Sure would love national health careFollow

Just sayin'

Old thread reference. I just personally found it amusing that you said basically the same thing I've said numerous times, but apparently because you were arguing against Monx, no one felt the need to correct you.

Which kinda falls in line with my general theory of internet debate, which states that people typically pick and choose what to argue about, not based on whether they agree or disagree with the statements being made, but based on whether they disagree with the "person" or "side" that is making the statement.

Since no one was actually arguing the same things we were arguing in the other thread, no one felt the need. Had Celcio said the same in that context, he would have been responded to.Do you get a lot of wind up there on your cross?

Edited, Mar 9th 2007 2:11pm by Jophiel

No, I'm not saying the same thing. You conveniently left off the 3rd reply to that which was:


I believe your asinine argument (if I'm getting what you're referring to) was that if it didn't leave marks it's not rape. Adding my 3rd reply in you see quite clearly that the violation makes it rape, marks notwithstanding.



Feeling a bit down? A bit put upon, Gbaji? I'd be willing to bet that, even if someone searched through and read all 500-odd of my off-topic, more like cocktail party aside (good or bad) posts in this forum they'd be hard-pressed to determine who's "side" I'm on in most, if not all of the issues discussed here.

Which kinda falls in line with the general theory of internet debate - if people think you're wrong, it's clearly not based on the facts or presentation of the argument, it must be because they don't like you.

We get it, and the sun's been in your eyes all these years.


edit: to add a titch of clarity

Edited, Mar 9th 2007 6:35pm by Celcio

Samira:

That was probably the most unfunny onion article ever written. What happened to the talent? Onion Man of the Year: The Man.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29703

Really!? Ok. So how is an investigator to tell the difference between consensual sex and the "physical act of violation" that would accompany a rape?

Wouldn't they look for some physical sign. Oh like "marks"? And barring such things, would we not say that there was no "physical evidence of rape"?

Which was the point. I just found it amusing that you essentially parroted the exact statements I made many moons ago on this very subject. Oddly, when I point it out for you, you're still trying to oppose my statement. I find that amusing as well. Something that you know intuitively is "true" suddenly becomes "false" if the resulting conclusion goes against something else you already believe is true.

That's called "bad logic". But hey! The world is full of it, so why not?



I wasn't talking about your "side" at all. I was commenting that a statement virtually identical to ones I'd made many moons ago and which prompted immediate arguement from most of those already present in this thread got a complete pass when uttered by you.

Now, before you think you're blessed or something, it's not really about you. It's about the fact that your statement was made while arguing against Monx. Thus, those who already don't like or agree with Monx gave your statement a bye, not because they agreed with *you* but because they disagree with Monx more.



I wasn't talking about me at all there either. I was talking about Monx. You were disagreeing with him on something he said (and honestly, since I filter, I don't know what the heck he was saying). In the process of countering his statement, you repeated almost verbatim a set of arguments I'd made months ago which prompted massive negative response from the board. But in this case, there was not a peep. Again. Not because of you, and not because of me, but because you said it while disagreeing with Monx. Since (presumably) those same people also disagreed with Monx (likely with good reason), disagreeing with you might be seen as agreeing with him, which they don't want to do.


I really did just find it amusing. And somewhat telling about posters in general. I'm crazy like that. I like to observe people and see what makes them tick. This was just another interesting observation is all.

You really make me ill. But ok. You're held up on the street at gunpoint and asked for your wallet. To save your life you pass it over. You weren't really robbed though were you, you wallet was a gift. I mean, how is an investigator supposed to tell that you didn't hand it over willingly?



Your intution on what is "intuitively true" sucks, now gimme yer wallet.


Sorry I was skimming, yours or mine? Again, out with the wallet, poindexter.



Do you understand the concept of context? No, really. Do you honestly think these two situations are identical?

Masked man in a dark alley at 3am: I'm going to kill you!

Friend after a practical joke on them: I'm going to kill you!

Same right? I mean they parroted the same words fergoshsake!

I know, Nexa. But he's claiming I'm making his argument for him. Add to that Samira's Monxbot comments about not being able to look away and...

OK fine, my 10k title, should I ever reach it, should be Quixote.

Except there's just no way in hell the silverbacks around here are going to accept him as one of their own.

Even more amusing is that I *never* argued that rape was always about violence (so your statement is much farther in that direction then mine was). Just that without evidence of such violence, it's pretty impossible to prove rape without some significant corroborating evidence, and that increasingly our criminal justice system tends to charge people with it anyway (I was specifically talking about the rise of "date rape" and how often it's abused).

Oh, you were drawing a comparison to that?

You're even stupider than I could have imagined, and that's really saying something.

If you only thought about it until you thought the same thing as Gbaji does about it, then you'd be right. It's just that easy!

Odd. how MonxDoT and gbaji have such absolute notions on violence...