I don't believe you

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You green-blooded, inhuman...…...

Edited April 25, 2019 by Stubbly_Dooright
Dang!! Had a great Dr. McCoy gif and it wouldn’t post!!

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

This is where everything falls apart for you. 

Of course rape existed. Of course it was wrong. It was outright evil. 

It was not specifically noted as being against any particular law. 

Not the same thing. 

That's not a pardon, it's a poor excuse. An excuse for disgusting people to do disgusting things. Not being against the law does not change that. 

Rape entails force and violence. That's is always wrong. It is always evil. If one loves another, one will not do that to that person. No means no, then and now. Such a person would be horrified and demand justice if such crimes were committed against their mother or sister, yet see themselves and their victim as an exception to the standard of decency. 

This is why you are seen in such a bad light by so many for your views. You don't recognise wrong unless society does it for you. Quite frankly, it's outright disturbing that you consider a henious act that is not specified as breaking a law written for that very situation as permissable. It strikes me as akin to the narrow minded conservative fundamentals who say of God doesnt exist, why don't we rape kill pillage and plunder? 

Its honestly hard to believe one can have such a limited blinkered view. 

Well said.......

And something, that I think should be thought about. If something then is made illegal by law to not do, must mean it had to be evil and wrong to begin with, to cause it to be made illegal. 

[Golden Duck]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yup Well I thought we had discussed the Hebrew laws in depth over the last decade   Again it does not refer to rape IN marriage but the rape of a married woman by another 

The law was based on the belief  that in a city, where her cries might be heard,  a woman who did not call out for help was complicit in the sex.

However in the country no one would hear her cry and it would only endanger her Thus the two laws; for country and city rape.

And yes if you  actually read my posts i went into detail to explain that ONLY when divorce had been instigated could rape be brought against a husband because divorce negated the mutual consent written into the marriage  One other exemption was if a woman could get a court order forbidding her husband to have sex with her I detailed all 4  cases in the last few hundred years which dealt with these issues  These cases only showed that, while a marriage was in place, rape could not exist within it,  and only when the marriage was being dissolved did rape become possible between the husband and wife 

I went through the Clarence case in detail.  It confirmed that rape was not possible in marriage, although one judge had concerns 

However no one really even tested the law over those centuries because it was so clear and had legal precedence to support it  The Australian   high court in 2006 recognised that this law prevented rape occuring in marriage  but made a judgement that by the 1960s social standards had changed, to the point where the law  was no longer reasonable  

It took until the 21st century for legal opinion to alter enough to bring a successful prosecution of rape in marriage backdated to before the time when the law was actually changed  

But codification is last step in the struggle for recognition of values.

Morality doesn't just change at Royal Assent.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Golden Duck
Missing word

[Stubbly_Dooright]

44 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

On 4/24/2019 at 6:52 AM, Sherapy said:

In digging back further I found this contrary to your claim advise me “to go further back in the past and see rape was not wrong at all, except in a few special instances” ( Walker).

“Rape did not even exist as an entity within a marriage until the 1970s.  Rape is defined as  sex which is had without ( in modern law free and informed)  consent, and is thus illegal “  ( Walker).

Then I found this:

“The ancient Hebrews had many views regarding the rape of a woman, and had varying penalties for raping married and unmarried women. Where the rape occurred was also relevant to the sentence meted out for the crime. If she was a virgin at the time of the rape, and the act occurred within the city, both the woman and her assailant were viewed as culpable, and both were subject to death by stoning. If she was raped outside the city, the assailant” ordered to pay her father for the damage he had inflicted on the father's property and was forced to marry the woman. However, if the woman was a virgin and had already been engaged to someone, the assailant was not given the option to purchase her. He was stoned to death, and she was sold to whomever would have her. Yet a married woman who was raped by a stranger was always viewed as somehow responsible for her attack, and thus her husband was permitted to have her and her assailant stoned to death.” 

Yes, there was the marriage exemption law, but it was challenged as early as 1721. 

“In spite of Hale's statement on the common law, the English courts recognized that a wife could be legally separated from her husband as early as 1721, and that the husband no longer had a right to "confine" his wife if they had mutually agreed to separate.54 In the case of Popkin v. Popkin, [1794] 1 Mag. Ecc. 765, a suit by a wife for divorce a mensa et thoro5,5 the Ecclesiastical Courts of England recognized that "[t]he husband has a right to the person of his wife" but with the qualification "but not if her health is endangered,, 56 thus setting up the first exception to the marital rape exemption. There were, however, cases that also suggested exactly the opposite, holding that the husband had the right to confine his wife so long as they were married.”

 

Then in 1889 it seems that Rape within a marriage a man could considered as guilty of a crime. Walker your claim that rape was not even thought of as a crime until the 70s is not bearing out. 

“The English courts began to doubt the absolute validity of Hale's assertion on record in 1889 with the case of Regina v. Clarence.58 Although the majority still believed that "marital rape" as a crime did not exist, Justice Wills (in a separate statement, but still agreeing with the majority) stated that he did not believe that "as between married persons rape is impossible. 59 In the dissent, Justice Field stated: "The authority of Hale, C.J., on such a tter is undoubtedly as high as any can be, but no other authority is cited by him for this proposition, and I should hesitate before I adopted it. There may, I think, be many cases in which a wife may lawfully refuse intercourse, and in which, if the husband imposed it by violence, he might be guilty of a crime."' 

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1315&context=gjicl

Here's an essay from the Australian Women's History Network. It supports what Walker is saying about criminalization.

http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marital-rape/

English common law in place at the time of federation of Australia would have remained in place in until codification altered that.

It's anomolous hough that in 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 16 guarantees the rights of the individual in marriage. 

I don’t think this is the point, that the majority here is trying to get across. Despite what ‘was thought’, the very act is still wrong in itself. Given the over all attitude of women, and I feel this is mentions more than once in the link you provided, women were expected to obey, and be the property of men in their lives. I feel, there should be a point to show women pretty much had no choice to marry and who to marry. Reading how the marriage contract says you choose to have to, but women pretty much didn’t have a choice to choose not take part in marriage and the marriage contract. 

I get from the link provided, how women are looked upon, and even the over all sense of that POV in the article, shows how wrong it was to see women in this light. I think, this is being ignored in these arguments. Women, pretty much, didn’t have the choice to turn down marriage or the marriage contract. And even if they had the gall to do so, were treated disdainly and marginalized from society, as I have observed in my reading and understanding in history. I think, what should be noted, is how women were treated not as equal citizens, and that is wrong. 

So, this is more than realizing that rape is wrong, in marriage and out of it (and even then that wasn’t for the consideration of the women themselves, but for their ‘use’ as property by the men in their lives(( I think that is mentioned in the link you provided))), This is showing how wrong women are being treated wrong and evil in various aspects of society. Rape is evil, so it’s evil in marriage as well. Women were treated wrong and in varying cases evil because of them being women. This is wrong to defend something, that was added into situations, that something even bigger that should never be defended, but shamed for. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry but i have won awards for communication skills and made a highly successful living as a communicator  so i know it is not my problem.

That is some terrible reasoning, past awards are no guarantee of present or future proficiency.  This is just another piece of evidence (along with the recent and similarly terrible 'if I was wrong someone I talked to would have told me') undercutting your claims that your accuracy should be trusted when you are arguing how science can be done by just yourself without outside corroboration.

People who do have communications skills understand that you write so you are understood by your audience (and before you say it, no, your arguments are not too technical or complex, they're just jumbled).  You on the other hand start countless replies here with 'you misunderstand my point' which should be an indication about how proficient your communication isn't.  I and everyone else here can understand what Sherapy and most other people here say, she communicates clearly and efficiently.  You on the other hand tend to babble and bounce all around to irrelevant topics and contradict yourself.   As I just pointed out you just said how this has nothing to do with laws yet you've mentioned them I think daily now as if your argument does have something to do with it.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There are two problems Some people are not educated in history sociology or law, either formally or through wide reading,  and have odd beliefs about the past  Others simply refuse to accept that the past was as it ism and people  were as the y were.

No, neither of those are problems, it's more indicative of an emotional need to think you are superior to others.  This thread has grown too fast for me to find what eightbits phrased well recently, but essentially you really struggle with the idea that someone who knows as much or more than you about what we are talking about can legitimately and logically come to a valid but different conclusion than you, and it's not because of any deficiency in their education or knowledge.  Demonstrate first with a good argument why someone is wrong, then we can worry about what issues they may have that led them to their wrong conclusion.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't think that is a difficult concpet to get, but many seem to honestly struggle with it  There actually ARE no absolute moralities or ethics. ALL of them are human constructs which we build to be suited to our own society time and place. Right and wrong thus change over time  as circumstances change  

Quote where someone said they think there are 'absolute' ethics, it's not a necessary conclusion or implication of anything anyone has said.  Again, why do you get to say that things are wrong, why isn't that similarly indicative that you think there are absolute moralities?

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You see you believe  MODERN concepts to be right.

You're not doing too well at demonstrating that you understand what you believe, I'd focus on that before making guesses about what I believe.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That concept  simply did not exist in many past societies Indeed women were property and chattels 

You see this as wrong, but no one back then did.

Nonsense.  How do you know 'no one' understood the wrongs of marital rape?  Yes, lots of women were treated as property, which logically means that their voices and thoughts and objections are mostly absent from the evidence we have today.  Your understanding of history seems to have some glaring holes in it if you don't comprehend you are basing your overall views on how historical people viewed their society by the word of the people doing the oppressing, since the views of the oppressed were rarely recorded or freely expressed.

[+Sherapy]

52 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If I may, (being a Trekkie myself), the fictional Vulcan race is interesting, but because of the many series and years into the franchise Vulcans are more explored than as the ‘unfeeling’ beings they were originally were thought of to be and portrayed. (And note the Spock character is half-human, and the exploration of the war inside him is explored and probably a closer to it in the movies) If I could use another Vulcan character to express something, emotions and feelings have their place, and what could be thought of of characters originally thought of as unemotional, is more of true feelings assuming they are controlled, but are there nevertheless. And the intent to control, having their own issues with it. Taking what the character T’Pol Says to Commander Tucker Say in part of this clip of “Enterprise”  shows how emotions can have their part, and it’s not always ‘sunny’ on the other side of the fence. I have seen varying fictional shows that show the emotional individual, lots of times ‘save the day’ over the unemotional intellectuals from time to time. In real life, from my standpoint and experience, a steady control of release of emotions can also have a positive effect in lots of ways. Point out, that I said ‘a steady control’   

Spock’s half-nature is probably a good lesson in learning, that when you embrace both sides, and use it in a way that is controlable yet is exercised, one can learn from that, I think. Intelligence, well........ if used unfeelingly, can have it’s dangerous aspects, in my opinion. 

Thank you for explaining Spock. What you said

 makes sense. 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Here's an essay from the Australian Women's History Network. It supports what Walker is saying about criminalization.

http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marital-rape/

English common law in place at the time of federation of Australia would have remained in place in until codification altered that.

It's anomolous hough that in 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 16 guarantees the rights of the individual in marriage. 

Thanks GD,  my source covers the marital exemption law, I am not disputing there was a law. I don't think MW established that Rape was not thought of as wrong by some. He is insisting that iy was acceptable, not even a thought, who we haven't heard  from is from the women, yet that there were some cases brought forward is grounds for me to think some wives might have not liked being raped and sought to do something to change it.

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

38 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Nonsense.  How do you know 'no one' understood the wrongs of marital rape?  Yes, lots of women were treated as property, which logically means that their voices and thoughts and objections are mostly absent from the evidence we have today.  Your understanding of history seems to have some glaring holes in it if you don't comprehend you are basing your overall views on how historical people viewed their society by the word of the people doing the oppressing, since the views of the oppressed were rarely recorded or freely expressed.

Good point, I feel.  

And, I think this line was on the mark: 

Quote

Yes, lots of women wee treated as property, which logically means that their voices and thoughts and objections are mostly absent from the evidence we have today. 

In which, should be noted within the context of these recent debated topic. So, how can it be generally assumed that every one that it was correct, when you actually didn’t hear from everyone. 

And I would think, that a lot of men, loved ones from women, who were also in agreement of seeing these mistreatments as wrong but would be discouraged to speak up due to fear of backlash, more than likely. 

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Oh trust me! I am sure I will find an example of where you do. Lol 

Hi Sherapy

When I started in this part of the forum he was talking about nuking whole cultural groups but that may be one way of behavior correction for him.

But of course, he would be loving and a gentleman while doing it.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

God laid  out the rules and told them the consequences of breaking the rules  

Well maybe he should have written them down someplace for them to review occasionally they were kinda busy naming all the plants and animals and if none of the plants had names when he laid out the rule how would they know what an apple tree was? 

I can hear John Waynes voice as he says "Well pilgrim I'm gonna tell ya and I'm gonna tell it once"

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As I've said before, both my parents and hers were married for over 60 years, and into old age (their eighties)  so we were used to the idea of a marriage that did not include sex, yet was loving and meaningful . 

So was everyone in both families adopted.

jmccr8

[Golden Duck]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Thanks GD,  my source covers the marital exemption law, I am not disputing there was a law. I don't think MW established that Rape was not thought of as wrong by some. He is insisting that iy was acceptable, not even a thought, who we haven't heard  from is from the women, yet that there were some cases brought forward is grounds for me to think some wives might have not liked being raped and sought to do something to change it.

 

Probably a more interesting question is why it took so long, particularly in Australia. Herbert Evatt was President of the UN General Assembly in 1948. I wonder whether,  or not, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should've have led to earlier change.

It would be interesting to know the backstory of those cases you cited. 

It's not entirely relevant but this discussion reminds of Bond's actions in Ian Fleming's The Spy Who Loved Me. I only read it about 10 years ago; but, yeah James Bond definitely was a sexual predator in that novel.

[Jodie.Lynne]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

This is why you are seen in such a bad light by so many for your views. You don't recognise wrong unless society does it for you.

Exactly.

There is such a thing as 'civil disobedience', wherein one opposes what they feel is an unfair, or unjust law. Rosa Parks leaps to mind.

But many people seem to think that if there is no law AGAINST something, then it is morally acceptable.

[+Sherapy]

28 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Probably a more interesting question is why it took so long, particularly in Australia. Herbert Evatt was President of the UN General Assembly in 1948. I wonder whether,  or not, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should've have led to earlier change.

It would be interesting to know the backstory of those cases you cited. 

It's not entirely relevant but this discussion reminds of Bond's actions in Ian Fleming's The Spy Who Loved Me. I only read it about 10 years ago; but, yeah James Bond definitely was a sexual predator in that novel.

Indeed, excellent question.

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Exactly.

There is such a thing as 'civil disobedience', wherein one opposes what they feel is an unfair, or unjust law. Rosa Parks leaps to mind.

But many people seem to think that if there is no law AGAINST something, then it is morally acceptable.

Well Walker does, and he can’t bear to pass judgement on the rapists of the past, because they didn’t know better, yet Hale knew enough to craft a law that gave men the freedom to rape as they saw fit. 

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Exactly.

There is such a thing as 'civil disobedience', wherein one opposes what they feel is an unfair, or unjust law. Rosa Parks leaps to mind.

But many people seem to think that if there is no law AGAINST something, then it is morally acceptable.

Well Walker does, and he can’t bear to pass judgement on the rapists of the past, because they didn’t know better, yet Hale knew enough to craft a law that gave men the freedom to rape as they saw fit. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Well Walker does, and he can’t bear to pass judgement on the rapists of the past, because they didn’t know better, yet Hale knew enough to craft a law that gave men the freedom to rape as they saw fit. 

I do believe, that in Walkers case, as long as there is no law prohibiting a thing, then it is A-OK by him

If there were no laws against owning people, he would be happy to have slaves.

If there were no laws against polygamy, he would have several wives (every man's fantasy: disappointing two or more women at the same time).

If there were no laws against murder, he would probably be content shooting any Aborigines crossing his land.

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, excellent question.

@Golden Duck, 

 

“This consensual account of the history of marital rape is founded on a massive historical erasure. As Parts I through IV of this Article reveal, a husband's conjugal rights became the focus of public controversy almost immediately after the first organized woman's rights movement coalesced in 1848. "Over the course of the next half century, feminists waged a vig- orous, public, and extraordinarily frank campaign against a man's right to forced sex in marriage. This nineteenth-century debate over marital rape constitutes a powerful historical record that deserves to be examined in its own right. It also provides a useful framework from which to assess and understand the course of the modem debate over the exemption” (Jill Elaine Hasday, "Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape," 88 California Law Review 1373 (2000). Clearly, the female voice hasn’t been considered. 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

On 4/24/2019 at 2:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

Not sure what you are saying here My parents and my teachers were morally and ethically correct to punish me for wrong behaviours, even though the  teachers sometimes made mistakes.

Y your father was very difernt to mine and thus you formed a difernt opinion on the whole issue. i was treated with fairness and justice. it sounds like you were not  

So you are problaly right to feel it was unjust and resent it. i just loved my parents   more for instilling discipline, understanding of consequence,  a sense of justice consequences and fairness, and other good habits in me and loving me enough to punish me for wrong doing, even when it hurt them to have to do so.  

In my case no harm no foul, and i would have suffered more  if i was NOT disciplined and taught consequences and to obey rules.  

Ive had a good to brilliant life, largely because of who i am and how i behave, and that is all down to good parenting 

To borrow from Paul, only a person who can’t judge childhood violence lives under it and goes on to advocate for it. 

What did you do wrong besides be an appropriately dumb kid who didn’t know any better? 

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing/judging obvious harmful behavior from non harmful. 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Sherapy

[psyche101]

On 4/24/2019 at 8:09 PM, Mr Walker said:

lol take your last point first That would have been  disempowering and patronising my wife, and assuming she couldn't handle a few disgruntled feminists.

Not at all. A partner stand by the other. You said they tore her apart which doesn't sound like she handled the situation at all. Rather than disempower, it's more like by standing. 

Quote

I am happy to shoot dead anyone likely  to do  my wife harm but then she is likely to beat me to it  

Gun mentality? Really? 

Quote

You should work for the UN.

They couldn't afford me. 

Quote

They  are always seeking to impose one standard of ethics and moralities on the world. Fortunately they are toothless

Like rape? 

There is only one standard when the word No comes into play. 

Quote

The world is already created and shaped by colonial and religious beliefs imposed on other  cultures  because the western colonizers thought their values were superior 

And as a result we have education, sewerage, running water, better health, liberation of minority groups etc. 

Its not all bad either. 

Quote

You have NO right to impose your own on another 

Yes I do and I will. JWs now face courts fir letting children die. That's a good thing. Ignorant people following religious rule that slaughter Offspring for offending their God and suppression of rights is very worthy of judgement. 

Perhaps you can't comprehend such when you don't even support your own wife? 

Quote

Murder is a legal entity and each society decides what is murder, and what is not. Gee some counties have half a dozen  different categories for murder  

Killing another person is pretty straightforward Walker. Either it was an accident or not. 

Quote

Some argue that every society must ban capital punishment, but i guess you don't see that as one of the superior  moral values of the modern world

Of course I do. Why wouldn't I? 

Quote

How do you feel about torturing  ( sorry, robustly  interrogating )  a terrorist who has information which could stop bombings like those in Sri Lanka,  putting them through a lot of pain and maybe even death  to save 300 lives

I am all in favour of it, but many, including the UN, would ban it   

Why wouldn't more research into truth serums be a better option? 

Quote

ps in the case i was thinking of, the husband stabbed the wife to death at a public event, because she had told him she was leaving him 

That's not honor thats jealousy IMHO. 

Quote

We have many such cases in Australia and the west. It is not just an Islamic or Indian  cultural thing. Many men kill or harm women because their honour is offended.  

We send people to jail for it. We don't condone it through religious law. 

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, Sherapy said:

This is your opinion about Genesis, it is not informed, scholarly or academic it is how you “interpret” it, it really only tells us about what you glean from the myth. 

You also think lights talk and have magical powers,...

 

 

 

 

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, but yes it is a way of interpreting it

A modern reader must look through the eyes of the original writer in order to understand  the story and its purpose This requires a lot of study of the historical period, beliefs, and culture, of the writer. It also requires academic understanding of the principles of deconstructing texts   

But never mind  It is actually one of several  academic interpretations i have encountered while studying how to deconstruct the bible 

Your last comment is disrespectful but also totally disconnected from  my academic skills training and abilty 

the current US  Secretary  of housing and urban development  (Ben Carsons) was told the exam questions for his final medical exam by angels, yet  became one of Americas top neuro surgeons  

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You green-blooded, inhuman...…...

 I like this, but actually I see humans as having a greater potential than the y demonstrate at present.

Vulcans were not naturally rational beings They became so to survive after nearly destroying their world in wars ,  and educated their young to think only logically and rationally.

While humans should retain their capacity for emotion, the y must learn to react logically, not emotionally, if we are to survive 

[psyche101]

On 4/24/2019 at 11:08 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I think, the thing with how one looks at eating meat, is an interesting conundrum. I think, in a sense, it’s actions stem from knowing a life is snuffed out to favor other’s. But, because of the need for it, I don’t think it’s a simple issue of, ‘so, that’s ok on all point of view’s’. I think, people are aware that animals die for their need. I think, they also feel a concern for it, but see no alternitive. I don’t think, that makes it alright. I think, eating meat from living animals, will be seen as a wish to not be done, due to inventativeness and technology. My point being, if there is the overall alternative that could substitute eating meat from a living being, (I know there is some now ) people could feel better they found a way around it, because that sad knowledge of what they had to was there. (If this makes sense) I really think, there has been some thought of regretting to kill to do what they felt was necessary. 

So, it’s not like in the future will see eating meat as bad, only that they probably saw it as bad then and felt helpless. (Man, I really hope I’m making sense!)

The first question vegans ask me is could you kill that animal yourself for the meat. I always say yes. I grew up on a farm. I've done it plenty of times. 

The reason I can't see eating meat as ever being seen as evil is because we are omnivores by nature. We didn't get a choice there really. It's our makeup. Lie you say, with synthetics, we are likely to find that a viable alternative one day, but I just don't see a natural function as evil in any way. 

As for pets, my dog is very spoiled. Considering pets as evil is only a PETA dream. Walkers suggestion is ridiculous. 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

 I like this, but actually I see humans as having a greater potential than the y demonstrate at present.

Vulcans were not naturally rational beings They became so to survive after nearly destroying their world in wars ,  and educated their young to think only logically and rationally.

While humans should retain their capacity for emotion, the y must learn to react logically, not emotionally, if we are to survive 

Just a line from The Wrath of Khan.

[psyche101]

On 4/25/2019 at 9:05 AM, Will Due said:

Do you think there was ever a time when rape was not considered rape?

No, not by the victim.