Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 123

Thread: Pastor Blasts Women for Lack of Modesty

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    So now we have a problem with men not respecting boundaries unless they are dictated by another man, who isn't even a party to any possible sexual encounter. Yes, that sounds like a great way of conceptualizing rape defense. Do you not see how women's autonomy isn't even being discussed in this situation, and why that should scare you? As a woman, I don't like the idea of two men negotiating over sexual access to me.
    That's a very twisted way to describe it. The woman ultimately still has autonomy and she makes the decision whether sex is allowable. The dad and the guy aren't arguing over her right to sexual self-determination. The dad is simply trying to protect her because she is his daughter and it is his duty as a parent to look out for the well-being of his daughter. It's not some kind of negotiation like you make it out to be. It's the dad vetting the guy to make sure he's a good guy because he's the girl's parents and he has a unique perspective as a grown man.

    Purity balls imply a father values the flawed concept of virginity more than the daughter, and that the dad has an interest in his daughter's sexuality. They reinforce the idea that women can only be taken advantage of, and that men can only take advantage when it comes to sex. Why are there no purity balls for sons? If a woman wants to pledge to herself not to have sex until she's emotionally and physically ready, I would have less of a problem with the model. Pledging to a father is just weird.
    Whatever. Even if it is weird, it's not wrong. Everyone is there of their own free will and volition, so why make a big deal out of it? Why do you care about those women who choose to take part in that? If you don't want to take part in that, you don't have to. Let the Christians be christians. None of what they're doing is evil or wrong. It just seems weird to you. So freaking what?

    I personally still find that sexual purity is an important concept for many people, just from my observations on social media. And you're right, I probably do generalize people in this culture, but there's no denying the harm that Elizabeth Smart's upbringing caused to her perceptions of her own rape after the fact.
    Sure, her upbringing had an effect on her. You can't fix all the parents in society. You can only help the individuals with information. If I see someone who is struggling with a loss or a traumatic event, I take steps to help them get through it. I try to help the individual by helping them help themselves, not by trying to control the thoughts that society has.

    You think you're taking part in a free market of ideas, but what you're really doing is wasting your time on something that's not going to accomplish anything. In the end, society doesn't give a $#@! about what you think because they're too busy worrying about themselves and what they do than worrying about what everyone else does and thinks like some kind of paranoid schizophrenic who can't stop thinking everyone's conspiring against them to make them hate themselves.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    This is why the distinction between Klan speeches, which have almost no impact on our culture today, versus something that is preached in countless churches all across the country, is important.
    They're not preaching to you, though. They're preaching to people who want to listen to them. Just like Klansmen, they're taking part in private gatherings that are really none of your business. What they want to teach is none of your business and it doesn't affect you. If it affects you by extension of how it affects "society," well, then everything affects everybody. I'm sorry, but you have got to be selective in what you care about. Do you focus on improving yourself or "fixing" people who don't want to be fixed until all of society aligns with your ideal world.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    It doesn't matter that he wasn't talking about rape victims. It's really simple and I don't know why you're continuing to obfuscate the point: if a woman listens to that sermon and, God forbid, is raped sometime after that, it could be likely that she will consider herself to be irreparably damaged in some way specifically because of that sermon and because of other aspects of the purity culture.
    If anyone told her that she was useless and irreparably damaged because she was raped, then shame on them, but it's still far easier to control your own response to a crisis than to try to control the society that formed the response to crisis. You're making way more complicated than it has to be. If someone is raped and they think poorly of themselves as a result, then they need help to change themselves. Never would I ever think to start blaming her culture for making her think these thoughts because I know she can reverse her behavior much more quickly than I can convince a billion other people that they should stop talking about certain things because it might make somebody think something. It's just ridiculous to think that way. Someone who relies on society for change within themselves is so hopelessly screwed that it's pointless trying to rescue them.

    That mentality is what the pastor is encouraging by linking sexual activity to filth and dirtiness, and it's the same mentality that contributed to Elizabeth Smart's tragically warped thinking after she was kidnapped and raped every day by her captor. I'm not just pulling this out of my butt here; this is how women who haven't received proper sexual advice from mentor figures tend to think, regardless of whether their "education" came from a pastor, or their parents, or some other authority figure. When a society is unable to have frank discussions about sexuality, we see these kinds of results.
    Whatever the pastor was doing, I'm sure he didn't intend to cause her to think that way. He almost certainly didn't tell her that she was literally worthless if she got raped. Nobody is that narrow-minded. She probably took what he said and came to the conclusion that rape made her worthless by herself, in which case, she needs help, not the pastor. Help the victim to change their perception because trying to change the society is not even guaranteed to work and it's pretty much pointless because you're almost certainly not going to accomplish anything. Even if you did change society, that doesn't guarantee the victim is going to change their thinking. They might have thought like that anyway. Who knows, traumatic things are known to make people think irrationally. The best response is to help the victim, not the culture and it's WAAAAY more effective. No contest.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    Nobody was even thinking about this pastor's sermon until that feminist made a video about it. Why not let private things remain private? The stuff they're saying doesn't even concern you because he's not talking to you.
    You don't know that, though. Excuse my being morbid here, but were there any rape victims or future rape victims, or virgins in that audience? Then the sermon most likely would have deeply and negatively affected them. I would certainly feel bad if there were, because I have a modicum of compassion for humanity, and I know that there is no need to degrade what can be a pleasurable experience by associating it with a zero-sum, filthy sort of behavior. The range of acceptable social behavior has certainly changed in the last few decades, and people like this pastor are about to be swept out on a tidal wave; I say good riddance to them and their harmful ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    I never said there wasn't a point to social action, but this specific kind of social action is just absurd. There are better ways to achieve what you're trying to achieve. Nobody can tell you you're worthless unless you let yourself believe them. You can control your own thoughts. It's true that people can influence you with their words and actions, but they don't control you. You make the decisions about yourself in the end. We should be focusing on helping these victims recover, not trying to make society a place where they never encounter anything offensive because it just ain't gonna happen.
    Yes, people let themselves believe they are worthless based on what other people tell them, despite your and Eleanor Roosevelt's advice. Problem is, if you say that to someone wracked with guilt over being judged on the basis of an outdated and worthless model, yet one that still has repercussions (the virginal purity one), they're not likely to react very well. Telling a rape victim, for example, that they should just get over what people have said to them and judged them for (which is essentially what you're doing) is, at the very least, an extremely insensitive move.

    What's my tactic, and the tactic of many other concerned people? Call out the sanctimonious $#@!s for being $#@!s and psychologically nettling people on the basis of horrendous understandings of biology and modern social relations. I've personally experienced ridiculous teachings and warnings about sex, and I know firsthand how guilty girls can be made to feel over even consensual sexual encounters. I don't think men experience the same thing in our culture, and that is why it'd be really useful if they'd actually take the time to listen to women when it comes to this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    Also, you cannot compare this to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Those people were actually being oppressed by an actual government, not by "society" (although that was a factor as well).
    So all the people who were barred from private establishments' real fight was against the government, and not prejudices held by private individuals? I can't really believe you're even making this argument. Lynchings, draggings and mob rule were results of governmental oppression? Blacks being blamed by a majority white population for crimes that turned out to be committed by whites was clearly all due to governmental overreach. Where does the government get the impetus for their oppression? Clearly the people in charge have to hold some sort of organic enmity towards a certain population. Oppression isn't a one-way process; it flows from the public sphere to the private one and back again. The two feed off of each other, which is why consistent libertarians are concerned with oppression that emanates from both sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    The civil rights movements made no fuss about thoughts and how people acted in their own time in private settings and gatherings. They didn't complain about these abstract notions or ideas that people held that kept them down. They were there because they faced real oppression and real rejection in society, not some abstract ideas that somehow made them unable to think for themselves.
    This is so horrifically wrong that it makes me wonder if you've actually done any research before spouting this. You don't even have to look further than the last few sections of MLK Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech to see that he was concerned with interpersonal thoughts and behaviors, and there are a wealth of other examples out there.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    Whatever the pastor was doing, I'm sure he didn't intend to cause her to think that way. He almost certainly didn't tell her that she was literally worthless if she got raped. Nobody is that narrow-minded.
    Yet you continue to claim that education would be useless. Maybe if someone would have told the idiot that his words had the potential to be psychologically damaging, he would have rethought his position. But your approach leaves no room for that possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    She probably took what he said and came to the conclusion that rape made her worthless by herself, in which case, she needs help, not the pastor.
    By the pastor's own logic: sex is akin to dirtying oneself. Rape is non-consensual sex. Therefore, rape is dirtying oneself. And the pastor doesn't need help seeing why that's a sick worldview, assuming he really had no idea what he was doing by saying that? When something someone is preaching is totally illogical and has no basis in biological fact, it might be a good thing to tell them that. It's usually really easy to destroy their arguments. Not so easy to try and tell a rape victim to change his/her thinking when clearly other people still hold certain attitudes about sex and rape.

    You know what the real issue is here? It's easier and more socially acceptable to rage against erroneous viewpoints using emotionally charged, yet completely logical arguments, such as the ones dismissive of virginity as an actual useful construct (i.e., verbally slapping the living hell out of this pastor). When trying to console a rape victim, you can't exactly yell at them to shape up and get over it (unless you are a complete turd, but it still wouldn't work). So any advice you give them is going to be more moderate in tone in the interests of preserving... normal behavior. Meanwhile, the victim now faces a choice between taking your well-meaning but moderated advice, and the intense and sometimes overwhelming feelings of guilt associated with sexual activity, even non-consensual activity. The guilt is probably going to win out most of the time. I feel bad about things I can't control all the time, and my friends and family try to talk me out of doing so, but I still will because that's the kind of person I am. One of my friends is trans and undergoes extreme, sometimes suicidal feelings of self-loathing, and no one can talk her out of feeling that way. Sometimes people's issues are that deep-seated and severe, and I'd say rape is traumatic enough to qualify. Sure, help is available, but do people really respond to help? Not always.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Someone who is going to take a relativistic position on torture has no right to take an absolutist position on a pastor saying "What happened to a girl saying I'm not going to be touched by every guy. I'm not going to walk down the aisle like a filthy dishrag."
    A moral system that says you can sometime torture innocent kids is moral but saying something that may "hurt somebody's feelings" is by definition immoral retarded. I care nothing about what someone who believes as you do has to say about morality at all. I'd rather trust my kid around a klansman.
    Where are you getting from this that I am taking an absolutist position??
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    In almost all possible cases, they would both be immoral. Same goes for this pastor's "dirty dishrag" comment. You know, maybe calling women (but not men) who have sex before marriage 'dirty dishrags' somehow results in more people being saved from eternal hell. If that is the case, maybe it's justified!

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I went back and listened to that part of the clip once more to get it right and it shows just how full of it you are. He wasn't talking about girls who have been raped. He wasn't talking about girls who simply aren't virgins. He was talking about girls who give it up to every guy they meet. Have you ever watched paternity court? It's an interesting show. They have women coming on the show trying to establish paternity who have no idea who the father might be. Sometimes there are 3 or 4 men who all had sex with her at around the same time. That's pathological. There is something dreadfully wrong with that picture. And yes there are men who have 3 or 4 different women pregnant at the same time. And if you aren't a polygamist that's pathological as well. And you say "Well why doesn't he talk about the guys?" Maybe he did. Maybe that's another clip. Typically when I've heard sermons like that each gender is addressed separately. Oh.....but playing that part would't fit into the feminist agenda of the woman who compiled the video.
    LOL At you thinking that a 5 minute clip represents the entire sermon. I would hope you would be more analytically than that.
    Selective editing on that video very well could be the case. Happens all the time. If you can find some clips of pastors coming down equally hard on men for premarital sex though, I would interested in seeing them. In my experience, I just don't see this kind of religious rebuke happening with men to the same degree that it happens with women.


    Ah. But saying "there was a day when women didn't want to let every guy touch them. They said 'I don't want to walk down the aisle as a filthy dishrag" is always immoral. I reject your definition of morality.
    Again, I am not taking an absolutist position on any action. Actions include things that you speak. These things are amoral because they depend on external context. You are still conflating actions with attitudes or ideologies.


    Rothbardian Girl saying nice things to a woman on the street you don't know is "street harassment" so forgive me for not giving any credence to what she says on this subject.
    "I think she is wrong about X, therefore she is also wrong about Y" is not a valid argument.


    Really? Well you need to educate yourself. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16882830
    Maybe I do.

    Also, if you could please address this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    All you have to do is take it down one level to see from a better angle what is going on here. Take, for example, the act of killing someone. I assume we can both imagine a scenario where killing a person is not justified, and also a second scenario where killing a person would be justified. The act of killing a person is therefore amoral, because the morality of it depends on things that are outside of the act itself. What would be inconsistent, would be to arbitrarily apply this principle to some actions but not others.
    Do you concede or contest that the act of killing a person, in and of itself, is amoral?
    Last edited by Crashland; 12-22-2014 at 12:32 AM.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    You don't know that, though. Excuse my being morbid here, but were there any rape victims or future rape victims, or virgins in that audience? Then the sermon most likely would have deeply and negatively affected them. I would certainly feel bad if there were, because I have a modicum of compassion for humanity, and I know that there is no need to degrade what can be a pleasurable experience by associating it with a zero-sum, filthy sort of behavior. The range of acceptable social behavior has certainly changed in the last few decades, and people like this pastor are about to be swept out on a tidal wave; I say good riddance to them and their harmful ways.
    I think it's far more compassionate to help people help themselves. Your idea of compassion is sick because you apparently don't think anyone can determine their own destiny. You seem to just think life is just a cruel game of how many people can stuff their thoughts into your head and you can't help it. Well, you CAN help it. Stop pretending that victims don't have any mental fortitude or self-control. They're not $#@!ing puppets.

    Yes, people let themselves believe they are worthless based on what other people tell them, despite your and Eleanor Roosevelt's advice. Problem is, if you say that to someone wracked with guilt over being judged on the basis of an outdated and worthless model, yet one that still has repercussions (the virginal purity one), they're not likely to react very well. Telling a rape victim, for example, that they should just get over what people have said to them and judged them for (which is essentially what you're doing) is, at the very least, an extremely insensitive move.
    The question isn't whether they DO let themselves believe what other people tell them. The question is whether they can help it, and I've got good news: yes, they can. If they let themselves believe what others tell them like a sponge who just soaks up everything, then that's their problem, not society's.

    I never said to tell a rape victim to "just get over it." Do you deny that people can get through something with love and support and be able to participate as a normal member of society (not as an emotionally stunted and crippled one like you seem to believe they're doomed to be) instead of just wallowing in their own sorrow? Everyone has to get over things at some point in time. We can't just be perpetual victims, and pretending like we should make society change so that people can pretend to be okay when it's really just society setting up this fake ruse so that they don't get offended is preposterous and, yes, cruel. Your ideas are cruel because they condemn people to living with guilt because somebody else told them something once a long time ago. As if people don't even have control over their own thoughts. It's the sickest $#@!ing thing I've ever heard, and the biggest myth that's ever been perpetrated that people can't think for themselves and they're beholden to almighty society for their state of mind. People change their state of mind all the time and you're here telling victims to never get over their problem and just let society sort it out for them instead of telling them that they can be independent of society and be their own person.

    What's my tactic, and the tactic of many other concerned people? Call out the sanctimonious $#@!s for being $#@!s and psychologically nettling people on the basis of horrendous understandings of biology and modern social relations. I've personally experienced ridiculous teachings and warnings about sex, and I know firsthand how guilty girls can be made to feel over even consensual sexual encounters. I don't think men experience the same thing in our culture, and that is why it'd be really useful if they'd actually take the time to listen to women when it comes to this issue.
    There is not a human soul on earth that can tell me I don't have the right to self-determination and that I am just the sum of all the things other people have told me in life, that I'm doomed to be nothing other than a collection of somebody else's thoughts and I can't change. Stop telling people they can't change. It's demonstrably false.

    So all the people who were barred from private establishments' real fight was against the government, and not prejudices held by private individuals? I can't really believe you're even making this argument. Lynchings, draggings and mob rule were results of governmental oppression? Blacks being blamed by a majority white population for crimes that turned out to be committed by whites was clearly all due to governmental overreach. Where does the government get the impetus for their oppression? Clearly the people in charge have to hold some sort of organic enmity towards a certain population. Oppression isn't a one-way process; it flows from the public sphere to the private one and back again. The two feed off of each other, which is why consistent libertarians are concerned with oppression that emanates from both sides.
    Yes, black people faced real prejudice in society, but the point is that it was real. It wasn't an abstract idea that kept them down by robbing them of their ability to think independently. It was real, it wasn't just words and thoughts and influences. It was real.

    Black people faced oppression from both society and the government, but it wasn't some imaginary unicorn of death that robbed them of their self-determination by planting insidious thoughts that they couldn't unthink. How ridiculous is that?

    This is so horrifically wrong that it makes me wonder if you've actually done any research before spouting this. You don't even have to look further than the last few sections of MLK Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech to see that he was concerned with interpersonal thoughts and behaviors, and there are a wealth of other examples out there.
    It doesn't matter. What you are saying here is just so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant responding to. If this is really what you think, that you can't control your own thoughts and that you're beholden to the influence of society, then good luck in your life because you're really gonna need it.

    The point about the CRM is that the oppression they faced was real. Women have all the rights that men have these days, and in some cases, more. The idea that we have to treat them like little fragile flowers that can't even think independently of control from outside sources is just wrong. It's just wrong and it's cruel and it's a terrible thing to tell someone who is suffering, that they have no power and that they should not deal with their problems and overcome them. That they're weak and everybody should just make it so that they can keep being weak and never help themselves. Your idea is the one that keeps women down, not mine.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Your "distinction" shows a complete lack of understanding of what I'm saying. But that's not surprising.

    Edit: You know I was going to just leave my response to a smart-ass statement, but I didn't to explain. The number of klan meetings and their influence isn't the point. If they aren't advocating public policy, then bringing attention to what they are doing only helps them spread. The people who are in the klan aren't going to be persuaded by my attack of klan videos. Instead I would be drawing attention to the very people I was trying to marginalize. Now if they were in some larger arena that would be a different story. That's why I will call out racism when I see it here at RPF. It's a larger arena.
    Agreed. In the case of the pastor's comments though, the arena is larger than you might think. I mean, you said you agreed with him right - or at least agreed that everything he said was not immoral? There are a lot of people who feel the same way. That's the larger arena.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Yet you continue to claim that education would be useless. Maybe if someone would have told the idiot that his words had the potential to be psychologically damaging, he would have rethought his position. But your approach leaves no room for that possibility.
    When did I say education would be useless? I want people to educate themselves and be able to deal with their problems as individuals. I don't want society to do it for them. And no, I don't think this guy has never been told that his ideas could be damaging. He probably faces a lot of opposition from people who disagree with him, but why rely on him changing his mind instead of telling the actual people who are affected that they have the power to control themselves and that they are not beholden to that pastor? It's as simple as that and it would be way more effective than trying to tell the pastor not to talk about what he sincerely believes in.

    By the pastor's own logic: sex is akin to dirtying oneself. Rape is non-consensual sex. Therefore, rape is dirtying oneself. And the pastor doesn't need help seeing why that's a sick worldview, assuming he really had no idea what he was doing by saying that? When something someone is preaching is totally illogical and has no basis in biological fact, it might be a good thing to tell them that. It's usually really easy to destroy their arguments. Not so easy to try and tell a rape victim to change his/her thinking when clearly other people still hold certain attitudes about sex and rape.
    What's sick is telling someone they can't help themselves and that they'll always be a victim and that it's okay to be a victim because society will never hurt you because we went and straightened society right out so that the full range of human thoughts and ideas is no longer expressed and we've now eliminated those viewpoints from the world. You're living in a fairytale.

    You know what the real issue is here? It's easier and more socially acceptable to rage against erroneous viewpoints using emotionally charged, yet completely logical arguments, such as the ones dismissive of virginity as an actual useful construct (i.e., verbally slapping the living hell out of this pastor). When trying to console a rape victim, you can't exactly yell at them to shape up and get over it (unless you are a complete turd, but it still wouldn't work). So any advice you give them is going to be more moderate in tone in the interests of preserving... normal behavior. Meanwhile, the victim now faces a choice between taking your well-meaning but moderated advice, and the intense and sometimes overwhelming feelings of guilt associated with sexual activity, even non-consensual activity. The guilt is probably going to win out most of the time. I feel bad about things I can't control all the time, and my friends and family try to talk me out of doing so, but I still will because that's the kind of person I am. One of my friends is trans and undergoes extreme, sometimes suicidal feelings of self-loathing, and no one can talk her out of feeling that way. Sometimes people's issues are that deep-seated and severe, and I'd say rape is traumatic enough to qualify. Sure, help is available, but do people really respond to help? Not always.
    When did I ever say anything about yelling at rape victims to "shape up." You are completely hyperbolizing what I said. My view is compassionate because I actually focus on dealing with the problem than allowing the victim to remain a socially and emotionally stunted shell of a human being who will never be independent because their pastor planted evil seeds in their head a long time ago. People don't always respond to help, but that doesn't mean they can't. You just can't help some people, but it's still a far better option than trying to control all of society than trying to change the way the individual sees themselves and the world. People aren't as weak and helpless as you're making them out to be.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    I think it's far more compassionate to help people help themselves. Your idea of compassion is sick because you apparently don't think anyone can determine their own destiny. You seem to just think life is just a cruel game of how many people can stuff their thoughts into your head and you can't help it. Well, you CAN help it. Stop pretending that victims don't have any mental fortitude or self-control. They're not $#@!ing puppets.
    Look, it's really not that difficult to understand. We live in a world where virginity is held up as some sort of ideal and where sex is seen as something dirty, at least by certain segments of the population; otherwise, the situation being discussed wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, people who are raped tend to feel violated not only on a physical, but psychological basis. Since rape is a traumatic event, the victims may flash back involuntarily to things mentor figures may have told them about sex, in something akin to PTSD. Thus, this is a situation in which destiny is at least partly shaped by an outside force. It's a special situation because of its gravity.

    No one here is claiming that people can't determine their own destiny in general. But the way human psychology works is that traumatic occurrences tend to imprint themselves on the brain, and certain memories become associated with those occurrences after the fact. There is much evidence for this, even a whole disorder (PTSD) devoted to describing this experience. Rape can trigger PTSD, and statements such as this pastor's can contribute to the trauma of the disorder.

    There are many ways one can overcome one's upbringing and become successful. But at present, we are not discussing those things; we are focusing on the unique characteristics of this situation and describing how at least in some cases, it's not simply a case of self-determination.

    Just because something is abstract doesn't make it less real, by the way. And no one is discussing women's political rights in this topic except for you for some unknown reason, so they are quite irrelevant to the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    When did I ever say anything about yelling at rape victims to "shape up." You are completely hyperbolizing what I said. My view is compassionate because I actually focus on dealing with the problem than allowing the victim to remain a socially and emotionally stunted shell of a human being who will never be independent because their pastor planted evil seeds in their head a long time ago. People don't always respond to help, but that doesn't mean they can't. You just can't help some people, but it's still a far better option than trying to control all of society than trying to change the way the individual sees themselves and the world. People aren't as weak and helpless as you're making them out to be.
    Once again, I don't think you actually read what people write, and that is why you tend to be so annoying. I didn't claim that you suggested yelling at rape victims to shape up; what I claimed was that your well-meaning words of encouragement for rape victims may not always end up being taken to heart, because they are necessarily "moderate" and offer no real emotional counterbalance to the intense feelings of shame that are usually associated with being a rape victim.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 12-22-2014 at 12:59 AM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Look, it's really not that difficult to understand. We live in a world where virginity is held up as some sort of ideal and where sex is seen as something dirty, at least by certain segments of the population; otherwise, the situation being discussed wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, people who are raped tend to feel violated not only on a physical, but psychological basis. Since rape is a traumatic event, the victims may flash back involuntarily to things mentor figures may have told them about sex, in something akin to PTSD. Thus, this is a situation in which destiny is at least partly shaped by an outside force. It's a special situation because of its gravity.
    Why do you care about what those certain segments of the population teach? They should be able to teach whatever they want. Even PTSD is much easier to deal with on an individual level than a societal level. You don't see people talking about how society should change itself for ACTUAL PTSD sufferers, do you? Busybodies going around telling organizations they have nothing to do with what they should teach is very statist, regardless of what you actually plan to do about it, which is apparently nothing except talk about it.

    No one here is claiming that people can't determine their own destiny in general. But the way human psychology works is that traumatic occurrences tend to imprint themselves on the brain, and certain memories become associated with those occurrences after the fact. There is much evidence for this, even a whole disorder (PTSD) devoted to describing this experience. Rape can trigger PTSD, and statements such as this pastor's can contribute to the trauma of the disorder.
    I'm aware of how it works, but it's still much more effective to deal with on an individual level. It is very possible to overcome; much more so, I would argue, than real PTSD from a war situation. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's experiences, but you want to help people integrate back into society, not the other way around. If you can't help people live with themselves and society the way it is, then I'm sorry to say you can't help them at all.

    There are many ways one can overcome one's upbringing and become successful. But at present, we are not discussing those things; we are focusing on the unique characteristics of this situation and describing how at least in some cases, it's not simply a case of self-determination.
    I am not aware of anything that people can tell you that can't be unlearned or un-believed.

    Just because something is abstract doesn't make it less real, by the way. And no one is discussing women's political rights in this topic except for you for some unknown reason, so they are quite irrelevant to the discussion.
    Yes, it does. That's what abstract means. You don't see rape sufferers getting rejected from businesses because they survived rape. In fact, society is quite accommodating to people who have suffered trauma to the extent that it is reasonable. What you're asking for is just way beyond reasonable.

    Once again, I don't think you actually read what people write, and that is why you tend to be so annoying. I didn't claim that you suggested yelling at rape victims to shape up; what I claimed was that your well-meaning words of encouragement for rape victims may not always end up being taken to heart, because they are necessarily "moderate" and offer no real emotional counterbalance to the intense feelings of shame that are usually associated with being a rape victim.
    Why do you assume that there is no emotional counterbalance? I didn't go through a treatment plan, or anything, I'm just telling you my philosophy. My method of dealing with pain and trauma can be just as sympathetic and compassionate as yours, and I think more so.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Where are you getting from this that I am taking an absolutist position??
    Okay. Maybe you aren't. So the why are you claiming the pastor's position is immoral without any consideration (other than he may be saving someone from hell and you don't believe in hell) about why it might be moral? Maybe there's been a rash of teen pregnancies in the church. Maybe he was reacting to the fact that girls as young as 12 now think its a good idea to post sexy pictures of themselves on the internet.

    Please watch:

    Now I find ^that creepy. I don't find purity pledges creepy. Note that the mom in the above video adopts the same "I don't want may daughter to be 'harmed' by being taught morality" argument that you and RothbardianGirl have taken. I wonder if she is going to feel that way if someone who's been looking at her daughter's sexy Facebook posts tracks her down and rapes her or worse. That stuff does happen. And sometimes little girls who get caught up in the "Let's explore our sexuality" mindset go even further. There was an 11 year old girl who stole thousands of dollars from her grandmother to travel across state lines to meet some grown man she had been chatting with on the Internet.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6319818.html

    Maybe, just maybe. if this girl had heard this sermon and thought "You know what? I don't want to be a dishrag on my wedding day either." she might not have stolen from her grandmother and put her own life in danger.

    Selective editing on that video very well could be the case. Happens all the time. If you can find some clips of pastors coming down equally hard on men for premarital sex though, I would interested in seeing them. In my experience, I just don't see this kind of religious rebuke happening with men to the same degree that it happens with women.
    I need to send you some sermons then. Everytime there is a "youth day" at the kinds of churches I attend the pastor is as hard on the young men as he is the young women. There's the "Pull your pants up" part of the sermons and "Stop approach young girls like they are pieces of meat" part of the sermon. In fact often pastors will tell the young women to dress modestly so that they don't attract the attention of "dog" men. I've yet to hear a sermon that puts all of the emphasis on the women.

    Again, I am not taking an absolutist position on any action. Actions include things that you speak. These things are amoral because they depend on external context. You are still conflating actions with attitudes or ideologies.
    Okay. I'll make this simple for you. You can say you hate me all day. I don't give a $#@!. If you lay your hands on me to hurt me then we have a problem. If you lay your hands on my child to hurt him we have a problem. If you say "But you don't understand. I have to kill your child to save 1 million people", sorry, we have a problem. For you to all that "emotional" is just ridiculous. We are not ants or pieces of coral or part of any other "collective" where one member of the collective can be moral justified to sacrifice some other member of the collective for the "greater good." Libertarianism rejects collectivism and embraces freedom of thought and freedom of speech and individual liberty. Is it a good think not to say mean things? Yes. But to come down hard on thoughts and words while excusing evil acts based on a "greater good" argument is something that I flatly reject.


    "I think she is wrong about X, therefore she is also wrong about Y" is not a valid argument.
    You referencing RothbardianGirl as some kind of authority is what is not a valid argument.

    Maybe I do.

    Also, if you could please address this:


    Do you concede or contest that the act of killing a person, in and of itself, is amoral?
    I've never said that killing is always immoral. I said killing an innocent person against his will is always immoral! Understand? Innocent person against his will! If you kill someone who is attempting to take your life or the life of someone else, that is not immoral. If someone is dying and in pain and asks you to kill him that's not immoral either. But if you just decide "We're on this life raft without nothing to eat. The cabin boy likely won't make it. Let's kill him and eat him so we may all live." Sorry, but that's categorically immoral. That you can't see that, but you're worried about some pastor that may be saving some 11 year old girl's life with his morality, is somehow being "immoral." Sorry but your logic is lacking.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Look, it's really not that difficult to understand. We live in a world where virginity is held up as some sort of ideal and where sex is seen as something dirty, at least by certain segments of the population; otherwise, the situation being discussed wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, people who are raped tend to feel violated not only on a physical, but psychological basis. Since rape is a traumatic event, the victims may flash back involuntarily to things mentor figures may have told them about sex, in something akin to PTSD. Thus, this is a situation in which destiny is at least partly shaped by an outside force. It's a special situation because of its gravity.
    Bolllocks. First off the pastor was not saying that sex itself was dirty. He was talking about premarital sex. And specifically he was talking about women who "let every guy touch them." And if he's like most pastors I've seen give sermons like that, he turned around and said something similar to the guys. There are all kinds of sermons these days telling guys to stop watching porn and don't go lay down with every woman that opens her legs to you. As for society in general, it glamorizes sex, even to young children, and it berates virginity.




    We live in a world where the majority of the population looks at sex as a recreational pastime and as a result children are getting involved in things they can't handle. Girls and boys are sexting, stealing from their family and traveling across country to meet strangers, and engaging in all kinds of other reckless behavior. One segment of the population sees this and gets alarmed and pushes back. You and other feminists get bent out of shape from a selected portion of a sermon and you misquote what was actually said.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 12-22-2014 at 09:44 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Bolllocks. First off the pastor was not saying that sex itself was dirty. He was talking about premarital sex
    So the pastor was associating sex outside of marriage with dirtiness. Yes, that's so much better! The entire point of what I've been saying thus far is that it really doesn't matter whom the pastor was targeting with his words, or what his intentions were. He could have had the best of intentions. But because he doesn't understand that his words are the kind that tend to flash through women's heads after they've been raped, as a number of actual rape survivors will attest, his advice is horrendous. In a twisted way, many cases of rape are "letting guys touch you." Elizabeth Smart let guys touch her every day because she knew fleeing would get her killed.

    The reason why people get so keyed up about what women are taught regarding sex is because the pastor's words are just one aspect of an overarching message that incentivizes women to loathe and repress their own sexualities. Again I ask where the purity balls for men are. Have you ever seen professional portraits done of girls and their fathers attending purity balls? Some of those fathers are embracing their daughters in a way that they would never embrace their sons (holding their hands over their stomach and so on). The whole thing resembles guardianship over genitals instead of a genuine desire to ensure that daughters approach sexuality in healthy ways.

    As for your other complaints, people have done stupid $#@! when it comes to sex throughout history. Sex was just as much of a recreational pastime decades ago, it just tended to be driven underground and expressed in different, sometimes unhealthy ways. You cannot blame feminism for deviant behavior.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    So the pastor was associating sex outside of marriage with dirtiness. Yes, that's so much better!
    No. This is what he associated with dirtyness.



    Pay close attention to that video before responding. Please absorb the pain of a woman who didn't know which of 13 different men was her father. Again the pastors quote was "There was a time when women wouldn't let any man touch them." His quote, taken as it was spoken, was not talking about a woman who decided she wanted to have sex inside a committed relationship to someone she just wasn't married to yet. His quote, taken as it was spoken, was about women who would just sleep with anyone. And yes, men who just sleep with anyone leave pain in their wake as well. If we had the whole sermon we would probably see him address that.

    Edit: And watch this video as well. Check out the mother at about 3 minutes in who defends her lack of addressing her 12 year old daughter posting sexy pictures of herself on the internet by attacking the girls she knew in college having strict parents.



    If her daughter gets attacked by some creep who was following her online she will have herself in part to blame.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 12-22-2014 at 01:11 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    No. This is what he associated with dirtyness.



    Pay close attention to that video before responding. Please absorb the pain of a woman who didn't know which of 13 different men was her father. Again the pastors quote was "There was a time when women wouldn't let any man touch them." His quote, taken as it was spoken, was not talking about a woman who decided she wanted to have sex inside a committed relationship to someone she just wasn't married to yet. His quote, taken as it was spoken, was about women who would just sleep with anyone. And yes, men who just sleep with anyone leave pain in their wake as well. If we had the whole sermon we would probably see him address that.
    Doesn't matter. The danger with moralizing rhetoric like that is that it may be construed different ways by different people. A future rape victim is going to interpret that statement after the fact differently from someone else who may think it's sound advice. Furthermore, what's wrong with women enjoying sex outside of a relationship? Absolutely nothing. Some women derive pleasure from casual sex and aren't interested in a relationship. Maybe they're busy professionals or college students, and that makes them somehow inferior and dirty? I'd be interested in seeing the pastor talk about sex for males being an experience where the man loses some value of his that can never be recovered, or one in which the man is comparable to chewed-up gum or a dirty rag. I would bet money that the rhetoric used is different, because these people hold stereotypes about male and female sexual experiences.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Doesn't matter.
    Correction. To you it doesn't matter. But you are a biased radical feminist. So of course the pain caused by women being "free with their sexuality" to their own children doesn't matter. The fact that little girls are putting themselves in danger of being raped by emulating this behavior and posting sexy pictures of themselves online, all the while encouraged by their doting feminist mothers, doesn't matter to you either. All you care about is pushing your unproven thesis that purity pledges hurt rape victims. Your agenda is showing.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The fact that little girls are putting themselves in danger of being raped by emulating this behavior and posting sexy pictures of themselves online, all the while encouraged by their doting feminist mothers,
    Talk about unproven theses! Where's your proof that the mothers of these girls who choose to do such things are either doting or feminist, or both? By the way, no critique of old-fashioned lonely hearts clubs while we're at it? You seem to be suggesting that risky sexual behavior is somehow a new or rapidly growing trend. Are strippers at danger of being raped in their provocative outfits? I mean sure, there are bouncers, but they can't possibly monitor everything, and the men interacting with strippers aren't physically restrained. Rapists commit rape for several reasons: they wish to feel powerful, they become aroused by violence and sex, and/or they misread cues. But rapists will misread cues regardless of a woman's dress. They typically believe that men are naturally aggressive and women are naturally passive. So they'll split women into "good girls" and "bad girls," and they'll say that bad girls are "asking for it" because they'll do things like smile, make eye contact, and maybe show a little skin. But instead of talking about the eye contact or the smiling being come-ons, the blame is only ever laid on women's dress. Covering up doesn't protect a person from rape, because most rapists really couldn't give less of a $#@! about cues. Women better not smile, either, because that sort of behavior is also interpreted as a cue. And you're left wondering why women often seem unfriendly in public.

    I recognize that my assertions about purity pledges aren't provable beyond all shadow of a doubt. But I'm a woman who was raised in, rather than an explicit "purity culture", one that simply didn't discuss sex. The topic wasn't ever spoken about in my household in a serious manner, and so I had to learn to navigate this all for myself. I felt intense guilt after my first sexual encounter, which despite the guilty feelings was a consensual one. I trace my guilt to, among other things, my parents just kind of assuming I'd be fine and not giving me any solid advice on how to handle sexual feelings. Taking my personal experiences with the ones that Elizabeth Smart and others have described has made me suspect that upbringing plays a large role in how people handle sexual activity, and that purity culture rhetoric treads very dangerous ground. It's not a point of view that incorporates factual views of virginity or female sexuality.

    I find it actually kind of sad that you're continuing to discredit Elizabeth Smart,an actual rape victim, when one of your topics is about white progressives not taking your perspective seriously when it comes to racial issues. There are several very striking parallels, and it's rather apparent that you're too myopic to see them. It would be really nice if some men listened for once, instead of continuing to be dismissive.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 12-22-2014 at 02:05 PM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Talk about unproven theses! Where's your proof that the mothers of these girls who choose to do such things are either doting or feminist, or both?
    My proof is in one of the videos I posted for you that you obviously didn't watch even though I told you exactly where to start watching. But I'll make it even easier for you this time. Just click here: http://youtu.be/MnE8LobXoJY?t=3m15s

    The girl is 12. She has a Facebook site that she posts sexy pictures of herself. Instead of restricting her computer rights her mother, who openly says she's a feminist, pointed her finger at girls she knew in college who had conservative parents and claimed they were the "girls gone wild" and that she's trying to raise an "uninhibited empowered girl". Last time I checked Facebook didn't even let people under 13 join the site unless they lied about their age. The mom could easily shut down the Facebook site. Instead she excused the behavior.

    By the way, no critique of old-fashioned lonely hearts clubs while we're at it? You seem to be suggesting that risky sexual behavior is somehow a new or rapidly growing trend. Are strippers at danger of being raped in their provocative outfits?
    I didn't say it was new. But the ability of a 12 year old girl to put herself out sexually to the entire freaking world is new. The fact that you don't seem to be bothered by this is actually shocking to me. An 11 year old girl takes a cab from Arkansas to Florida to meet some man she met on the Internet and you aren't bothered by that? You don't think that a grown woman (she has to be at least 18 to be a legal stripper) is better able to take care of herself than an 11 or 12 year old girl? Or did you just gloss over when I pointed out the ages at issue here? The feminist bimbo from TYT who posted the initial video and is "creeped out" by "purity pledges" needs to be "creeped out" by the fact that little girls are putting sexy photos of themselves up on the Internet and traveling across country to meet strangers for God only knows what.


    I mean sure, there are bouncers, but they can't possibly monitor everything, and the men interacting with strippers aren't physically restrained. Rapists commit rape for several reasons: they wish to feel powerful, they become aroused by violence and sex, and/or they misread cues. But rapists will misread cues regardless of a woman's dress.
    I'm talking about 11 year old girls who travel across country to meet strangers or 12 year old girls who put sexy pictures of themselves up on the net. Absolutely nothing good can come from that kind of "feminist empowerment". One of the reasons rapists rape is because they have easy victims. The sad outcome of the "I am woman hear me roar and don't say anything to me about anything I do" is that some women, now as young as 11 and 12, make themselves easy victims.

    I recognize that my assertions about purity pledges aren't provable beyond all shadow of a doubt.
    What is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt is that a 12 year old girl who's feminist mother allows her to be "empowered" by putting sexy pictures of herself up on the internet is headed for trouble. I thought feminists were against this kind of exploitation. I'm learning a lot about feminism lately and none of it is good.

    But I'm a woman who was raised in, rather than an explicit "purity culture", one that simply didn't discuss sex. The topic wasn't ever spoken about in my household in a serious manner, and so I had to learn to navigate this all for myself. I felt intense guilt after my first sexual encounter, which despite the guilty feelings was a consensual one. I trace my guilt to, among other things, my parents just kind of assuming I'd be fine and not giving me any solid advice on how to handle sexual feelings.
    Imagine the guilt if you had met some strange man on the internet at the age of 11 and he raped you. Imagine the guilt if you had been 12 and some guy that you had been flirting with and sending provocative pictures to turned out to be a total creepazoid and stalked you and raped you. Note I am not defending a man who would take advantage of an 11 or 12 year old girl. Even if the sex was "consensual" that's sick. I'm saying that a parent who allows behavior that might put her child in this kind of danger because she thinks it is "empowering" also disturbed. And this isn't about girls per se. I have boys about that same age. I don't let them have a Facebook page either. If they were posting flirty pictures on their page I would most certainly take it down. And yes, I have talked to them about sex. Many Christian parents have "the talk." And there are many good and valid reasons that have nothing to do with religion why it's better to wait until marriage before having sex and that includes virtual sex. I didn't and I regret that. I wish better for my children. For one thing it's harder to break up with someone that you've been intimate with even if you know that person is not for you. For the other, people (men especially) have a tendency to compare current lovers with past lovers. The science shows that when we are intimate with someone we release a chemical called oxytocin that tends to bond us to that person. It's not good to be bonded to every good looking person of the opposite sex (or the same sex these days) that comes along.

    Taking my personal experiences with the ones that Elizabeth Smart and others have described has made me suspect that upbringing plays a large role in how people handle sexual activity, and that purity culture rhetoric treads very dangerous ground. It's not a point of view that incorporates factual views of virginity or female sexuality.

    I find it actually kind of sad that you're continuing to discredit Elizabeth Smart,an actual rape victim, when one of your topics is about white progressives not taking your perspective seriously when it comes to racial issues. There are several very striking parallels, and it's rather apparent that you're too myopic to see them. It would be really nice if some men listened for once, instead of continuing to be dismissive.
    I find it actually sad that you want to make this about your inane comments regarding Elizabeth Smart when I haven't even addressed that. I haven't "discredited" anything she said. And you haven't actually quoted her. All you have done is put your infantile spin on the matter. You can't run around saying "Elizabeth Smart! Elizabeth Smart!" and think that ends all discussion.

    Really, you are like the neocon that shouts "9/11! 9/11!" as the answer to any challenge you throw at them.

    Edit: Just for the hell of it I looked up what Elizabeth Smart had to say. I find it sad that she's allowed herself to be used by people like you. Seriously, what is worse. Someone like Elizabeth Smart feeling "bad" because she's no longer a virgin or more girls getting raped in the first place? And if you don't think that an 11 year old girl traveling cross country to meet a stranger has put herself in danger of being raped, or a 12 year old girl who, with the knowledge of her feminist mother, is putting sexy pictures of herself up in the Internet is putting herself in danger than feminism has done more damage to you than I ever imagined. For the record churches can, and many churches do, support women who have been sexually victimized while at the same time supporting them. I already gave you an example of a local church that combined a Christmas pageant with a baby shower for an unwed mother. It's "sad" that in your own blindness you ignored that.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 12-22-2014 at 02:44 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I find it actually sad that you want to make this about your inane comments regarding Elizabeth Smart when I haven't even addressed that. I haven't "discredited" anything she said. And you haven't actually quoted her. All you have done is put your infantile spin on the matter. You can't run around saying "Elizabeth Smart! Elizabeth Smart!" and think that ends all discussion.
    Wrong. I quoted her here. I simply assumed you were familiar with the whole thread; my apologies. But nowhere did I spin her words; I simply cited them to build my case, that oftentimes pastors and other mentor figures (this is not unique to religion) use counterproductive methods to attempt to regulate people's sexuality. What Ms. Smart said in that quote goes far beyond "feeling bad she's no longer a virgin", by the way, as you so callously put it. Feelings of worthlessness and feeling "crushed", unwanted, dirty and filthy are not the same as simply feeling bad.

    This entire response of yours to my point has been another massive exercise of putting words in my mouth, by the way. Of course it's disturbing that young girls sometimes travel through multiple states to find strange men and that they post dangerous things and interact with possible weirdos on Facebook. Nowhere did I claim otherwise, but it's important to note that this particular thread is not about child predators. Nor does the existence of one issue trivialize another. Just because I am discussing misguided advice from authority figures does not mean that I care any less about child sexual abuse. I will point out, though, that many feminists have written extensively about the sexualization of young girls through the media. Some claim it is yet more evidence of the cultural schizophrenia which seems to dictate attitudes towards females. Be sexy, but don't be too sexy. Don't be a prude, but don't enjoy sex too much. Then good men, husband material, might not like you anymore.

    The problem with blanket-blaming feminism for everything is that it is subject to many of the same forces as libertarianism is. Your critique of this feminist justifying a 13-year-old girl engaging in risky behavior on social media is essentially like using someone who believes in the existence of reptilians, or any similarly outlandish conspiracy theory, to draw conclusions about libertarianism as a whole. Self-identified feminists say stupid $#@! all the time and so do self-identified libertarians. I personally base my feminism on an understanding of it as an academic discipline (Wendy McElroy, Voltairine de Cleyre, Charles W. Johnson, Roderick Long and Catharine MacKinnon are all noted feminists whose work I greatly admire), rather than on any representation of it in popular media. If that makes me a hated "radical feminist," then so be it. However, I will still critique people who disagree with points raised by "pop feminists" if I feel as though the disagreements come from misunderstandings of feminism, or if they are unusually vicious. That was the case in the catcalling video thread; do I actually think the video was some sort of important feminist tool? No, but I also don't agree with people who say pleasantries exchanged for the sole purpose of trying to rope a woman into a date (when the woman clearly doesn't want to be bothered) are simple pleasantries. A similar issue arose with Beyonce's "Ban Bossy" video campaign.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 12-22-2014 at 04:22 PM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Wrong. I quoted her here. I simply assumed you were familiar with the whole thread; my apologies. But nowhere did I spin her words; I simply cited them to build my case, that oftentimes pastors and other mentor figures (this is not unique to religion) use counterproductive methods to attempt to regulate people's sexuality. What Ms. Smart said in that quote goes far beyond "feeling bad she's no longer a virgin", by the way, as you so callously put it. Feelings of worthlessness and feeling "crushed", unwanted, dirty and filthy are not the same as simply feeling bad.
    My apologies for missing that. As for your silly comment that I'm being "callous", that's putting words in my mouth! And your vain attempt on trying to tie all of this to a pastor saying that women shouldn't let every man lie with them is putting words in his mouth. Really, you don't get it. I don't think you want to get it. If Elizabeth Smart is "crushed" by the words of someone who wasn't even talking about her, after all she, by definition, wasn't willingly "raped", then she has bigger problems emotionally then what some pastor said. And instead of helping her, feminists are exploiting her and that's sad. Again, there is no comparison to a women who is just sleeping with every man that comes along and a woman who has been raped. Now granted, sometimes women who have been raped end up, for whatever reason, sleeping with every man (or woman) that comes along. Women like that need help just like a drug addict needs help. Sometimes the first step to recovering is understanding that what you are doing really isn't normal. Male sex addicts have to deal with issues as well. I know from personal experience. The first step to recovery is always realizing "I don't have to live like this."

    This entire response of yours to my point has been another massive exercise of putting words in my mouth, by the way.
    Bollocks.

    Of course it's disturbing that young girls sometimes travel through multiple states to find strange men and that they post dangerous things and interact with possible weirdos on Facebook. Nowhere did I claim otherwise, but it's important to note that this particular thread is not about child predators.
    *sigh* Are you really that clueless? The issue I'm addressing is that the attitude you are promoting is the same attitude of the mom who's allowing her daughter to treat herself like a pin up model. This thread wasn't initially about rape either, but you decided to inject that into the thread based on Elizabeth Smart. If you're going to talk about how comments like what the pastor made are supposedly harmful to rape victims, then I'm going to counter with how the feminist attitude that girls should not be encouraged to be chaste is, in at least one case, opening a girl up to sexual predators.

    I made the specific point about an admitted feminist mother who is letting her 12 year old daughter open herself up to potential child predators because she feels that her little girl posting sexy pictures on the internet is "empowering" to her. Yes child predators are bad. But so is letting your daughter open herself up to them as a form of feminist empowerment! It's the "Don't say anything negative about a girl expressing her sexuality" attitude of the mother that I was pointing out.

    Here is your problem. You want people to exclusively focus on the argument the way you are putting it, but you refuse to see the other side of the coin. So the only "danger" you can see is the one coming from the men. The male pastor is bad. The male sexual predator is bad. The feminist mother that says to her daughter "Go ahead and express yourself sexually dear. Just be careful okay?" is not at all addressed in your world view. I'm not "putting words in your mouth" for addressing your hypocrisy on this issue.

    ]Nor does the existence of one issue trivialize another. Just because I am discussing misguided advice from authority figures does not mean that I care any less about child sexual abuse.
    Except YOU ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE MISGUIDED ADVICE FROM AN AUTHORITY FIGURE WHEN THE AUTHORITY FIGURE IS A FEMINIST MOTHER! Seriously! All you can think about are the "bad men." You've got nothing bad to say about the stupid $#@! mother that is setting her impressionable daughter up to be hurt by these "bad men." I'm pointing this to you so that you can address it but you refuse. This poor girl would be better off if her feminist mother got religion and began attending the pastor's church that you are hating on so much. Maybe the mom would think "Hey. Perhaps I should make her take that Facebook page down until she's at least 13." You know? Be a freaking parent?

    I will point out, though, that many feminists have written extensively about the sexualization of young girls through the media. Some claim it is yet more evidence of the cultural schizophrenia which seems to dictate attitudes towards females. Be sexy, but don't be too sexy. Don't be a prude, but don't enjoy sex too much. Then good men, husband material, might not like you anymore.
    I'm not nearly as concerned about the "media" as I am silly parents, like the mother (and wimpy father) in the video I posted who are't reigning in their prepubescent daughter because they think their daughter is somehow being "empowered." That's dangerous.

    The problem with blanket-blaming feminism for everything is that it is subject to many of the same forces as libertarianism is. Your critique of this feminist justifying a 13-year-old girl engaging in risky behavior on social media is essentially like using someone who believes in the existence of reptilians, or any similarly outlandish conspiracy theory, to draw conclusions about libertarianism as a whole.
    I wasn't talking about feminism as a whole. I'm talking about the self identified feminist mom who thought her 12 year old daughter was being "sexually empowered" and that people who advise their daughters to abstain from sex are "tamping them down" and causing the to "go wild." Really, this particular feminist is worried about "girls gone wild" in college and she has a "girl gone wild" in middle school! And it's hypocritical of you to criticize my critique of feminism when you've made a blanket critique of Christian purity. You've automatically assumed it's "all creepy" and "all hurtful to rape victims". I've repeatedly told you about churches who reach out to unwed mothers without condemnation and you just ignore that because "Elizabeth Smart said this and Elizabeth Smart said that" as if Elizabeth Smart's experience represents every experience of every girl who has attended a church that promotes sexual purity as an ideal.


    Self-identified feminists say stupid $#@! all the time and so do self-identified libertarians. I personally base my feminism on an understanding of it as an academic discipline (Wendy McElroy, Voltairine de Cleyre, Charles W. Johnson, Roderick Long and Catharine MacKinnon are all noted feminists whose work I greatly admire), rather than on any representation of it in popular media. If that makes me a hated "radical feminist," then so be it. However, I will still critique people who disagree with points raised by "pop feminists" if I feel as though the disagreements come from misunderstandings of feminism, or if they are unusually vicious. That was the case in the catcalling video thread; do I actually think the video was some sort of important feminist tool? No, but I also don't agree with people who say pleasantries exchanged for the sole purpose of trying to rope a woman into a date (when the woman clearly doesn't want to be bothered) are simple pleasantries. A similar issue arose with Beyonce's "Ban Bossy" video campaign.
    Here are my two points.

    1) The idea that it's categorically wrong to promote sexual purity as an ideal is stupid. That doesn't mean that nobody ever does it wrong. From this 5 minute video tape we cannot tell if THIS pastor did it wrong! For all you know he has a thriving ministry that reaches out to rape victims, reassures them that what happened to them is not their fault, and helps them feel the love and acceptance. And for all I know this pastor could be a pedophile himself.

    2) I believe that the irresponsible parenting by the feminist mother I referenced who is not reigning in her 12 year old daughter is directly tied to the mentality that promoting sexual purity is somehow "creepy." And her hen pecked wimp man of a husband was no better. "Oh we don't like the way our daughter dresses but we let her make up her own mind." Really? If my sons decided they wanted to wear saggy pants, gold chains and gold teeth I would tell them once they are paying their own rent they can do that. Going along with a sick society is not "making up your own mind." It's letting the media make up your mind for you. Parents should encourage their children to strive for high ideals and be their to heal the wounds when the ideals are not met. If these parents really like their daughter being an internet pin up girl and dressing like Lady Gaga, well that's on them. If they don't like it but go along with it based on some misplaced sense of feminist idealism, well that's still on them, but it's also partly the fault of feminism.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 12-22-2014 at 09:58 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #112
    As much as I am drawn to this conversation and as much as I would like to continue clashing with jmdrake and PaulConventionWV, I am going to take a little break from here for a few days, as I am traveling to go see family and what not for the holiday. Just for you jmdrake, while I am away I will make a special effort not to torture any children. Best wishes to all of you and your friends and families, and have a Merry Christmas --
    Last edited by Crashland; 12-22-2014 at 06:39 PM.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    As much as I am drawn to this conversation and as much as I would like to continue clashing with jmdrake and PaulConventionWV, I am going to take a little break from here for a few days, as I am traveling to go see family and what not for the holiday. Just for you jmdrake, while I am away I will make a special effort not to torture any children. Best wishes to all of you and your friends and families, and have a Merry Christmas --
    Merry Christmas Crashland, be safe. I saw my family for Thanksgiving. Have a great time.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    As much as I am drawn to this conversation and as much as I would like to continue clashing with jmdrake and PaulConventionWV, I am going to take a little break from here for a few days, as I am traveling to go see family and what not for the holiday. Just for you jmdrake, while I am away I will make a special effort not to torture any children. Best wishes to all of you and your friends and families, and have a Merry Christmas --
    LOL. Merry Christmas to you to. And in your honor, and RothbardianGirl's as well, I promise not to call any rape victims filthy dishrags.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    So the pastor was associating sex outside of marriage with dirtiness. Yes, that's so much better! The entire point of what I've been saying thus far is that it really doesn't matter whom the pastor was targeting with his words, or what his intentions were. He could have had the best of intentions. But because he doesn't understand that his words are the kind that tend to flash through women's heads after they've been raped, as a number of actual rape survivors will attest, his advice is horrendous. In a twisted way, many cases of rape are "letting guys touch you." Elizabeth Smart let guys touch her every day because she knew fleeing would get her killed.

    The reason why people get so keyed up about what women are taught regarding sex is because the pastor's words are just one aspect of an overarching message that incentivizes women to loathe and repress their own sexualities. Again I ask where the purity balls for men are. Have you ever seen professional portraits done of girls and their fathers attending purity balls? Some of those fathers are embracing their daughters in a way that they would never embrace their sons (holding their hands over their stomach and so on). The whole thing resembles guardianship over genitals instead of a genuine desire to ensure that daughters approach sexuality in healthy ways.

    As for your other complaints, people have done stupid $#@! when it comes to sex throughout history. Sex was just as much of a recreational pastime decades ago, it just tended to be driven underground and expressed in different, sometimes unhealthy ways. You cannot blame feminism for deviant behavior.
    Here is your problem: You assume moral authority. This pastor is wrong. I am the enlightened one. My way is best. I should not let people practice their religion in peace because I have the solution to their problem.

    I learned humility a long time ago; you know, that feeling that maybe I don't have all the answers when it comes to the unseen, the thoughts that are right and wrong to think and to mention in this world. Perhaps, on the off chance, that my opinion is wrong, I should not attempt to make everyone else believe like me and instead accept that some people are different.

    You have beliefs, but do you have principles? Better stated, do you have principles based on humility or principles based on your beliefs? We can all figure out what's right and wrong on our own time, but to try to tell others that their thoughts should not be spread in society is not just insulting, it's presumptuous and arrogant, if not conceited. To tell people that the way they raise their kids is wrong because their ideas do harm to society is like telling a Muslim that his religion needs to be eradicated because of all the harm it's done. How arrogant do you have to be to tell somebody that?

    Oh, sure, you claim to care about the victims, but what about the innocent people who you seem to forget are in no way responsible for what happened to the victims? Why shouldn't they simply be let alone? Instead, you go on a march and say that society needs to adapt to your way of thinking because you've already figured out what makes people hurt and what the root cause is of depression. You've figured it out, and the enemy is everyone who doesn't agree that their message, the core belief that they have devoted their life to, is poisonous and at least part of it should be whittled away because I know what's best for society and I know what effect your message has on the people who hear it.

    You are a statist no matter what legal action or lack thereof you advocate. You are a statist because you want to control, because you believe that it's a bad thing that people should believe differently from you even when no direct harm comes from it. The harm is the fact that you are different and that I believe your message is wrong, so now we either need to get you to shut up or convince society to shut you up because I have magically linked your words to other people's suffering and I am unshakable on this belief. I know for an absolute, irrefutable fact that what I have determined to be the root cause of suffering is this word or that word or your message and I need to stop you from saying it.

    Excuse me if I am content to let people live in peace and stop parading around like I'm the champion of the weak and that I know whose beliefs and whose message needs to be changed, fixed or altered to more closely match my own so that society isn't brought down by difference of opinion; more specifically, difference from my opinion.

    I refuse to take part in your sick society where pre-pubescent teenagers can live on forever, never knowing what the real world even looks like because all of society has censored itself so that you never grow up, so that you never adapt, so that you never thrive.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    Doesn't matter. The danger with moralizing rhetoric like that is that it may be construed different ways by different people. A future rape victim is going to interpret that statement after the fact differently from someone else who may think it's sound advice. Furthermore, what's wrong with women enjoying sex outside of a relationship? Absolutely nothing. Some women derive pleasure from casual sex and aren't interested in a relationship. Maybe they're busy professionals or college students, and that makes them somehow inferior and dirty? I'd be interested in seeing the pastor talk about sex for males being an experience where the man loses some value of his that can never be recovered, or one in which the man is comparable to chewed-up gum or a dirty rag. I would bet money that the rhetoric used is different, because these people hold stereotypes about male and female sexual experiences.
    Oh, God forbid that people form their own interpretations!

    Hey, wait a minute... doesn't making one's own interpretations suggest that one has control over one's mind? Does that not suggest that people can think or unthink any thoughts that they want to and that it's not society's responsibility when they make themselves feel bad? What a novel concept!
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  31. #117
    The problem starts when you stop focusing on the victim and the perpetrator and start focusing on ideas that simply exist in society. No longer can the blame be placed utterly and fully on the perpetrator; now it has to be shared with society as a whole for letting ideas simply exist. Laughably, some people have taken this to mean we should tell people to stop saying certain things because the very fact that they let those ideas be communicated from one thinking brain to another is causing harm.

    They start gathering in rallies over what pastors and professional speakers let out of their mouths because it's something of a thought crime to let these ideas escape from the dark recesses of your brain lest someone else adopt the idea and it do some harm. Oh, woe is me for not contemplating every single word that comes out of my mouth because it might hurt someone.

    Why don't we take this a bit farther, RothbardianGirl, and ask what things in your life you might have said that ended up hurting someone simply because they escaped from your brain? You wouldn't even know it, and yet you were the cause of someone's suffering because they listened to you.

    Or wait! Here's an idea: let's stop going on a witch hunt of ideas and let people say what they want to say and determine for ourselves whether we want to believe it or give it any credence. What happened to selectivity? You choose what's important or not and maybe you don't always think about the consequences, but it's okay because everyone is their own person and you cannot be held responsible for what someone else does with words you said.

    This idea that you can go around telling people what things they should not say while professing their beliefs because of the possibility that someone, somewhere, might take them the wrong way... is crazy. It's absolutely bat$#@! insane.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    Here is your problem: You assume moral authority. This pastor is wrong. I am the enlightened one. My way is best. I should not let people practice their religion in peace because I have the solution to their problem.
    No one said anything about impeding one's right to practice religion. Are ordinary theological disagreements not respecting one's right to practice religion, then? I mean, the goal of most of these threads in this forum category, "Peace through Religion", is to argue why one interpretation should be favored over the other... and you do not devote any time or energy to criticizing these people's senses of moral authority? One of the selling points of libertarianism is that libertarians respect morality more than other ideologies on the spectrum. Plenty of libertarians feel rightly or wrongly enlightened in comparison to their ideological foes. Imposing morality is something we all do, and I don't see a problem with it if people back it up. The pastor doesn't even have a logical foundation for his beliefs because there really isn't one given what we know about female anatomy. Our knowledge thereof completely destroys the old 'virginity' model that people in purity culture insist on defending.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    I learned humility a long time ago; you know, that feeling that maybe I don't have all the answers when it comes to the unseen, the thoughts that are right and wrong to think and to mention in this world. Perhaps, on the off chance, that my opinion is wrong, I should not attempt to make everyone else believe like me and instead accept that some people are different.
    You think you've learned humility, yet you have the absolute gall to spout the very ignorant belief that rape survivors don't experience "real" PTSD. You've convinced me - you would know exactly what to say to an acquaintance of yours, should they ever have to experience this horrible situation. Where are your medical credentials? Obviously you must be a brilliant doctor to make such a claim. The research is all out there just a quick Google search away. You're fond of discounting personal experience and simple cause-effect relationships. That's definitely not a sign of humility at all, I hate to break it to you. I'll be a little more inclined to put myself in the pastor's shoes when he's experienced some sort of trauma with which I am not familiar. I am not familiar with what rape victims go through, so I decide to read their accounts of their thought processes and experiences because I want to learn and understand. In short, I actually give a damn about people who have been broken by rapists, for whom people such as this pastor continue to offer ways of rationalizing their actions. If you can't understand why this makes rape such a devastating crime (the social aspect), there is literally no hope for you ever becoming empathetic. You're not even the least bit curious about stretching yourself just a little.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    You are a statist no matter what legal action or lack thereof you advocate. You are a statist because you want to control, because you believe that it's a bad thing that people should believe differently from you even when no direct harm comes from it.
    Yes, I like debating and I generally believe it's a bad thing when people disagree with me and harm other people in the process. You can't see the harm in this guy's words because you literally have no idea of the extent of trauma associated with rape. As I mentioned before, you couldn't even be bothered to do the simple research to find out that nearly a third of rape victims experience PTSD after the experience. You also really need to recheck your definition of statism, much like you need to recheck your definition of abstract (the phrase I really should have used is 'Just because something is abstract doesn't make it any less consequential').

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    The harm is the fact that you are different and that I believe your message is wrong, so now we either need to get you to shut up or convince society to shut you up because I have magically linked your words to other people's suffering
    Not too magical when the proof can be found in the victim's own words. The harm is the fact that he is preaching on a subject that he won't fully understand, and probably has no interest in fully understanding, because it's very likely that he will never have cause to fear this happening to him. He was raised with mistaken beliefs about female sexuality and anatomy and hasn't ever thought to challenge those beliefs because he had no reason to.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    You think you've learned humility, yet you have the absolute gall to spout the very ignorant belief that rape survivors don't experience "real" PTSD.
    Well I haven't parsed through every exchange between you and PCWV. I can say for myself that I don't doubt that rape survivors experience PTSD. But to use that as a whipping post to attack everything that might trigger PTSD as opposed to actually dealing with the PTSD is shameful. Should cities cancel fireworks displays because they might trigger PTSD in war veterans? You're not a rape victim. At least you haven't claimed to be one. You're upset, by your own words, because you've decided there's nothing wrong with casual sex and you resent those who taught you that it was wrong. Fine. But to make this about rape victims is disingenuous. Elizabeth Smart is being used and it's wrong. Further while you harp on the "dishrag" comment, you've made it clear, as did the feminist in the OP, that you're against any affirmation of sexual purity. If you're happy with your lifestyle more power to you. But to attack purity balls as "creepy" is itself creepy. If you were honestly trying to seek some middle ground that would be one thing. But so far I haven't seen that.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    No one said anything about impeding one's right to practice religion. Are ordinary theological disagreements not respecting one's right to practice religion, then? I mean, the goal of most of these threads in this forum category, "Peace through Religion", is to argue why one interpretation should be favored over the other... and you do not devote any time or energy to criticizing these people's senses of moral authority? One of the selling points of libertarianism is that libertarians respect morality more than other ideologies on the spectrum. Plenty of libertarians feel rightly or wrongly enlightened in comparison to their ideological foes. Imposing morality is something we all do, and I don't see a problem with it if people back it up. The pastor doesn't even have a logical foundation for his beliefs because there really isn't one given what we know about female anatomy. Our knowledge thereof completely destroys the old 'virginity' model that people in purity culture insist on defending.
    I said practice their religion IN PEACE. It's true that you don't want them to do certain things, right? How do you plan to go about doing that? You don't want to leave them alone even though what they do in church is really none of your business.

    You think you've learned humility, yet you have the absolute gall to spout the very ignorant belief that rape survivors don't experience "real" PTSD. You've convinced me - you would know exactly what to say to an acquaintance of yours, should they ever have to experience this horrible situation. Where are your medical credentials? Obviously you must be a brilliant doctor to make such a claim. The research is all out there just a quick Google search away. You're fond of discounting personal experience and simple cause-effect relationships. That's definitely not a sign of humility at all, I hate to break it to you. I'll be a little more inclined to put myself in the pastor's shoes when he's experienced some sort of trauma with which I am not familiar. I am not familiar with what rape victims go through, so I decide to read their accounts of their thought processes and experiences because I want to learn and understand. In short, I actually give a damn about people who have been broken by rapists, for whom people such as this pastor continue to offer ways of rationalizing their actions. If you can't understand why this makes rape such a devastating crime (the social aspect), there is literally no hope for you ever becoming empathetic. You're not even the least bit curious about stretching yourself just a little.
    All I'm asking is where is your social justice campaign for soldiers? Why aren't we trying to stop people from doing or saying things that might trigger their PTSD? Why is rape this special thing that it's taken such a grip on our society and suddenly it's the mother of all crime and people who suffer flashbacks are worse off than anyone else who suffers from traumatic experiences? There are literally hundreds of similar campaigns we could have going on to stop people from saying X because it might be a "trigger" for someone. You just never know. Instead, though, everyone's too busy trying to live normal lives in a society where nothing is guaranteed.

    Yes, I like debating and I generally believe it's a bad thing when people disagree with me and harm other people in the process. You can't see the harm in this guy's words because you literally have no idea of the extent of trauma associated with rape. As I mentioned before, you couldn't even be bothered to do the simple research to find out that nearly a third of rape victims experience PTSD after the experience. You also really need to recheck your definition of statism, much like you need to recheck your definition of abstract (the phrase I really should have used is 'Just because something is abstract doesn't make it any less consequential').
    How do you know what the harm is associated with that pastor's words? How do you know that people disagreeing with you is even causing this? Are we to assume that, because Elizabeth Smart said that, that we should then take that and apply it to all rape victims? What makes you so fervent in your belief that not only are you right, but you have the audacity to claim that your ideas are the only ones that should even exist in society? As if you could stop people from talking about whatever the hell they wanted to in their own free time to people who were willing to listen.

    Also, what makes you think you know the trauma of rape any better than I do? You said yourself you don't know what it's like, so why are YOU jumping to conclusions about it?

    My spell checker says statism isn't even a word, so what's the definition again? Oh, and then you said something about abstract does not mean inconsequential? Well, your abstract statism is just as stupid as any other statism. Your need to control what society thinks is a statist idea with or without the state.

    Not too magical when the proof can be found in the victim's own words. The harm is the fact that he is preaching on a subject that he won't fully understand, and probably has no interest in fully understanding, because it's very likely that he will never have cause to fear this happening to him. He was raised with mistaken beliefs about female sexuality and anatomy and hasn't ever thought to challenge those beliefs because he had no reason to.
    Oh, you really think he's never had any opposition on this? That all it takes is just one person walking up to him with the right idea and he will suddenly change his mind? Ha! Good luck with that.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 12-23-2014 at 08:17 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Israel paper cuts Merkel from Paris march photo for modesty
    By twomp in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2015, 07:32 PM
  2. How A Lack Of Toilets Puts India's Women At Risk Of Assault
    By enhanced_deficit in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-15-2014, 01:49 PM
  3. The Egyptian Modesty Police
    By FrankRep in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-04-2011, 06:53 AM
  4. All modesty of Narcissus Cancelled for Today. Please see
    By Douglass Bartley in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 11:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •