White Privilege, clear cut.

[BillyCarpenter]

It is a redundant question as I support a woman right to choose what she does with her body for any reason.
Simple answer for a simple man.

This is what I like. You're a liberal that has been so thoroughly brainwashed by liberal propaganda that you really can't defend your own position and I'm about to prove it.


You say that you would never tell a woman what to do with her body/reproductive rights. Right? Right.


What if a woman wants to have an abortion in the 9th month? Just humor me. What would your position be? Or is there no limits on abortion?

PS - Limits means we're telling a woman what she can or can't do.

Ready? Go.

[BillyCarpenter]

So your’re against abortion unless the mother is in danger. What about if baby came about because the mother was a victim of rape, should she have a choice then? Or what about your very fictional “gay test” would you be for aborting gay babies?

My stance is very simple. Abortion should only be available when the life of the mother is in danger. Not because of rape or being gay. The baby can't help it if he was born gay or his mother was raped.

I can understand why some would support abortion in the case of rape but I can't support it. Ditto for the baby being gay. Let him live.

[slimslob]

Thank you so much for this reply. If someone says no, or is too drunk, or drugged, to answer, and you do it anyway, it's called RAPE, it doesn't matter where you are, or what you're wearing, or how many people you've said yes to in the past

But my question still remains valid, "What the hell did she expect to happen to her at a party at the Playboy Mansion?" No one in the news media seemed interested in asking that question. I can only wonder if the answer would not have fit the picture that the media was trying to paint.

[copier addict]

But my question still remains valid, "What the hell did she expect to happen to her at a party at the Playboy Mansion?" No one in the news media seemed interested in asking that question. I can only wonder if the answer would not have fit the picture that the media was trying to paint.

It is absolutely disgusting how far some will go to make their point. Now you are defending rape just because a "liberal" says it's bad. There is something wrong here.

[Crowfeather]

This thread is laughable.

Way too much aggressive behaviour.

Anyone just my two cents:

The differentiating factor between low and high crime rates is not Race, its a mixture of socio-economic factors, both external and internal. Internal factor for example would be culture, external factor would be police presense, or educational facilities. Boiling down something that professionals have studied for thousands of years to a single factor is dumb.

The "my body my choice" argument is dumb. It is essentially liberalism to its max which is a form of anarchy. By definition as soon as you join a society of people, there are limitations on what you and your body can and cannot do. For example, it is not in dispute in western society that specific class A drugs such as Cocaine should be illegal.

So the my body my choice argument fails. It is really not a question of your body or your choice, but instead a sliding scale of how much government control the population would prefer to have. Me personally, I think minimal government is best. When it comes to personal rights, the government should only interfere at the absolute minimum that is required for a functional society. For example the government should protect and punish someone from harm by another. It should protect free speech including protest against the government and so forth.


The my body my argument I most commonly seen in America used to argue about legalizing abortions for any reason. Its funny, because no where in Europe can you get an abortion for any reason. Abortions are either heavily restricted or/and in some cases require a specifically licensed professional. In the UK for example there must be a pressing reason for the abortion, for example birth threatens the mother's health.

Whenever, I see americans arguing about it, I usually see a lot on the republican side have the 4 exceptions to when abortion is allowed. Health, Rape etc.



White privilege doesn't exist. A person is not privileged because of the colour of their skin and even if they were it would certainly not be in white dominated societies. It is instead socio-economic factors that are much more determinent. Probably the only places you could argue that being white has its advantages is in third world countries, and in reality its not the "whiteness", but the "western" status, and the associated wealth that people believe you to have. This is born from the influence that the west has had on the rest of the world during the imperial and post imperial (rise of america) age.

I've read multiple texts now about "whiteness" and its literally just racist babble, by people who are not able to source any empircal evidence, make broad sweeping statements as if they are fact, and confuse even themselves in their own linquigistic novelties and mind bending logical leaps.



Also I don't why you get into anecdotal arguments about rape and all this other nonsense. If a woman is going to a Playboy Mansion (literally where whores go) and she ends up having sex, and then later claims she was raped, then there is a massive evidential barrier by clear nature of circumstance as to prove she is telling the truth. We operate on a innocent until proven basis in society. The burden is always on the claimant to prove what they are claiming. So it is understandable when a woman goes to a building that exists purely on the basis of sexual encounters, that people question her motives when she later makes a claim that she was raped. (edit: I read she was underaged, if she was underaged then consent laws change, so it would depend possibly on what the alleged perpetrator reasonably believed. Parents are dumb as f though if they let her go there. Like why?)


Could you imagine the response I would get if I spent 5 days texting a chick I met at a bar, we send each other nudes and other lewd material, and I invite her over to my place while my wife is out of the house, and then my wife finds out that someone was there and I tell her I was raped. It later comes out in court about our message history, previous interactions etc.
You think anyone would convict her?

[BillyCarpenter]

It is absolutely disgusting how far some will go to make their point. Now you are defending rape just because a "liberal" says it's bad. There is something wrong here.

What about all the folks that are supporting Cosby being released from prison? They're mostly black from what I call tell. Am I allowed to say that?

[BillyCarpenter]

This thread is laughable.

Way too much aggressive behaviour.

Anyone just my two cents:

The differentiating factor between low and high crime rates is not Race, its a mixture of socio-economic factors, both external and internal. Internal factor for example would be culture, external factor would be police presense, or educational facilities. Boiling down something that professionals have studied for thousands of years to a single factor is dumb.

The "my body my choice" argument is dumb. It is essentially liberalism to its max which is a form of anarchy. By definition as soon as you join a society of people, there are limitations on what you and your body can and cannot do. For example, it is not in dispute in western society that specific class A drugs such as Cocaine should be illegal.

So the my body my choice argument fails. It is really not a question of your body or your choice, but instead a sliding scale of how much government control the population would prefer to have. Me personally, I think minimal government is best. When it comes to personal rights, the government should only interfere at the absolute minimum that is required for a functional society. For example the government should protect and punish someone from harm by another. It should protect free speech including protest against the government and so forth.


The my body my argument I most commonly seen in America used to argue about legalizing abortions for any reason. Its funny, because no where in Europe can you get an abortion for any reason. Abortions are either heavily restricted or/and in some cases require a specifically licensed professional. In the UK for example there must be a pressing reason for the abortion, for example birth threatens the mother's health.

Whenever, I see americans arguing about it, I usually see a lot on the republican side have the 4 exceptions to when abortion is allowed. Health, Rape etc.



White privilege doesn't exist. A person is not privileged because of the colour of their skin and even if they were it would certainly not be in white dominated societies. It is instead socio-economic factors that are much more determinent. Probably the only places you could argue that being white has its advantages is in third world countries, and in reality its not the "whiteness", but the "western" status, and the associated wealth that people believe you to have. This is born from the influence that the west has had on the rest of the world during the imperial and post imperial (rise of america) age.

I've read multiple texts now about "whiteness" and its literally just racist babble, by people who are not able to source any empircal evidence, make broad sweeping statements as if they are fact, and confuse even themselves in their own linquigistic novelties and mind bending logical leaps.

Don't know where this dude come from but he's obviously given some thought to this. Good post.

[copier addict]

This thread is laughable.

Way too much aggressive behaviour.

Anyone just my two cents:

The differentiating factor between low and high crime rates is not Race, its a mixture of socio-economic factors, both external and internal. Internal factor for example would be culture, external factor would be police presense, or educational facilities. Boiling down something that professionals have studied for thousands of years to a single factor is dumb.

The "my body my choice" argument is dumb. It is essentially liberalism to its max which is a form of anarchy. By definition as soon as you join a society of people, there are limitations on what you and your body can and cannot do. For example, it is not in dispute in western society that specific class A drugs such as Cocaine should be illegal.

So the my body my choice argument fails. It is really not a question of your body or your choice, but instead a sliding scale of how much government control the population would prefer to have. Me personally, I think minimal government is best. When it comes to personal rights, the government should only interfere at the absolute minimum that is required for a functional society. For example the government should protect and punish someone from harm by another. It should protect free speech including protest against the government and so forth.


The my body my argument I most commonly seen in America used to argue about legalizing abortions for any reason. Its funny, because no where in Europe can you get an abortion for any reason. Abortions are either heavily restricted or/and in some cases require a specifically licensed professional. In the UK for example there must be a pressing reason for the abortion, for example birth threatens the mother's health.

Whenever, I see americans arguing about it, I usually see a lot on the republican side have the 4 exceptions to when abortion is allowed. Health, Rape etc.



White privilege doesn't exist. A person is not privileged because of the colour of their skin and even if they were it would certainly not be in white dominated societies. It is instead socio-economic factors that are much more determinent. Probably the only places you could argue that being white has its advantages is in third world countries, and in reality its not the "whiteness", but the "western" status, and the associated wealth that people believe you to have. This is born from the influence that the west has had on the rest of the world during the imperial and post imperial (rise of america) age.

I've read multiple texts now about "whiteness" and its literally just racist babble, by people who are not able to source any empircal evidence, make broad sweeping statements as if they are fact, and confuse even themselves in their own linquigistic novelties and mind bending logical leaps.



Also I don't why you get into anecdotal arguments about rape and all this other nonsense. If a woman is going to a Playboy Mansion (literally where whores go) and she ends up having sex, and then later claims she was raped, then there is a massive evidential barrier by clear nature of circumstance as to prove she is telling the truth. We operate on a innocent until proven basis in society. The burden is always on the claimant to prove what they are claiming. So it is understandable when a woman goes to a building that exists purely on the basis of sexual encounters, that people question her motives when she later makes a claim that she was raped. (edit: I read she was underaged, if she was underaged then consent laws change, so it would depend possibly on what the alleged perpetrator reasonably believed. Parents are dumb as f though if they let her go there. Like why?)


Could you imagine the response I would get if I spent 5 days texting a chick I met at a bar, we send each other nudes and other lewd material, and I invite her over to my place while my wife is out of the house, and then my wife finds out that someone was there and I tell her I was raped. It later comes out in court about our message history, previous interactions etc.
You think anyone would convict her?

You're kinda all over the place here dude. First you say people can't do whatever they want with their bodies , but then you say if a woman goes to the Playboy mansion it is perfect okay to use your body to rape her.

[Crowfeather]

You're kinda all over the place here dude. First you say people can't do whatever they want with their bodies , but then you say if a woman goes to the Playboy mansion it is perfect okay to use your body to rape her.

I see you have good english comprehension.

Also why are you working on the assumption that she got raped. She claimed she got raped. Doesn't mean what she is claiming is true. She has the burden of proof. She has to prove her claims.

Which by the sounds of it, she failed to do.


If you are going to have a discussion with someone you should at least do it in good faith. You are putting words into my mouth that contradict the point I am making in an effort to make it seem like I'm arguing something completely different, and this is very bad faith.

[copier addict]

I see you have good english comprehension.

Also why are you working on the assumption that she got raped. She claimed she got raped. Doesn't mean what she is claiming is true. She has the burden of proof. She has to prove her claims.

Which by the sounds of it, she failed to do.


If you are going to have a discussion with someone you should at least do it in good faith. You are putting words into my mouth that contradict the point I am making in an effort to make it seem like I'm arguing something completely different, and this is very bad faith.

Why are you working on the assumption that she is lying.
I am discussing in good faith. You said that just because a woman goes to a place that exists purely based on sexual encounters and claims rape she has no credibility.