Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Red2111

political meme's & lolz

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Have I ever "forcibly pinned" my wife, I have to admit I have. If you think that that is rape then I think that you no very little about how real relations work among adults.

Wives/Couples is one thing. (There's that whole bdsm world out there)

But a random date/party is where that becomes more of the issue.

 

2 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

As for bragging or glogging or notches on my belt, I was raised to believe that a gentleman should never undermine the honor of a lady and that those who brag about sexual conquests are likely making up for certain unvoiced deficiencies.

*Shrugs*
I took your post to be bragging about your prowess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But a random date/party is where that becomes more of the issue."

 

Sure but if you listen to the lyrics the couple already has an existing relationship although it may not have been consumated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 12:41 PM, Tyzack said:

 

I said I understood how, in a moderrn context, they could be viewed as racist. I didn't say they were racist, or that they were offensive. It's a productive conversation to have, though, "what can we learn from the past and apply it do today?"

 

If four people a day walk in - can you believe, 4 people a day, walking in and singing a line from Alice's Restaurant, we'd have ourselves a movement!

 

I think anyone who would make the argument that Mario is racist, even by modern standards, is getting seriously carried away.  It's important not to conflate actual racism with offensiveness, racial insensitivity, prejudice, unconscious bias, microaggression, etc.  Sure, the latter may often reflect institutional racism, but they are not in and of themselves racist, just the manifestation of common failings of human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WWWwombat said:

I would guess that Cubarey lived a lot of his life in a significantly more sex negative society than you SD.

I'm sure. He also lived in a time when sex with someone passed out drunk wasn't barely a crime.

He also lived in a time when 2 Highschool seniors dating wasn't potentially a felony sex-offender crime (17 year old & 18 year old)... You were just more likely to get shot by the parents.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things have gotten better for sure.  My point was that sex negativity really messes with the concept of consent.  If yes isn't an option, then no loses a lot of its meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He also lived in a time when 2 Highschool seniors dating wasn't potentially a felony sex-offender crime (17 year old & 18 year old)... You were just more likely to get shot by the parents."

 

Age of consent and a hardline rule has been in effect in most states since at least the 50's (Prior to that there were still very hardline rules but the age of consent in many states was as low as 13-15, so if a guy was accused of statutory rape it meant that he was likely having relations with a 14 or 5 year old and he was 21 (the common age of "adulthood" in most states prior to the 1950's)  Plus, I was born in 1960 and came of age in the 1970's, a decade after the sexual revolution. In my day if you were in your late teens and not sexually acitve most people thought there was something wrong with you. The difference is that in my day while the same consent laws existed (actually those in effect back in the 1970's and 1980's were consierably less forgiving with less exceptions then those of today) no one including the authorites actually used the laws in cases where the ages of the consenting people were close and they were both close to the age of consent.

 

 

"He also lived in a time when sex with someone passed out drunk wasn't barely a crime."

 

Dude, as I said I grew up in the 1970's sex with someone that was passed out drunk was still viewed as a serious crime (unlike today where any allegation that the woman might have been tipsy regardless that the guy was also drinking and that the woman had clearly shown consent by her actions [if not words} prior to her drinking is tantamount to a priori case of rape. Difference is that in my day people and the authorities made distinctions in situations where there obviously could be no consent and those where the intent is to allow a woman to claim nonconsent after the fact. Actually the only big difference legally is that prior to around 1980 rape was deemed as impossible in the case where the parties were married to each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

The difference is that in my day while the same consent laws existed (actually those in effect back in the 1970's and 1980's were consierably less forgiving with less exceptions then those of today) no one including the authorites actually used the laws in cases where the ages of the consenting people were close and they were both close to the age of consent.

I seem to recall within the last 18 years (Probably during the Bush Era) either an 18 or 19 year old Highschool Senior, going to jail & becoming a sex offender for having sex with his 17/16 year old highschool senior girlfriend.

The only reason it happened is because the parents filed a lawsuit when they found out. I believe age of consent was a given in this case, but they used some technicality of still a minor to make the guy a sex offender.

 

I don't believe this happened too much back in your day, specially in the 60s & 70s. Earlier than that, you were likely to get shot by parents for having sex outside of marriage.

 

11 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Dude, as I said I grew up in the 1970's sex with someone that was passed out drunk was still viewed as a serious crime (unlike today where any allegation that the woman might have been tipsy regardless that the guy was also drinking and that the woman had clearly shown consent by her actions [if not words} prior to her drinking is tantamount to a priori case of rape. Difference is that in my day people and the authorities made distinctions in situations where there obviously could be no consent and those where the intent is to allow a woman to claim nonconsent after the fact. Actually the only big difference legally is that prior to around 1980 rape was deemed as impossible in the case where the parties were married to each other. 

Eh, I'm pretty sure back in the 70s and 80s, only a few women would step forward to the police if they felt they were raped during such an occasion. Society & police were rather uncaring about it. 

Oh? You were wearing a short skirt? Must have asked for it.

Oh? You were drunk? Oh well.

How many thousands went on with their lives because society at the time would brand you as a slut/whore/liar for trying to make a rape allegation? Specially if the woman didn't come from an affluent family.

 

I'm not viewing the 60s-80s with the same rosey tinted glasses ya'll older folks do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

 

 

"Eh, I'm pretty sure back in the 70s and 80s, only a few women would step forward to the police if they felt they were raped during such an occasion. Society & police were rather uncaring about it. 

Oh? You were wearing a short skirt? Must have asked for it.

Oh? You were drunk? Oh well."

 

Dude, you have no idea of what it was like in the 70's and 80's. 

 

 

"How many thousands went on with their lives because society at the time would brand you as a slut/whore/liar for trying to make a rape allegation?"

 

Actually it was that society did not take seriously claims of rape from sluts/whores and liars! They were not deemed credible. Today the pedulum has swung to the opposite end where it does not matter who is making the allegation and under what circumstances the charge of rape is supposed to be universally accepted without an ounce of corraborating evidence because to do otherwise would be to "blame the victim".  I agree that in the past some legitimate rape charges were ignored because of the known character of the alleged victim ( but nowhere in the numbers you  believe) and that was wrong. However, today's attitude is no better an likely causes at least as many innocent men to have their lives ruined by unfounded allegations as rapes were ignored in the past.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Actually it was that society did not take seriously claims of rape from sluts/whores and liars! They were not deemed credible

Ever thought that perhaps those rape victims weren't sluts/whore to begin with? That society used that logic, to brand those victims as Sluts and Whores to make them less credible? Has that ever.. occurred to you?

 

7 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

I agree that in the past some legitimate rape charges were ignored because of the known character of the alleged victim ( but nowhere in the numbers you  believe)

It's like the black market, or illegal Aliens, we can only guess how many tens of thousands there were. I hazzard a guess the numbers are FAR greater than you believe.

 

7 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

However, today's attitude is no better an likely causes at least as many innocent men to have their lives ruined by unfounded allegations as rapes were ignored in the past.

Welp, you guy's don't care about executing potentially innocent people with the Death Penalty, so what's it matter right? Via conservative logic, It's better to put someone in prison wrongfully and get all the bad guys in prison, then to let one bad guy out. Better to make voting as hard as possible, lest one person make a fraudulent vote. 

 

There's clearly a middle ground, and the court of law helps establish innocent versus Guilty.

But that doesn't mean society isn't allowed to Ostracize people they believe did it, even if the court of law doesn't believe they did.

 

Just look at how many Conservatives still think OJ killed his wife. Ya'll ostracized the shit out of the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ever thought that perhaps those rape victims weren't sluts/whore to begin with? That society used that logic, to brand those victims as Sluts and Whores to make them less credible? Has that ever.. occurred to you?"

 

It's occured and rejected. The reason why society choose to disregrd their statements is because their known former activities rather was seen to rather seriously impune their credability. 

 

Not saying that such women were not ever raped or that society was wrong in disregarding their accusations out of hand merely pointing out that society did so due to societies' knowledge of their former conduct which caused their credability to be disregarded.

 

 

"Welp, you guy's don't care about executing potentially innocent people with the Death Penalty, so what's it matter right? Via conservative logic, It's better to put someone in prison wrongfully and get all the bad guys in prison, then to let one bad guy out. Better to make voting as hard as possible, lest one person make a fraudulent vote. "

 

Your the one who would convict men of rape without credible evidence. If anyone is disregarding the rights of the accused it is you and people like you who seem to believe that an accusation of rape is tantamount to it being a certainy.

 

 

"But that doesn't mean society isn't allowed to Ostracize people they believe did it, even if the court of law doesn't believe they did."

 

Which point also fully applies to the society and people of the past who were ostricized and whose credability was disregarded based on conducting themselves in ways which that society deemed inappropriate.

 

 

 

"Just look at how many Conservatives still think OJ killed his wife. Ya'll ostracized the shit out of the man."

 

Well if the polls are to be believed, it's not just conservatives that believe that OJ killed his wife, it's an almost universal belief fueled in large part that while he was not convicted in the criminal courts he was found responsible in civil courts. 

 

Also I no a few conservative assholes who take the view that since he was found not guilty in the criminal case he should not have been ostricized but know no liberal who takes that view. Thus, even in the case of OJ it's the liberal types that are most willing to ostricize OJ (not that I do not believe he deserves it).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CUBAREY said:

It's occured and rejected. The reason why society choose to disregrd their statements is because their known former activities rather was seen to rather seriously impune their credability. 

 

Not saying that such women were not ever raped or that society was wrong in disregarding their accusations out of hand merely pointing out that society did so due to societies' knowledge of their former conduct which caused their credability to be disregarded.

 

Yet you represent a society that deems being a rapist is more credible than someone with the allegation of being slutty/whores. To put it another way, Many rapists have claimed the victim was/is a slut/whore, thus they aren't credible. It doesn't matter if making the allegation of them being sluts/whores is true. Often it's false. But somehow, having the allegation that you were a slut makes you less credible, than the allegation of being a rapist.

 

1 hour ago, CUBAREY said:

Your the one who would convict men of rape without credible evidence. If anyone is disregarding the rights of the accused it is you and people like you who seem to believe that an accusation of rape is tantamount to it being a certainy.

Nah. I actually want crimes to be investigated thoroughly and for a court of law to decide their fate.

 

You on the other hand, want investigations squashed because it might tarnish any mans (well, Conservative men, you'd throw a liberal under a bus) reputation, and deem any and all victims as non-credible by making allegations that their character is non-credible.

 

Here's my modus operandi.

If a police officer shoots a human being. Put them on Paid leave. 

Conduct an Investigation via 3rd party to conclude whether it was justifiable or not. In-house investigations are highly scrutinized by the public, and prone to extreme bias and corruption.

 

If a rape allegation is made, take it seriously. (IF society takes rape allegations/charges seriously, we may not have to deal with 5+ year old allegations in the future, that can't really be proved.)

That's it.

Investigate, test rape kits (instead of letting them rot in storage) determine if charges can be made. based on the evidence. Don't shelve it because the mayor's kid is involved. Don't shelve it because you think she's a whore.

 

1 hour ago, CUBAREY said:

Well if the polls are to be believed, it's not just conservatives that believe that OJ killed his wife, it's an almost universal belief fueled in large part that while he was not convicted in the criminal courts he was found responsible in civil courts. 

Conservatives and whites in general.

 

Quote

Also I no a few conservative assholes who take the view that since he was found not guilty in the criminal case he should not have been ostricized

Conservative? Or actually a libertarian?

 

Quote

but know no liberal who takes that view. Thus, even in the case of OJ it's the liberal types that are most willing to ostricize OJ (not that I do not believe he deserves it).

That doesn't fit your narrative of Liberals blindly supporting things like BLM and racial identity politics.


Honestly I don't think you care about whether someone is guilty or innocent of heinous crimes. You just care if they are on your side, and if what they do hurts your side or not. And if it does, how can you protect them while they are in power long enough so that it doesn't backfire on your politics.

 

But hey, you're a lawyer, there's a reason your hated more than the Jews, Blacks, and Isis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But somehow, having the allegation that you were a slut makes you less credible, than the allegation of being a rapist."

 

First it's not an allegation of Sluttiness. whoredom is a history of it, the authorities having knowledge that someone is a prostitute naturally makes them much less ready to take an allegation of rape of that person to a jury. Same for a woman who has a history of having multiple partners, she simply is going to have a harder time of being believed on an allegation of rape.

 

 

" But somehow, having the allegation that you were a slut makes you less credible, than the allegation of being a rapist."

 

Because the allegation of being promiscuous is based on evidence offered or at least alleged and implied while the presumption that someone commiteed rape is supposed to be taken on the bare allegation of the accuser.

 

 

"You on the other hand, want investigations squashed because it might tarnish any mans (well, Conservative men, you'd throw a liberal under a bus) reputation, and deem any and all victims as non-credible by making allegations that their character is non-credible."

 

Not at all I would leave it to what the evidence would show with the proviso that when it comes to he said/she said allegations the parties former known character will have a great effect on what a jury will believe. Thus I have known prosecutors who have at the end not prosecuted a claim of rape when the victim has been a prostitute because the actual evidence was at best incidental and because of her profession the prosecutor realized that she would not be taken as a very credible witness. He actually believed that the man actually committed the alleged act but was highly dubious that a jury would convict. 

 

 

"In-house investigations are highly scrutinized by the public, and prone to extreme bias and corruption."

 

First you need multiple investigations the police are quite well equipped to do priliminary investigations to determine if their rules where violated and to give a prima facie ruling on whehter it was a good shoot or not. The prosecutors office should do an independent review of such investigation and a further more thorough investigation if questions arise. The probelm with "independent" investigations is that first they are hardly "independent as those making them have their own axe to grin often being an anti-police bias and second the fact is that both the police and prosecutors office are professionally competent to perform such an investigation and their simply is no such competence in "independent" investigations.

 

"Conservatives and whites in general."

 

Actually the polls show that a majority of blacks and other minorities also believe he was guilty with the percentage of minorities believing that increasing as time goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Conservative? Or actually a libertarian?"

 

Very definately conservatives, the type that are unapogeticly sexist.

 

"That doesn't fit your narrative of Liberals blindly supporting things like BLM and racial identity politics."

 

That's only because you do not understand "the Intersectionalist" strain in SJW's. They believe in a higherachy of victimhood. So blacks are to be believed and supported above whites but females are higher in the victomhood scale then black males so for them OJ's maleness trumps his blackness to liberals.

 

 

"But hey, you're a lawyer, there's a reason your hated more than the Jews, Blacks, and Isis."

 

Hey and from asses like yourself I take pride when I am called a Jew Lawyer! Those who tell truth to the ignorant masses are often hated.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey and from asses like yourself I take pride when I am called a Jew Lawyer! 

Nah, I wasn't calling you a jew lawyer.

I was just stating that Lawyers are more hated then ISIS, the Jews, and Blacks, even among conservatives who tend to hate all 3 of those groups the most.

 

1 hour ago, CUBAREY said:

Those who tell truth to the ignorant masses are often hated.

Kinda like why liberals are hated by all you ignorant conservatives for telling the truth?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Nah, I wasn't calling you a jew lawyer.

I was just stating that Lawyers are more hated then ISIS, the Jews, and Blacks, even among conservatives who tend to hate all 3 of those groups the most.

 

Kinda like why liberals are hated by all you ignorant conservatives for telling the truth?

 

You would not know the truth if it was shot at you with a 75 mm horowitzer!  All you know is the convenient stereotypes to thorw at those who disagree with you.

 

"Nah, I wasn't calling you a jew lawyer.

 

I did not say you were, you were just calling me a lawyer. However, the Jew part has been thrown at me by many asswipes who do not deserve the toilet papaer to have their asses wiped (and they come as often from the left as right, indeed it's a swear that is easily used by the ignorant of all types and classes.)

 

 

"Most lawyers are Jews in my neck of the woods."

 

That's not really true anywhere in the US, but I would say that you might be confused because Jews make up a significant percentage of the "good lawyers" (as defined as lawyers who effectively represent their clients). 

 

 

 

"I was just stating that Lawyers are more hated then ISIS, the Jews, and Blacks, even among conservatives who tend to hate all 3 of those groups the most."

 

 

Actually most conservatives do not care about skin color they care about acts and personal comportment. Also most conservatives especially the religious tend to be quite sympathetic to Jews. And yes we hate ISIS as should you as it's members's believe that Jews, Queers and non-Muslims should all pretty much deserve to be killed. ISIS is a violent Terrorist/Hate group and only fools would think that hating them is somehow illegitimate.  See, I am the type of conservative that can distinguish between ISIS and the beliefs of the average Muslim and the beliefs of American adherents to Islam; maybe you should spend a little time educating yourself as you somehow are equating the legitimacy of the hate towards ISIS and ill feelings towrads Islam in general. Which of course is as a rule a peril that most liberals today fall into, they equate any oppostion to a group as prejudice and discrimination without noticing that some people and some beliefs not shared by western civilized people are truly abhorrent and deserving of hatred.

 

 

 

Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to a compiliation of Disturb today so if I am a bit over the top you might blame the ferocity of their music. 😈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Nah, I wasn't calling you a jew lawyer.

I was just stating that Lawyers are more hated then ISIS, the Jews, and Blacks, even among conservatives who tend to hate all 3 of those groups the most.

 

LOL WHAT?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CUBAREY said:

"Most lawyers are Jews in my neck of the woods."

 

That's not really true anywhere in the US, but I would say that you might be confused because Jews make up a significant percentage of the "good lawyers" (as defined as lawyers who effectively represent their clients). 

 

Quote

With 621,000 Jews in the metropolitan area (490,000 in city proper), the region has the second largest population of Jews in the United States.[109] Many of Los Angeles's Jews now live on the Westside and in the San Fernando Valley, though Boyle Heights and Northwest Los Angeles once had large Jewish populations.

Quote

The State Bar of California is the largest in the United States, with 253,306 living members as of February 2015, of whom 183,763 are on active status.[1] It is headquartered in San Francisco, with branch offices in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

 

 

I dunno, with over 600,000 Jews in the LA area alone and only 250,000 living people in the entire state having passed the bar I think it's entirely possible an actual majority of lawyers in the area are Jewish. If not, they certainly make up a significant percentage regardless to give the impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

You would not know the truth if it was shot at you with a 75 mm horowitzer!  All you know is the convenient stereotypes to thorw at those who disagree with you.

Oh? You mean like calling everyone a Snowflake or NPC when they disagree with ya? Hypocrite. :wink:

 

9 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Actually most conservatives do not care about skin color they care about acts and personal comportment. Also most conservatives especially the religious tend to be quite sympathetic to Jews. And yes we hate ISIS as should you as it's members's believe that Jews, Queers and non-Muslims should all pretty much deserve to be killed. ISIS is a violent Terrorist/Hate group and only fools would think that hating them is somehow illegitimate.  See, I am the type of conservative that can distinguish between ISIS and the beliefs of the average Muslim and the beliefs of American adherents to Islam; maybe you should spend a little time educating yourself as you somehow are equating the legitimacy of the hate towards ISIS and ill feelings towrads Islam in general. Which of course is as a rule a peril that most liberals today fall into, they equate any oppostion to a group as prejudice and discrimination without noticing that some people and some beliefs not shared by western civilized people are truly abhorrent and deserving of hatred.

Yea, you went total strawman there.

I said nothing about Islam or made commentary about it. You read way too much into it. 

Literally all that was said

Lawyers are hated more than Isis.

 

Aka lawyer jokes

Quote

What do you call a thousand dead lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

Quote

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
Your Honor.
 

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50
A Senator.

Quote

What's the one thing that never works when it's fixed?
A jury.

 

9 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Listening to a compiliation of Disturb today so if I am a bit over the top you might blame the ferocity of their music. 😈

Go listen to some System of a Down, toxicity.

 

7 hours ago, Nolder said:

I dunno, with over 600,000 Jews in the LA area alone and only 250,000 living people in the entire state having passed the bar I think it's entirely possible an actual majority of lawyers in the area are Jewish. If not, they certainly make up a significant percentage regardless to give the impression.

So uh. Yea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best lawyer joke:

 

There were three survivors of an airplane crash that managed to swim to a deserted island when the plane crashed into the sea. After a few days without water or food the three were desperate and agreed to take turns attempting to swim back to the plane through shark infested waters to get supply.

 

The first to try was a Jewish rabbi who said a silent prayer and began swimming. He got 40 feet from shore when the sharks noticed him and attemted to attack him. He barely got back to the beach without being bitten. The next day the next survivor a Catholic priest who said a hail merry attempted to swim out but he only got 30 feet into the surf before the sharks attacked.

 

On the fourth day, the last survivor a lawyer simply said, "What the Hell" and began swimming to the plane. Instead of attacking him the sharks simply circled him all the way out to the plane and then back again. At this the Preist cried out that this was a miracle proof the their was a God. The Rabbi being older and wiser, demured, he said that it was only professional courtesy on the part of the sharks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×