Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

Lithrael said:
Oh, yeah, imo there are a lot of signs that early Christianity was essentially an apocalypse cult with an unusually positive disposition, and things got very awkward when the end of the world never happened. But it's absolutely par for the course for a religion to just sorta wallpaper over an embarrassment like that and keep going.
Click to expand...
True - but it is also the case that 1/3 of biologists do not accept that Neo-Darwinism explains the history of life.
 
Anyone: Do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. Not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.
2. Showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams.
3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
The Federalist, 2019.

If you think it is nonsense then do state why in another thread.
Click to expand...
You brought it up in this thread not anyone else. Creationists are liars, they either make stuff up or misrepresent actual information. I'll let you into a secret, when someone these days talks about Darwinism as if science stopped 150 years ago you know they are a load of crock.
 
Darat said:
You brought it up in this thread not anyone else. Creationists are liars, they either make stuff up or misrepresent actual information. I'll let you into a secret, when someone these days talks about Darwinism as if science stopped 150 years ago you know they are a load of crock.
Click to expand...
You need to spend more time actually understanding what I said based on what biologists are saying. If you want to reply to a Creationist, then make sure you identify one.

You clearly didn't read the link and have embarrassed yourself.
 
Poem said:
You need to spend more time actually understanding what I said based on what biologists are saying. If you want to reply to a Creationist, then make sure you identify one.

You clearly didn't read the link and have embarrassed yourself.
Click to expand...
I did read the link, it was the typical lies by creationists. Some of us unlike yourself on the forum have interests outside of porn and rape. Many of us have been following the lies of creationists for literally decades, do you not know that "intelligent design" is creationism?
 
Darat said:
I did read the link, it was the typical lies by creationists. Some of us unlike yourself on the forum have interests outside of porn and rape. Many of us have been following the lies of creationists for literally decades, do you not know that "intelligent design" is creationism?
Click to expand...
You read it but you didn't understand it - that much is obvious.

My statement that 1/3 (give or take) of biologists do not find Neo-Darwinism adequately explains life is a true statement. I made it in the interest of keeping it real in response to Lithrael's correct (in my view) critique of religion.
 
Darat said:
Some of us unlike yourself on the forum have interests outside of porn and rape.
Click to expand...
You won't ever be able to substantiate that so I am wondering why you posted it?

Why did you Darat? You are embarrassing yourself again.
 
Darat said:
..................................................
Click to expand...
Do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. Not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.
2. Showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams.
3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them.
 
Poem said:
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
Click to expand...
That is such a vague definition as to be useless. So many things could be included in that- kissing, films with love scenes, wildlife documentaries, works of art- that is cheapens the intent. This vagueness also allows you to claim that porn sites are abusing children, which is not true.
Poem said:
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
Click to expand...
Despite your semantic skulduggery, this does not include online porn sites.
Poem said:
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
Click to expand...
Neither does this.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
That is such a vague definition as to be useless. So many things could be included in that- kissing, films with love scenes, wildlife documentaries, works of art- that is cheapens the intent. This vagueness also allows you to claim that porn sites are abusing children, which is not true.

Despite your semantic skulduggery, this does not include online porn sites.

Neither does this.
Click to expand...
It's UK law.

Do they constitute sexual abuse - yes or no?
 
Poem said:
The Federalist, 2019.

If you think it is nonsense then do state why in another thread.
Click to expand...
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence . Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.

Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.
Click to expand...
mediabiasfactcheck.com

The Federalist - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com
 
Poem said:
True - but it is also the case that 1/3 of biologists do not accept that Neo-Darwinism explains the history of life.
Click to expand...
[Citation needed]. It's a commonly accepted fact* that over 99% of qualified biologists accept the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the biological process of evolution and that it will laregly remain unchanged, except around the edges.

*Through multiple surveys and polls of qualified biologists returning 99%+ acceptance of ToE.
 
Poem said:
The Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is relevant to the arguments you have been making.
Click to expand...

Again, you assert this without specifying which arguments or in what way they are relevant.

I'd think you'd want to emphasize differences rather than similarities, because the arguments you claim are similar to mine won the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. If you insist on ceding my arguments that win, then so be it. The solution you're proposing regarding banning porn is clearly unconstitutional. So that's that. Find another remedy or find something else to obsess about.
 
Poem said:
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
Click to expand...
No.
Poem said:
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
Click to expand...
Possibly, but definitely not automatically. More information would be needed, such as the age of the child, the nature of the shown material, the context in which it's shown, etc.

Here's a hypothetical example where it's not sexual abuse. A 17 year old boy sees two adults having consensual sex in a secluded area of a public park (they think they're alone), and films it from a distance on his cell phone. He then shows his video footage to another 17 year old boy, and they laugh about it. Did the first boy sexually abuse the second boy? No. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid. What kind of retard would think that's sexual abuse? You can't honestly tell me that even you think that's sexual abuse.
Poem said:
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
Click to expand...
No.
 
Poem said:
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking
proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
Click to expand...
That "proper" is doing a lot of work.

As to 3 - what about condoms? My brother and I found my parents stash of condoms when we were young, we had great fun with them. We used them as water bombs, could drop them from the kitchen roof onto unsuspecting folk passing by. We got in trouble when my parents found out - well not really trouble as my mother found it very amusing that we had found a use for the balloons we had found.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom