14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis does not answer the point blank question: do you or do you not defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there isn't "mandatory reporting"?
I do not defend the cover up of anything , the arguments that i have made are well known and understood to those with insight into the issues and will not be dumbed down to a tabloid level by the likes of you. Why are yo so slimey?
14 May 16
Originally posted by FMFYou see you have not the slightest idea what the argument is, its rational basis, who it applies to, the implications of the principles and how they have a bearing on each other, you dont understand anything at all concerning the argument that was proffered, all you understand is slime.
What are you on about? You just said, on the matter of rape in marriage: "the argument concerns a Christine perspective and the idea of consent, infcat its rather interesting that a Christian man or women cedes authority over their own bodies when they are married and what implications this has under the definition of rape". This is explicitly what you expressed, verbatim.
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis response is dodging the question: what does "penitent privilege" have to do with allegations of sex abuse? You ask the alleged perpetrator about the allegations and - all of a sudden - everything he says then becomes confidential as long as he is "penitent"?
No i have attempted nothing of the sort, your slimey perspective and false accusations are fooling no one. Once again i have not attempted to cover up or defend the cover up of anything, your slime isnt working here FMF.
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, consider your "rational basis" and your "implications" and your "principles". And then tell me: Is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is rape or is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is not rape?
You see you have not the slightest idea what the argument is, its rational basis, who it applies to, the implications of the principles and how they have a bearing on each other....
Originally posted by FMFYou have insulted my intelligence, my religion, my morality and personal integrity, you have attempted through nothing more than vile insinuations and a complete failure to understand almost anything with regard to the principles and ideas and issues in those threads except to foment slimey arguments against the person who proposed them. You are for want of a better word simply a slimey little man. I have never defended the cover up of child abuse when there is no mandatory reporting, but of course the issue is not that simple and there are many factors to consider but I don't expect an ill informed and ignorant contributor like you to care or even understand it, you are quite simply incapable.
This does not answer the point blank question: do you or do you not defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there [b]isn't "mandatory reporting"?[/b]
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are still dodging the question of whether you defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there isn't "mandatory reporting"?
You have insulted my intelligence, my religion, my morality and personal integrity, you have attempted through nothing more than vile insinuations and a complete failure to understand almost anything with regard to the principles and ideas and issues in those threads except to foment slimey arguments against the person who proposed them. you are for ...[text shortened]... and ignorant contributor like you to care or even understand it, you are quite simply incapable.
Originally posted by FMFplease go away you slimey little man, you have not a clue about the issues that were presented, the implications, all you have and all you understand is slime. Now if you dont mind i have better things to do than remonstrate with a slimey ignoramus.
Well, consider your "rational basis" and your "implications" and your "principles". And then tell me: Is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is rape or is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is not rape?
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you think allegations of serious sex crimes should be reported to - and handled by - the authorities "when there is no mandatory reporting", yes or no?
I have never defended the cover up of child abuse when there is no mandatory reporting...
Originally posted by FMFI think you are a slimey ignoramus if thats any consolation? and the issue as i have stated is not that simple You don't seem to understand anything regarding the issue.
Do you think allegations of serious sex crimes should be reported to - and handled by - the authorities "when there is no mandatory reporting", yes or no?
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou appear to be arguing that only a Christian man ~ not other men ~ can force his wife to have sex with his wife without it being rape [because a woman women cedes authority over her own body when she is married] and that this is "a Christian perspective". Why not clarify?
No the argument concerns a Christine perspective and the idea of consent, infcat its rather interesting that a Christian man or women cedes authority over their own bodies when they are married and what implications this has under the definition of rape. it does not apply to anyone who is not married or who is not a Christian as you have once again, erroneously assumed.
14 May 16
Originally posted by FMFdude you do not understand anything about the argument and i for one will not do battle against your ignorance.
You appear to be arguing that only a Christian man ~ not other men ~ can force his wife to have sex with his wife [b]without it being rape [because a woman women cedes authority over her own body when she is married] and that this is "a Christian perspective". Why not clarify?[/b]
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs this "Christian perspective" which you claim affects "the definition of rape" also your own perspective?
No the argument concerns a Christian perspective and the idea of consent, infcat its rather interesting that a Christian man or women cedes authority over their own bodies when they are married and what implications this has under the definition of rape. it does not apply to anyone who is not married or who is not a Christian....