I don't believe you

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Sherapy said:

Yep.

He'd have made a great Dirty Harry.

[+Sherapy]

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

He'd have made a great Dirty Harry.

Yes, he would have.

Did you see Dead Again? Emma Thompson, Robin Williams and Kenneth Branagh.

If you get a chance watch it, I work in the house (Caregiver) it is filmed at. The house is the one Emma Thompson remembers under hypnosis/flashbacks throughout movie. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, Mr. Walker, in that fictional future they'll grow meat artificially, no actual living animal involved and there will be no stigma attached in it's consumption.  Hell, they'll even have pleasure 'droids guys like you can rape to your hearts content--you can even order extra breasts!

As I have saId, I oppose rape, and have never even slightly influenced another person to have sex with me, let alone put pressure on them.

  You simply do not get the point.

it is almost impossible that if i was born and lived  200 years ago i would feel the same way have the same values or be the same person. Thus  my present day person cannot judge my past day person or anyone else from  the past by the values ethics moralities principles or beliefs i have been allowed to evolve in my current life by the conditions and people i grew up with.   

Our present was once a fictional future, and anyone from 200 years ago who suggested that rape might one day be illegal in marriage would have been laughed a t,  because the very idea would have been incomprehensible.

  https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/blog/2013/sep/19/m********ion-laws-world-penal-code  

Alabama: illegal if it's artificial

In the US, laws vary from state to state. In 2009, the supreme court of Alabama outlawed the sale of "any device designed … primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs" in an effort to target sales of m********ion machines.

Saudi Arabia: 3 years and 300 lashes

In March 2004, a general court sentenced a teacher to three years in prison and 300 lashes for declaring that m********ion (as well as homosexuality, smoking and music) were permissible under Islam.

Indonesia: decapitation

Most search results would have you believe that "the penalty for m********ion in Indonesia is decapitation". But hold your … er … horses! A formal query made to the secretary of information at the Indonesian embassy reveals that according to Article 281 of national law, the maximum sentence is 32 months' imprisonment.

end quote

You do realise that during the time rape in marriage was non existent, m********ion was (and in many places remains ) a criminal offence    Different folks; different strokes  

[Mr Walker]

56 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

No offense to you, but I will let Eight bits correct me if it happens to be needed. 

As he is our forum expert on the law, not you. 

 

It is not hard to be an expert on anything, after 60 plus years of study   You should be able to read and comprehend what your own sources are saying, before using them. 

[Mr Walker]

35 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Gregory Peck? He turned down the role of Dirty Harry.

And now no one but Clint Eastwood would be right in the role. (well maybe Charles Bronson)  

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

4 times is 4 times, it was looked at of the 4 cases only 1 was upheld. 

This establishes that there was a distinction and arguments being formulated between between consensual sex and rape within a marriage. 

The wheels of justice are notorious slow but they do turn the tides eventually. 

 

 

 

 

You need to study and be familiar with those other cases. 

 In one.  (Regina vs clarke)  the court said that a court order which specifically cut off sexual rights would leave the husband open to a charge of rape. 

in Regina vs miller, the husband was  found open to assault charges, but not rape, after his wife had petitioned for divorce 

In Regina vs O' Brien the wife had a preliminary decree of divorce which the court found revoked the consent given in marriage. 

[Habitat]

I wonder how Lorena Bobbit is going these days.

[+Sherapy]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I wonder how Lorena Bobbit is going these days.

She has a documentary series, you should watch it. 

[+Sherapy]

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You need to study and be familiar with those other cases. 

 In one.  (Regina vs clarke)  the court said that a court order which specifically cut off sexual rights would leave the husband open to a charge of rape. 

in Regina vs miller, the husband was  found open to assault charges, but not rape, after his wife had petitioned for divorce 

In Regina vs O' Brien the wife had a preliminary decree of divorce which the court found revoked the consent given in marriage. 

Now, your just flipping the script as they say., changing your claims, arguing against yourself now. You and I have been done posts ago with this discussion.

Moving on...

Edited April 22, 2019 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

She has a documentary series, you should watch it. 

Watch my step, lest I suffer the same fate ? 

[+Sherapy]

Just now, Habitat said:

Watch my step, lest I suffer the same fate ? 

I only watched the first episode, it is tough to watch. 

[Habitat]

40 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I only watched the first episode, it is tough to watch. 

Not really an uplifting tale, whichever way you look at it.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is not hard to be an expert on anything, after 60 plus years of study   You should be able to read and comprehend what your own sources are saying, before using them. 

First, I am not a lawyer. Second, the real difficulty here is not so much working out the history of the law as working out what in hell Mr Walker is claiming exactly. If the law makes an exception for something, then there is no such thing as the something for which the exception was made? Huh?

At any given time, there are widely recognized wrongs that are not criminalized. Further, of the things that have been criminalized, prosecutors may decide not to seek punishment for incidents of the wrongful behavior, often because the chances of prevailing before a jury are dismal.

The absence of a criminal sanction or the unlikelihood of a successful prosecution does not magically transform a wrong into a right. Conversely, the criminalization of something or the increased chance of successful prosecution from one era to the next doesn't retroactively make anything wrong that wasn't already wrong in the first place.

Consider something concrete with much lower temperature than rape. Selling, importing or manufacturing alcoholic beverages was generally legal in the United States until shortly after WW I, became almost entirely illegal at the federal level for several years, and then in the 1930's became legal again (i.e., a prerogative of the states).

It is absurd to argue that the moral character of these activities changed back and forth according to the  letter of the law. These activities weren't even the focus of what some people thought was immoral, the personal consumption of alcoholic beverages. Consumption was NOT prohibted at the federal level.. The prohibited activities were ancillary to the targeted "immoral" behavior, but other ancillary aspects (possession, gifting, even family-scale production) were not prohibited.

So, why were selling, manufactuiring and importation targeted? Because they are public acts, in contrast to private acts, like consumption, possession and gifting. Public acts are for more likely to be criminalized than private ones - not any hard and fast rule, as possession of many things is criminalized, but what is private is difficult, politically and practically, to criminalize.

We know that the toleration for alcohol consumption wasn't because of moral acceptance or myopia on the part of prohibition advocates. Reducing consumption was the very point of criminalizing whatever public aspects of alcohol culture they could criminalize, practically and politically.

In light of that, I have no idea why Mr Walker introduces the changing state of criminal law as a surrogate for what is morally wrong, or widely perceived as morally wrong. He surely has made no showing that an exception for marital rape reflected widespread moral acceptance or myopia rather than a practical and political accommodation of a sphere of privacy surrounding marital relations in general.

Edited April 22, 2019 by eight bits

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As I have saId, I oppose rape, and have never even slightly influenced another person to have sex with me, let alone put pressure on them.

  You simply do not get the point.

it is almost impossible that if i was born and lived  200 years ago i would feel the same way have the same values or be the same person. Thus  my present day person cannot judge my past day person or anyone else from  the past by the values ethics moralities principles or beliefs i have been allowed to evolve in my current life by the conditions and people i grew up with.   

Our present was once a fictional future, and anyone from 200 years ago who suggested that rape might one day be illegal in marriage would have been laughed a t,  because the very idea would have been incomprehensible.

  https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/blog/2013/sep/19/m********ion-laws-world-penal-code  

Alabama: illegal if it's artificial

In the US, laws vary from state to state. In 2009, the supreme court of Alabama outlawed the sale of "any device designed … primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs" in an effort to target sales of m********ion machines.

Saudi Arabia: 3 years and 300 lashes

In March 2004, a general court sentenced a teacher to three years in prison and 300 lashes for declaring that m********ion (as well as homosexuality, smoking and music) were permissible under Islam.

Indonesia: decapitation

Most search results would have you believe that "the penalty for m********ion in Indonesia is decapitation". But hold your … er … horses! A formal query made to the secretary of information at the Indonesian embassy reveals that according to Article 281 of national law, the maximum sentence is 32 months' imprisonment.

end quote

You do realise that during the time rape in marriage was non existent, m********ion was (and in many places remains ) a criminal offence    Different folks; different strokes  

There are a lot of things people did in the past that were not good things, were never good things, that we don't do anymore. Brutality was a fact of life and people learned to live with it until they learned better. Like the eruption of Vesuvius which buried Pompeii and Herculaneum, bad things happened in the past, awful things and there's no way to sugar coat them. People did what they did back then because they didn't know any better, but take a child from that era and give him a modern education and he could fly a space shuttle. They were no different and no better or worse than us save for behaviors they had not grown out of. We must be cognizant of the lessons of the past in order not to repeat them. Never sanction rape, murder, incest or fratricide because it was once acceptable. You come across like a man out of his time, balking at the changes in the world around him. You are--in many respects--like a Victorian man, lost in a future not his own. At least, that's the image you unwittingly project. But hey! You're not here to win a popularity contest, so no matter.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There are a lot of things people did in the past that were not good things, were never good things, that we don't do anymore. Brutality was a fact of life and people learned to live with it until they learned better. Like the eruption of Vesuvius which buried Pompeii and Herculaneum, bad things happened in the past, awful things and there's no way to sugar coat them. People did what they did back then because they didn't know any better, but take a child from that era and give him a modern education and he could fly a space shuttle. They were no different and no better or worse than us save for behaviors they had not grown out of. We must be cognizant of the lessons of the past in order not to repeat them. Never sanction rape, murder, incest or fratricide because it was once acceptable. You come across like a man out of his time, balking at the changes in the world around him. You are--in many respects--like a Victorian man, lost in a future not his own. At least, that's the image you unwittingly project. But hey! You're not here to win a popularity contest, so no matter.

Thanks to you and  Paul for articulate, well thought out counters. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Not really interested in anyone's opinion about me The y believe as the y choose. 

If you do not see the analogy between the ethics of eating an animal or raping a woman, this only illustrates the point i am making. ONE is abhorrent in modern society, the other is acceptable.

 BUT what if both become abhorrent and illegal in the future,  are you suddenly evil for eating meat, just because those future people consider you to be so .?  

Eating meat is not an acceptable practice for everyone, hence vegans, vegetarians, PETA and now laws that protect animals rights. 

I think when we can’t find a way to agree or do things that consider all involved a law on the books helps push us in a better direction, or worse. Not all laws are mindful of the bigger picture, some are politically motivated, or geared towards the sick whims of a person, such as the rape exemption law by Hale, Jim Crow comes to mind...

Which took years to get off the books p, all the while, for some who still found slavery and rape horrible.

I think that Rape qualifies as an evil, I think the same of slavery I don’t think eating meat does though, for me, and I have been a vegetarian for years. 

I own only hybrids and electric cars would I be evil to drive a gas based car, the answer is no. 

 

 

 

  

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Eating meat is not an acceptable practice for everyone, hence vegans, vegetarians, PETA and now laws that protect animals rights. 

I think when we can’t find a way to agree or do things that consider all involved a law on the books helps push us in a better direction, or worse. Not all laws are mindful of the bigger picture, some are politically motivated, or geared towards the sick whims of a person, such as the rape exemption law by Hale, Jim Crow comes to mind...

Which took years to get off the books p, all the while, for some who still found slavery and rape horrible.

I think that Rape qualifies as an evil, I think the same of slavery I don’t think eating meat does though, for me, and I have been a vegetarian for years. 

I own only hybrids and electric cars would I be evil to drive a gas based car, the answer is no. 

 

 

 

  

I leave large carbon footprints, myself-- but only four cylinders worth 

[jmccr8]

After reading the last several pages of discussion I am glad I wasn't here last night while it was all going on. Today though it seems somewhat funny like two guys clinging hopefully that they could support their flaccid stances.

jmccr8

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

After reading the last several pages of discussion I am glad I wasn't here last night while it was all going on. Today though it seems somewhat funny like two guys clinging hopefully that they could support their flaccid stances.

jmccr8

While we missed you, Hammer held down the fort and helped me immensely with his compassion and understanding. 

He brought in great points too. 

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I leave large carbon footprints, myself-- but only four cylinders worth 

And, you are not evil for it. 

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

After reading the last several pages of discussion I am glad I wasn't here last night while it was all going on. Today though it seems somewhat funny like two guys clinging hopefully that they could support their flaccid stances.

jmccr8

You could have virtue-signalled like the best of them. It is always good to have the stereotypical villains to contrast yourself against. They say even fat, ugly people have merit, if you stand next to them while having your photo taken, you appear much slimmer and more handsome than otherwise you would !

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

You could have virtue-signalled like the best of them. It is always good to have the stereotypical villains to contrast yourself against. They say even fat, ugly people have merit, if you stand next to them while having your photo taken, you appear much slimmer and more handsome than otherwise you would !

You are being snarky now.

The truth is your no advocate for rape either, regardless of any law, you might be sarcastic, but you don’t align with everything Walker says, 

Sometimes some villains get a big rush out of casting themselves in this way, sometimes it is just about the attention they get. 

 

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are being snarky now.

The truth is your no advocate for rape either, regardless of any law, you might be sarcastic, but you don’t align with everything Walker says, 

Sometimes some villains get a big rush out of casting themselves in this way, sometimes it is just about the attention they get. 

 

Walker is being a little too legalistic in his discussion of rape, and when you think of it, it is remarkable that the law took so long to recognize rape in marriage, but there have been many strange laws surrounding marriage, what was the one about the wife not being able to give evidence against her husband in any court proceedings ? All of it revolves around the idea of the wife as "property", I can recall more than one man of my acquaintance calmly announcing, in company, that if his wife left him, he'd kill her. I am still taken aback by that decades latter, probably because those people seemed quite sane and controlled. But really fit the cave-man caricature.

[+Sherapy]

16 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Walker is being a little too legalistic in his discussion of rape, and when you think of it, it is remarkable that the law took so long to recognize rape in marriage, but there have been many strange laws surrounding marriage, what was the one about the wife not being able to give evidence against her husband in any court proceedings ? All of it revolves around the idea of the wife as "property", I can recall more than one man of my acquaintance calmly announcing, in company, that if his wife left him, he'd kill her. I am still taken aback by that decades latter, probably because those people seemed quite sane and controlled. But really fit the cave-man caricature.

I came out of a background with a strong female presence, my grandmother would have knocked the p*** out of my gramps if there was any refusal to take no for an answer on any topic, let alone trying to rape her or even try to tell her there was a law she had  to obey.

Of course, my gramps was a gentle soul. 

Did you ever see “Enough” with Jennifer Lopez. 

The American girls I know take things in there own hands when it comes to an abusive rapist husband. 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I came out of a background with a strong female presence, my grandmother would have knocked the p*** out of my gramps if there was any refusal to take no for an answer on any topic, let alone trying to rape her or even try to tell her there was a law she had  to obey.

Of course, my gramps was a gentle soul. 

Did you ever see “Enough” with Jennifer Lopez. 

The American girls I know take things in there own hands when it comes to an abusive rapist husband. 

 

Times have changed, and the submissive wife has become a rarity, one hears more about "hen-pecked" husbands these days. Of course in times past, say pre-1960's, there was little way for a woman to escape a bad marriage, especially if with young children, the welfare system offered nothing. No doubt this did encourage "bad" behaviour from some men, they basically had a captive. And of course no-fault divorce has also greatly altered the picture. The past is in many ways, a foreign land, and in 50 years time, people might think today's norms outdated.