|
ladyboy pancake posted:Is there more to the blog post or is it just that? Schumer gave a speech recently (transcript here) where she recounted an instance in college where 18-year-old-her (who had self-esteem issues) raced to the room of a guy she liked and found him piss drunk. They attempted sex, but he kept falling asleep trying to give her head and couldn't get it up. She resolved to treat herself better.  is of the opinion that had their genders been reversed, MaleSchumer would have been scorned and jailed for rape.
Sleeping Sigma fucked around with this message at 00:28 on May 16, 2014 |
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:It's a shared blame thing, in a lot of ways. The stories of vets not sending back required paperwork is extremely common and the VA is supposed to make a few calls trying to reach them after a specific time, I get a few this week after my new glasses came in and that's not even that important. If the VA personnel were not following up with them as required by whatever SOP they fall under, then that would be their fault, but personal responsibility does play a role. You have to actually go to a VA facility for treatment, they don't just send a personal doctor to every single vet, and if you refuse to answer any mail or phone calls, blaming the bureaucracy isn't going to solve anything. As much as the GOP seems to want to believe it, the feds aren't physically forcing people to go see doctors. There is no shared responsibility in the actions that the people at these VA facilities resorted to to cover their asses. You are making it sound like the 40 reported people (so far) were responsible for their own deaths. Not sure why you decided to use this as a way to take a job at the GOP. Lemming posted:It's always a good time to leave Texas. I almost ended up there and every day I thank the great lord Satan that I didn't. It's funny, I don't understand how so many people manage to land in the lovely parts of TX. It's easy enough to avoid them.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Sleeping Sigma posted:
Uh, not to defend pigman, but a sober guy who fucks a piss-drunk woman who keeps falling asleep with his penis in her mouth is a rapist.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
karlor posted:should have made Christine Lagarde orange Without a dramatic de-rail, could anyone summarise the opinion on Legande in the US? She came to Aus and there was much fawning due to being a breath of fresh (rational) air in our current DEBT CRISIS commentary.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh, not to defend pigman, but a sober guy who fucks a piss-drunk woman who keeps falling asleep with his penis in her mouth is a rapist. That's true, but the guy in question falls completely asleep without anything too major happening (he fingered her, poked her thigh with his dick and tried to stick his "third ball" in her) and she left shortly after. I don't know, man.  I don't think she should have attempted it to begin with, but I'm not sure if enough happened to define it as rape. Sleeping Sigma fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
I got into an argument about this on Reddit, but I feel like this only counts as a rape if the person in question was taken advantage of. As in, their will was subverted, they wouldn't have done it normally and they were pushed into it by another person. As in, without the guy on hand to testify that Amy Schumer subverted his good judgment, we shouldn't be calling this a rape. Judging by the number of people who jumped down my throat on Reddit, I may or may not be starting a derail. But I don't think we, as outside observers who have no testimony from the alleged victim, can say that consent was coerced in this case. I've been too drunk and attempted things I couldn't perform, so by the same logic I could call myself a rape victim. Which is absurd, and insulting to actual rape victims. I mean, I'm not gonna join a support group or anything.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Sleeping Sigma posted:That's true, but the guy in question falls completely asleep without anything too major happening (he fingered her, poked her thigh with his dick and tried to stick his "third ball" in her) and she left shortly after. So sexual assault and attempted rape then. Well that's much better. MisterBadIdea posted:I got into an argument about this on Reddit, but I feel like this only counts as a rape if the person in question was taken advantage of. As in, their will was subverted, they wouldn't have done it normally and they were pushed into it by another person. As in, without the guy on hand to testify that Amy Schumer subverted his good judgment, we shouldn't be calling this a rape. Yeah, you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So sexual assault and attempted rape then.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
It's...questionable to define rape or sexual assault based on whether the victim complains about it in the context of a society that ruthlessly mocks and emasculates a man who admits to being assaulted by a woman. This is one of the very few areas where MRA's actually have a legitimate grievance. It's just that they're wrong about the cause of men being unable to come forward, which is really harmful gender stereotypes; and the solution, which is really feminism. VVVVV fixed (I think) thanks for pointing that out VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:22 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Yeah, I wouldn't call it rape. Sexual assault might be stretching it? But it's more accurate. My comment was sarcastic, I would definitely call it rape, but A) it would be another massive derail in 24 hours and B) I don't want to get mad because people are wrong on the internet. EDIT: VitalSigns posted:It's...questionable to define rape or sexual assault based on whether the victim complains about it in the context of a society that ruthlessly mocks and emasculates a man who admits to being assaulted by a woman. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 01:13 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:
 Will you send me the vector of the bird in case someone makes a really stupid bowling analogy and I can have it roll a strike? Would animate it so that it continues from yours if possible.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
 1 2 3
Apple Pie Hubbub fucked around with this message at 02:18 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is one of the very few areas where MRA's actually have a legitimate grievance. It's just that they're wrong about the cause, which is really harmful gender stereotypes; and the solution, which is really feminism. Probably 90% of all MRA arguments boil down to this in the end, it's how they attract people who are on the fence about gender politics and keep the true believers in line.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's...questionable to define rape or sexual assault based on whether the victim complains about it. Well, obviously. Not every rape victim will be honest about what happened to them, that's not what I mean. I mean that only the person it happened to knows whether their own consent were coerced; why would someone else know better than them?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
I like this comic a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:
I did it using frames and the rotation and lasso tools in Gimp. Don't know nothing about no fancy vectors. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Probably 90% of all MRA arguments boil down to this in the end, it's how they attract people who are on the fence about gender politics and keep the true believers in line. Yeah, its basically the "What's the Matter With Kansas" issue for gender topics. Legitimate grievances to get them in the tent, once they identify as part of the group you rally them to the extreme poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Well, obviously. Not every rape victim will be honest about what happened to them, that's not what I mean. I mean that only the person it happened to knows whether their own consent were coerced; why would someone else know better than them? Because the definition of being able to give consent is defined outside the individuals? A 9 year old can think they want to sign a contract, but they legally can't consent to the terms because they are not able to make an informed judgement. This also applies to intoxication - if you are wasted, your thinking is impaired, so your conclusion is intrinsically compromised as well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Actually, there is an interesting question there on how intoxication affects court rulings on the willingness to participate in an action. Should someone exploiting someone else while intoxicated count as coercion even if they may have volunteered if sober? And if so, does that mean that the actions of an intoxicated individual should be considered temporary insanity in the event they commit a crime?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Yeah, where did our competence go? I'd have to say it disappeared round about the time the President was playing a video at the correspondent's dinner of himself bumbling around asking in an exaggerated gee-shucks voice "Now where could those dang WMDs be???", as if he was not personally responsible for over 100 thousand deaths. Why no I can't explain why I only just now started caring about where it went. Funniest thing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:28
|
|
1
|
quote:This also applies to intoxication - if you are wasted, your thinking is impaired, so your conclusion is intrinsically compromised as well. This definition is over-inclusive and then some. People have drunk sex all the drat time, wake up the next morning not feeling victimized or traumatized or regretful, so either this isn't rape or rape isn't a very big deal. This isn't rape in the vernacular sense, and it isn't rape in the legal sense because technically it's not a crime until the conviction, which will not happen without someone who feels victimized. (And that's entirely different from decisions made by a minor, where convictions can happen regardless of the child's will.) Assuming that a drunk yes definitely means yes can be a reckless and lovely thing to do, I realize, but the standards for "rape" have to be higher than that. MisterBadIdea fucked around with this message at 01:31 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I feel like "what is rape?"is such a big and inflammatory topic that it would burn this thread to the ground and every poster who participated. Mo_Steel posted:
This is great.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Does anyone have/know where I could find a good point-by-point rebuttal to all of these?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:34
|
|
2
|
Nikaer Drekin posted:Does anyone have/know where I could find a good point-by-point rebuttal to all of these? 1. Because thats what the CIA told them initially 2. Because the GOP blocked funding for expanding security 3. On the ground in Libya bayoneting the wounded of course. 4. Rushing to drop troops into a potentially hostile environment with minimal understanding of what's going on is a really loving bad idea. Also it happened in around 30 minutes and I'm afraid we havent developed the technology to hypersonically railgun marines from place to place yet. 5. If you have a good way to find out who in this mob set a particular fire, you should let someone know because you're a CIW megabrain. e. Theres no point in rebutting them because anyone who still thinks these are actual questions won't settle for anything short of "because I despise america and will see it destroyed bismillah" paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 01:46 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:1. Because thats what the CIA told them initially
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Why did we like Bennett again?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:04
|
|
3
|
El Scotch posted:Why did we like Bennett again? Don't you loving start
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Why did we like Bennett again? Because he consistently makes good cartoons. Question answered forever. Stop posting. Rubio's pear-shaped ghost is melting, gently caress!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
majormonotone posted:Don't you loving start Crane Fist posted:Because he consistently makes good cartoons. Question answered forever. Stop posting. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Oh man you sure got us by posting verbatim a common, contentious statement that comes up every couple of pages in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:There is no shared responsibility in the actions that the people at these VA facilities resorted to to cover their asses. You are making it sound like the 40 reported people (so far) were responsible for their own deaths. Not sure why you decided to use this as a way to take a job at the GOP. I'm not talking about that specific office, I'm referring to the nationwide problem with processing disability claims and getting vets to come in for their routine appointments and even more important stuff that might be life-threatening. Not all VA's are run by people that're more concerned with covering their rear end than saving lives. Lemming posted:
The five major cities are fine and fairly liberal, hell we've got a lesbian mayor in Houston and the Castro brothers in SanAn. I was talking about our status as formerly underwater many years ago and perhaps returning there. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 03:28 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Oh man you sure got us by posting verbatim a common, contentious statement that comes up every couple of pages in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
"loving kill them already, kill 'em!" - Ramirez
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
I don't care what anyone says, when Day tries he's awesome, and I think he deserves a tweak to his description in th OP.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Jokes are incredibly illegal in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:1. Because thats what the CIA told them initially 
Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 04:17 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Oh, so selfies are okay if Uncle Sam does them, Ramirez? (seriously what the gently caress is up with this one, I can't even parse the metaphor he was trying to go for)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
6. i love death
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:6. i love death Alright, sure.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:17
|
|