically correct?

{Carefully slides the hot wax away from DrCrypt and the unsuspecting “girlfriend” below him}…

Based on this treatment of the English language I wonder if they’ll let you back into the States. Perhaps only with the caveat that you go to class regularly and aren’t allowed to sit behind your girlfriend.

DrCrypt objects: But, but, I won’t get distracted! I can multitask!

{Carefully slides the absinthe away}

In order for a rape to qualify as forced there MUST be physical resistance. If a woman is sufficiently drugged, she does not physically resist the sex. The rape is a matter of deceit and not of force at that point.

Bouncing a check to a prostitute is just another kind of the same thing. The prostitute would not have sex with you if she knew you didn’t have a means and will to pay. Therefore you are having sex with her against her will.

Here’s another example of rape by deceit…

Lets say you visit your neighborhood plastic surgeon and walk away with Brad Pitt’s face, and furthermore your body can be passed off as Brad Pitt’s.

Now you tell women you’re Brad Pitt, and they have sex with you. That’s rape.

Or are you going to say it isn’t rape because while portraying Brad Pitt you aren’t forcing yourself on them?[/quote]

If you really believe what you’re saying, and you don’t see the difference in calling a hooker not getting paid being called rape and someone being drugged and raped - or someone who thinks they’re having sex with a movie star and then finding out they aren’t is rape - you’re just too far gone for me to try to have a discussion with you. Rape is not willingly having sex and then being dissapointed with the results. Nor is it having sex for the wrong reasons (“you said you were the captain of the football team!” or “but you said you loved me!”)

All I’ll say is that anyone who has actually worked with rape victims would have nothing but derision for your glib definitions.

The concept (per jeff lackey) of rape as not describing an act, a logical category, but rather a degree or type of pain and moral status, is wrong. By that reasoning (pardon the language since there’s nothing reasonable about it) Holocaust victims weren’t murdered… they deserve their own WORD. I’ll make one up now to please jeff… they were schnfritzled.

The theft of a priceless jewel versus the theft of a tin ring? Both theft, according to me. Obviously jeff lackey must be consulted on the matter for his moral high-road opinion…

Jeff Lackey: They must be different words! Forced Rape is too torturous, too painful, too horrific… by God it deserves its own category! How dare you… you… MAN say otherwise!

Moving on to DrCrypt…

Wow, the Brian jokes were actually funny this time AND did not comprise the entire post. Despite this seeming like it must be an imposter (perhaps its his girlfriend posting with only 4 inches of DrCrypt present) and not the real DrCrypt I’ll continue…

Stupidity is a matter of self-deception and thus does not constitute a crime of the other party. Otherwise your position mirrors jeff lackey’s and thus I’ll just say ditto.

Sure… not all rape is equal. But that doesn’t imply that only one type of rape exists.

Level 0 is that it doesn’t take Force to have sex with a drugged woman. She’s compliant. So you’re misusing the word “force”.

Level 1 is that you live in Ireland, you reference many non-US things, and you’ve fantasized (probably for effect) about either harems or bordellos of “underage” Asian girls. You’re an Exile in at least one way. A disaffected. A critic. A rebel. Its sort of like the words I might have for someone who currently lives in the US who answers “Anywhere but here” to “Which country would you like to be in?”

I assume you have not found what you’re looking for, yet.

This is the wierdest topic drift I’ve ever seen.

Want me to reference Revolutionary Girl Utena if I jump into the debate? Because I think I possibly could.

This is what underlies my position as well…

A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm.

Deceitful rape is no different from forced rape in the sense that in both cases the woman does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm.

Forced is simply strongarming the situation, while deceit is fooling the woman into accepting you… by the examples provided either dulling her consciousness, pretending to have money, or creating a false identity for yourself.

But again, fundamentally, they are the same. A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm. All latter cases instigated by the participating man are rape.

You’re a wierdo.

you’re a freaking moron koontz. It’s called fraud, not rape. fraudulent payment for services rendered.

Jezus freaking christ, you made me agree with xpav.

I guess there’s a first time for everything.

[i]Though his adversaries did not yet realize it, the most respected thinker on the board, by far, had a significant upper hand in the argument. Every plastic surgeon he’d contacted, too many even for Koontz to count, had clearly informed him that altering his face and body to look like Brad Pitt was “not a possibility.” Even the second and third most respected thinkers on the board would realize that the only possible reason for this denial was that such a transformation would lead to legal troubles. Surely, it was not a question of bravery.

As for the second and third most respected thinkers on the board, Brian was on the case. His calculations - which involved counting the total number of views each thread had received and then multiplying the results by the number of forums in which these threads had appeared - were almost complete. Preliminary results showed Cleve a front-runner for the second spot, while SpoofyChop was an almost-certain third. [/i]

The universal Koontzian moral qualifier between sex and violent rape: it is rape if you do not fulfill the social contract of “injecting” a woman with “sperm”. So, QED, wearing a condom, using the jerk back method or not achieving orgasm are all logically rapes.

Oh, by the way, Brian, this sentence is the grammatical equivalent of being a gelid, panty-hosed Rocky Horror fan with a bright red V scrawled across your forehead in atomic cherry lipstick. I can just imagine you getting a couple of alien secretions in you and lurching up to the girl at the bar stool who you’ve been eyeing all evening, having finally worked up the courage to mouth-breathe your sexy proposition to her: “I want to insert my phallic protuberance into you and inject millions upon millions of non-sentient but autonomous and distinctly alive spermatoza inside of your uterus. Baby.”

Could we get Angie Dietrich in here to roleplay the typical female reaction? I imagine it would involve a high-pitched scream and Brian reeling back, ropes of drooly foam flying through the air like streamers, as he claws at the mace in his eyes.

Whatever, Brian. Only the guy who once tried to argue that railing against a philosophy was espousing it could now try to cling to such a fragilely rigid definition of “force” while at the same time being all-encompassing with his definition of “compliant”. In cases of drugged rape, you are obviously forcing a girl’s ability to resist you. She is not “complying” because that word implies an actual choice.

I dunno. I mean, if you are arguing that there are different kinds of rape, obviously we can all board the same train. But when you proceed to shoot the engineer in the back of his skull, dump him in the coal fire and steam that choo-choo right to Screwball Land, rechristened as the Idiot Express, I think every reasonable person on this forum is going to hurl themselves out of the doors at the next station. For all of us, you claiming that a bounced check to a prostitute is rape is basically the smell of gunpowder and barbecued brain matter wafting into the first class compartment.

It is such a ridiculously petty claim - hey, if the customer comes back and settles in cash, was it only a hideous rape for the couple days it took him for his bank to report the mistake? Sensible people qualify and quantify moral acts based upon taking motivation of both parties and circumstances into account, not into the absolute categories of the community college idiot with no imagination or understanding of other people. You are right, people either agree to sleep with other people or they don’t, but once they do make an agreement, the terms of that sexual agreement don’t negate the fact that it was consensual sex. It isn’t a rape even if the guy misrepresented himself (say, as being Brad Pitt or as paying her for the sex). How many girls have been duped into bed by the guy claiming to be the “world’s greatest lover”, only to find out that he wasn’t? Were these girls raped? How many girls have had sex with a guy because he told her he was in love with her, only for it not to be true? Was that rape? Being in love, being the world’s greatest lover were just as much the terms of agreement between the two as a check to a hooker. I suspect you’ll probably say “yes” to these instances being rape, but that is the sort of idiot cheapening of the word “rape” that the rest of the world is basically going to roll their eyes at. People who have actually been forced against their will into having sex with another person (as opposed to making a misguided choice based upon stupidity or lack of information) shouldn’t have idiots like you undermining the horror of what they had to endure with ignorant, omnivorous categorisms.

I sort of agree with Mr. By Far on this. I can’t really see how two different methods of getting someone to do something that the person doesn’t want to do is that different, from a moral point of view. Doing it by deceit is just more “civilised”.
But of course, the psychical trauma and injuries that is the effect of forced rape would of course bump up prison sentences and the like quite a bit.

Bouncing a check to a prostitute isn’t rape, it’s check fraud. Unless you think prostitution isn’t first and foremost a commercial transaction - no one is a prostitute for free.

That’s you in a nutshell. Lots of words and nothing to reply to.

Its ironic that you post on a messageboard and you’re so bad at dialogue. A graduate from the Troll school of fear of intimacy? Though I must admit, your entertainment value is considerable.

You could join a circus. The crowds can gather and watch you gasp out clever masturbatory spiels.

YAY! Applaud, Applaud

I even have a title for the Act… Tales from the Crypt.

This is the probably the stupidest reasoning I’ve read on this entire board. My only hope is that this is an amazing troll and that you’re surely not this stupid. Do you really have no capability for discernment? Rape has a very specific meaning. It is a horrific act. My wife and I have worked at a crisis center and seen the face of rape victims. For you to equate a prostitute who willing sells her sex to a man and then had the check bounce, or someone who willingly has sex and then finds out the man doesn’t really own a Porche, to a real rape victim is just distasteful. Your inane attempt to equate them is at once ignorant, stupid, and frankly disgusting.

Tell ya what, you think you’re being clever but you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Talk to real rape victims who can’t leave their house anymore because they’re paralyzed with fear, who need psychological treatment because they can’t have sex with their husband because the rape has left them so mentally crippled, who burst into tears in the middle of the day because of the scar that’s been left on them, and tell them that some chick who went to bed with a guy because she thought he could introduce her to Leo Decaprio or a hooker who got a check that was bounce was also raped. You’re talking about a real crime that devastates women for life, that has destroyed marriages and turned mothers and wives and young women into people that struggle for years - some for the rest of their life - to have a normal relationship with a man or their children or to do the simple things in life again like go to the mall or grocery store. My wife had to stop volunteering for a while because it was tearing her to pieces seeing these victims. I don’t know if you think you’re being clever or glib or cute, but your comments are so ignorant that I almost feel sorry for you - though disgust is the overriding emotive response.

The histrionics aren’t that exciting, really.

There are all kinds of rape victims. You deal with the weakest ones, obviously. Those are the ones I’m least concerned with, but that’s a side issue at most. Humans with a vast capacity for pain will inevitably fill it, and there are plenty of lackeys waiting in line to pity them.

I’m not equating anything… as I already mentioned, the theft of a priceless jewel and the theft of a tin ring are NOT equal, but they are in the same category… theft.

Whether someone steals something or not is NOT dependent on how much pain the victim is in or the value of what was stolen. It denotes an action, a physical reality, a logical reality.

The PUNISHMENT is dependent on the value of what was stolen, of course, and the type of rape, what went into the rape is definitely a matter of differential.

No rape is equal to another.

Oh, and lest you be missing yet another one of the underlying themes of this thread, and of course you would be missing it without these words…

I remember the classic case of the person who spilled hot coffee from McDonald’s and was burned. The reward was in the millions.

One of my co-workers at the time said (only half-jokingly) “I’m going to run out and do the same thing! I’ll be rich!”

But since he didn’t make a later comment on the issue, apparently morality and self-respect kept him away from the jackpot.

This made me think a bit. All the people who drank equally hot coffee, who drove in equally bumpy cars, etc. who were careful enough to not spill the coffee got ZERO dollars. Meanwhile, the relatively incompetent human gets millions.

Wasn’t it just as bad for McDonald’s to serve very hot coffee to Generic Person A as it was to Incompetent Sue-Happy A? I mean… wasn’t the problem independent of specific incompetence?

So nowadays, with this kind of pathetic example shown by unfortunate humans, it seems wise to be on the alert.

How easy in a world filled with jeff lackeys would it be to make the reward for rape (albeit a bitter one, usually focusing on revenge) be based on the pain of the victim? jeff lackey himself could lead the charge, boasting of the deep pain inflicted… a lawyerly version of him would ask “What punishment is great enough for this?”… as he points to his grief-stricken client.

And just as people who attain injury in car wrecks make sure to wear visible and preferably big and obvious signs of that into the courtroom (like neck braces) in order to appear to be in more pain and thus get more money there is pressure put on EVERY victim to appear weaker, to appear in MORE pain, in order to get more reward.

And of course, its far easier to appear weak if you ARE weak. So appearance becomes reality… and something truly monstrous occurs.

So in order to stop the otherwise inevitable thing to happen with Rape, where Victim A gets to demand the death penalty because she is in Pain Level 10 while Victim B has to settle for 10 years prison because she is only in Pain Level 4 I show Rape to be a matter of definition, and variations in punishment by variations in the crime.

Rape is sex with a woman against her will.

This also moves into a more radical conception of crime and punishment but that’s a tale for another time…

Wasn’t it just as bad for McDonald’s to serve very hot coffee to Generic Person A as it was to Incompetent Sue-Happy A? I mean… wasn’t the problem independent of specific incompetence?

I think the court concluded the problem was that McDonald’s had hotter coffee and flimsier cups, by far, in comparison with similar businesses.

So in order to stop the otherwise inevitable thing to happen with Rape, where Victim A gets to demand the death penalty because she is in Pain Level 10 while Victim B has to settle for 10 years prison because she is only in Pain Level 4 I show Rape to be a matter of definition, and variations in punishment by variations in the crime.

Rape is sex with a woman against her will.

While I pretty much agree with this, I find Brian’s contempt for “weakness” quite disgusting.

There are all kinds of rape victims. You deal with the weakest ones, obviously. Those are the ones I’m least concerned with, but that’s a side issue at most. Humans with a vast capacity for pain will inevitably fill it, and there are plenty of lackeys waiting in line to pity them.

[/quote]

You really aren’t trolling - you really believe what you’re saying. That really is sad. “Pity them”? “You deal with the weakest ones”? Koontz, you are an idiot who believes he is being profound. Hopeless.

Terrified that his post would go unnoticed in the dreaded bottom slot of the first page, Wumpus executed a hitherto unheard-of manuever and intentionally posted it a second time. The gesture was a two-pronged cry for love, comprised of the double posting and the transparent attempt to garner a few "LOL"s by resurrecting one of Sparky’s masterworks. It was in this manner that Jakub’s Hypothesis came to be accepted as law.