Originally posted by Eladar
Were you there?

Been thinking about this reply.

Statutory rape is simply having sex with someone under age. If it was actual rape, as in what would be considered rape between adults, then it would have been a charge of rape, not statutory rape.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do you read the things you type?
An appointment is nothing more, nothing less than a vote.

You're like a kid who gets taught checkers and promptly challenges others to a game of chess.

An appointment is not a vote.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Obviously facebook is to blame.

Everyone knows there was no raping before the 1980's.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
An appointment is not a vote.

How are you able to type with fingers from either hand in your ears?
Are you using your nose?

An appointment is nothing more than a single (or possibly several people's) vote.
The definition and etymology of the word is uncontested:
"Meaning "act of placing in office" is attested from 1650s."

Seriously: get the rules of the game down before jumping in, will you?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This actually comes from the Bible (Deuteronomy 22:23-24):

"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife."

Because so many conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, this kind of thinking is prevalent among them.

Originally posted by vivify
This actually comes from the Bible (Deuteronomy 22:23-24):

"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—[b]the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife." ...[text shortened]... many conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, this kind of thinking is prevalent among them.[/b]

It's great that you can quote, but you suffer (as most do) from the inability to adequately or accurately interpret.
If a woman (or man, for that matter) has an opportunity to plead for the help of others in an otherwise helpless situation, she was expected to make use of that opportunity.
In other passages covering the same topic, if the woman had reason to believe she wouldn't be heard, i.e., out in a part of land which it wouldn't be reasonable to expect someone to hear her, she would not be held responsible for the act.
The presumption here is that a man initiating the act will be rebuffed by a woman who will either fend him off herself or plea for help.
If a woman neither attempts to fend him off herself or cries for help, there must be mitigating circumstances to excuse her failure, or she will be considered complicit in the act.

It's not a very difficult distinction to conceptualize, really.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's great that you can quote, but you suffer (as most do) from the inability to adequately or accurately interpret.
If a woman (or man, for that matter) has an opportunity to plead for the help of others in an otherwise helpless situation, she was expected to make use of that opportunity.
In other passages covering the same topic, if the woman had reaso ...[text shortened]... sidered complicit in the act.

It's not a very difficult distinction to conceptualize, really.

You see how reasonable the Old Testament really is and how approriate to employ the scribblings of a religious official in a small tribal culture on the margins of several highly civilised empires as a guide to life in the 21st century. Just don't shag sheep and you should do fine.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are still a moron. Quoting people who misquoted me is irresponsible. There was an issue of consent. By the own women's admission she (1) did not ever scream out, (2) she did not resist, (3) she did not claim she was threatened (4) there was in fact no weapon. I still see find there insufficient evidence to claim a rape occurred. There needs to be a beyond a reasonable standard and I still legitimately question if it was met.

Originally posted by finnegan
You see how reasonable the Old Testament really is and how approriate to employ the scribblings of a religious official in a small tribal culture on the margins of several highly civilised empires as a guide to life in the 21st century. Just don't shag sheep and you should do fine.

Gee, if I didn't know any better, finnegan, I'd think you have an erection for all-things religious.
Either that, or it's a roll of dimes in your pocket.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are such a hypocrite. You are a rapist supporting racist troll whose only chance of increasing popularity is to die.

Originally posted by Eladar
You are such a hypocrite. You are a rapist supporting racist troll whose only chance of increasing popularity is to die.

You are quite an unpleasant troll when pushed, Eladar, but not an effective one.

Originally posted by Eladar
You are such a hypocrite. You are a rapist supporting racist troll whose only chance of increasing popularity is to die.

I don't read her now; why would I read her drivel were she to unexpectedly die?