Categories
atlas shrugged douchebaggery evil women MGTOW misogyny rape

>Comment of the Day: Child support is worse than rape

>

Er, not so much.
Sometimes this job is just too easy. Sometimes I don’t have to even bother to check in on my favorite manosphere sites to find hair-raisingly awful quotes to feature here. Sometimes the Boobz are thoughtful enough to leave them in the comments here. 
Take this quote from resident MGTOWer Cold, who currently seems to be spending more time on this blog than I am, comparing rape and child support. (You don’t think these two items are actually in any way comparable? Clearly you do not understand Boob Logic.) 
In response to commenter Amused, who pointed out that “being ordered to support a child you’ve fathered isn’t the same as being pinned down and penetrated against your will,” Cold responded:
Exactly, it’s much, much worse. The latter lasts for some number of minutes, the former for at least 18 years. Given the choice it would be a no-brainer for me, and I think a very large number of men agree with me on this.
Setting aside the appalling trivialization of rape as something that’s over in “some number of minutes,” what does this say about Cold’s attitudes towards children? Paying a couple of hundred buck a month to pay for some of the expenses for a child you fathered – your own flesh and blood – is worse than being raped?
If Cold ever becomes a father, through circumstances which are frankly too horrible to imagine, I feel safe in saying that he will not be winning any “father of the year” awards. 
I can just imagine the following scenario, some 11 or so years into the future: 
EXTERIOR, MOVIE THEATER

Cold’s 10-year-old son: Happy Father’s day, daddy! I’m so glad we’re going to see Toy Story 5! I love Woody!

Cold: Yeah, so does your whore mom, if you know what I mean.

Son: Huh? 

Cold: When you get older, you’ll understand. Did I mention that you mom’s a whore?  One, please!

Son: Um, daddy, why did you buy only one ticket? 

Cold: It’s for me. Get your own. You get enough of my money as it is. I stick my dick in your mom for two fucking minutes, and I’m screwed for life. It’s worse than rape! 

Son:  Um, daddy, I don’t have any money. I’m ten. 

Cold: Well, you should have thought of that when you were a sperm! 

Son:  When I was a what? 

Cold: I’m going in. See you in two hours. 

Son: Dad? What am I supposed to do now?

Cold: Not my problem!  I’m Going Galt! I’m Going My Own Way! You were a MISTAKE!

Son quietly sobs 

Cold: Hey, when we get back to your mom’s place later, remind me to tell her she’s a filthy whore. 
And … scene!
(By the way, Cold actually does claim to be going Galt, if self-admitted tax evasion counts.)
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

165 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>@cold, in your scenario with the fertility drugs, he consented to sex (without actual or implied threat if he did not have sex). Therefore, he was not raped. Is the scenario you describe a sucky one? Yes.Is it rape? No. What the woman did in that case was not okay, but it was also not rape. Is it gender specific? No. Men lie to partners and sabotage birth control as well. Women are not exempted from child support on those grounds either. It is a fair standard.I do not agree with the notion of "rape by deception" either. Let me give an analogous case that makes this more clear. Let us say that person A and person B see each other in a restaurant, find each other very attractive, and head directly to a hotel where they both agree to all of the sex that they have. Not rape. Now, does it become rape if A is a neo-nazi and finds out B is a Jewish because A would not have had sex with B had A known that fact? No, it does not.

Cold
9 years ago

>Your scenario is completely different since neither of them asked each other about their backgrounds. In the case of my friend, he was explicitly told that she was barren and his consent was procured through that lie. If what she did isn't rape, then it also shouldn't be considered rape if a man, after agreeing to wear a condom, distracts the woman at the moment of insertion as he removes the condom and penetrates her without it.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Apparently not in Sweden.And if you are in favor of throwing women who make false accusations in prison for seven years or more (for something that had no actual conviction of rape charges so it is unclear what sentence the guy would have gotten), it will scare the people who are raped that they to will go to prison if the police do not believe them.

Amused
9 years ago

>"False accusers make people less likely to believe genuine victims. How does that not make sense?"Rapists make people less likely to trust men who aren't rapists. Nevertheless, you would object to people assuming you to be a rapist simply because you are male. People who falsely accuse rape victims of making false claims make people less likely to believe genuine victims of false accusations — or would you say it's not fair to postulate something like that? Also, the fact that genuine victims are branded as "false accusers" any time a defendant is acquitted — despite the well-known fact that an acquittal isn't proof of innocence — casts a lot of doubt on claims that false rape accusations are such a huge problem that we might as well legalize rape. Finally relying on a "study" that is unverifiable (because the author would not identify the town where the study was supposedly done) and deeply flawed on its face (due to the admission that rape complainants were unethically pressured to withdraw their complaints, and the author never deigned to interview any of them) proves yet again, that the brouhaha over false accusations is little more than good old pro-rape apologetics. "Women are lying bitches, so there is no such thing as rape even if there is." I mean, what else is new?"Amused,Is it above your abilities to address my actual points instead of making a ludicrous strawman and attacking that instead?"I'm not attacking a "ludicrous strawman" — I'm attacking your ludicrous values and your obvious hypocrisy. Saying that paying child support is worse than rape isn't a "point" that can be addressed; rather, it's an expression of your personal belief that rape is nothing because it only lasts for a few minutes and is merely unpleasant, and anyway, fuck women. The probable reason, as I've pointed out earlier, is that because you are not nearly as likely to be raped as a woman, you don't identify with rape victims, but you do identify with non-custodial fathers — in other words, you do indeed lack empathy. This is what you believe, and it would be ludicrous indeed for anyone to insist that you believe something else. You could just as easily have stated that paying child support is worse than the Holocaust (which took less than 18 years, and anyway, being gassed only takes 15 minutes or so, 30 at most), or that it's worse than cancer (less than 18 years as well), or that it's worse than, I don't know, being burned with acid or something. You believe what you believe, end of story. Personally, the idea of not supporting one's child (even an unintended child) while demanding power over that child is unfathomable to me, but again — that's simply a matter of a difference in values, not "points". Nothing that you've said here is even remotely convincing or even intriguing, and so it's not something that needs to be addressed as if it has merit. Instead, it reveals yet again the ugly truth about your character — and what I've said is merely an observation. And who cares what impression you make on "trained professionals"? I, for one, don't believe in pathologizing something just because I find it abhorrent. Not every ugly character flaw deserves a diagnosis.

Amused
9 years ago

>How much prison time should men who falsely accuse women of false rape claims get? Just wondering.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty.

DrewskiDaMan
9 years ago

>I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.It's not right to control a female's body. But why is it then that females wish to control a man's body?

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Most of the women on here have commented they think the idea of throwing someone in jail for not paying child support is both counterproductive and unfair.But you cannot say that it is females wishing to control the man's body because most women are not in charge of state legislatures that create the laws that end in men being tossed into jail for contempt of court.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>And I have yet to hear of any with a majority female state legislature.Even in Arizona where we are surprisingly progressive when it comes to electing women.

Amused
9 years ago

>"He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty."This raises all kids of practical issues, of course. For one thing, anyone who files a police report would have to be given some form of Miranda warnings, to advise her that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law and that she is entitled to have an attorney present. The use of lie detectors on rape complainants should be made totally illegal, since every rape complainant would be a potential defendant in a criminal prosecution. And no recantation would be admissible in court unless Miranda rules are scrupulously observed.Also, if the defendant in rape case claims, in his defense, that the sex was consensual, isn't he accusing the victim of a false rape claim? So if he gets convicted of the rape, isn't that also automatically a conviction for falsely accusing someone of a crime, namely, a false rape accusation? So his sentence would be doubled?DrewskiDaMan: "I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.It's not right to control a female's body. But why is it then that females wish to control a man's body?"Why is it that you drown innocent puppies?We don't have to answer a question that's rhetorical and patently dishonest on its face. "Females" don't control men's bodies. Your reproductive choices aren't under attack. You are free to use birth control or to get a vasectomy without fear that the pharmacist will sabotage you, or that your doctor will get shot, or that some conservative wingnuts will push through a law making your birth control illegal.

whorelizard
9 years ago

>In the case of my friend, he was explicitly told that she was barren and his consent was procured through that lie. Translation, Cold's friend: Bitch got pregnant on purpose. She lied to me! She said she couldn't have kids, which is an edict set in stone with no possibility for uncertainty. She wants my money (ok, a small part of what she will pay raising her child, but STILL!). This is so traumatic for me! I have panic attacks, I keep flashing back to moments of paying money, I get creepy body sensations, my life is spiralling downhill, I've started using just to feel something different than this pain, I lose time, and the trauma keeps repeating itself. Oh wait actually…I feel like bitching about my ex.

Amanda Marcotte
9 years ago

>The greatest injustice ever in the history of the world is a man having to pay money to a woman who doesn't fuck him in return. Child support is just the tip of the iceberg, really. Think of waitresses being tipped, just for serving you like they should! How many times have you handed money to fast food workers, grocery store clerks, department store clerks, and even gas station attendants who have vaginas that they didn't immediately allow you to prong in return? It gets worse! Did you know that there are IRS agents, landlords, and even Hollywood agents that are women? (No wonder Charlie Sheen is pissed.) There should only be ONE reason EVER that a man gives a woman money, and that's if he's getting laid. Anything else is far, far worse than rape.

Avicenna
9 years ago

>As a medic to be? Rape is insanely poorly reported. During my gynae posting I came across multiple instances. Women just don't like admitting that they were raped. I would say that I could only get two to admit rape of which one was in marriage so "when I told the cops I was fined for wasting police time". This is why rape is not reported, because it's "a big fucking joke" to a lot of men. It's inexcusable. Cold… Rape is evil, no woman jokes about it and gets away with it. We can tell if women are raped or not (medically) as long as the woman comes to us immediately. The issue is getting women to come to us as quickly as possible. If she does it within a day then we will find the rapist and make sure he pays. The issue is that this is just as bad as rape. You are going to be scientifically prodded and poked and checked to see if you were raped. This is also dehumanising. Can you understand the logic that thinks "no more" rather than "I want to undergo further dehumanising tests to ensure that my rapist goes to jail". What we need is to improve reporting. We need education in both men and women to reduce rape (we can never stop rape. Rapists will always exist, but we can stop as many of them from existing and jail those who do). This will take time since it requires us to completely crush attitudes such as ones seen in communities such as the MRA movement or in religious attitudes of various people. Also… Amanda broke my sarcasm meter.

Raoul
9 years ago

>My rule is to tip 10% for lousy service, 15% for so-so, 20% for good, 25% for great, right on up to the 100% tip if you propose marriage and she accepts on the spot (this never happens).

Brett K
9 years ago

>Other things that are worse than rape, according to Cold's logic: TaxesPhone billsBus fareRentCredit card billsThey're worse than worse than rape, actually! Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE! …or does it only count if the recipient if said pay is a woman?

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Yeah, Amanda, I think the poster upthread who complained about women who commit adultery getting custody of the kids sums up your point nicely: your vagina and anything that comes out of it belongs to me, and anything less is a gross injustice.Unexamined Privilege, thy name is the MRM.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>They're worse than worse than rape, actually! Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!…or does it only count if the recipient if said pay is a woman? Well, considering that in MRA-land feminists run everything, all your money probably ends up in a woman's pocket eventually.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>How much prison time should men who falsely accuse women of false rape claims get? Just wondering. THAT NEVER HAPPENS! Men who are accused of rape have no incentive to lie whatsoever. None. Anyone who says otherwise is a lying feminist.

cboye
9 years ago

>I remember I LMAO when he posted that original comment because it was just like this Daily Show bit:Money rape!

DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>@Cold, consensual sex does not become rape merely because one party is a liar. To go back to my analogy, if the Jewish person claimed to be Christian earlier in the evening, it is still not a rape. The condom example is distinguishable due to the fact that it involves the actual sex act consented to, rather than an extrinsic factor that, if known, would affect the consent to a sex act. So, penetrating your partner anally instead of vaginally when they have only consented to vaginal sex is rape, but penetrating anally where anal was consented to, but would not have been consented to with knowledge of, for example, the fact that the person penetrating had a urinary tract infection that they knew could be spread in such a way, is not rape. In the fertility drug case, the man consented to "PIV sex with no condom", but the woman in the condom case did not consent to "PIV sex without a condom". This is also why, for example, it is a rape if person A consents to have sex with person B while blindfolded and C takes B's place without A's knowledge, but not rape if it is A and B who have sex but one later finds out that the other is a member of a different political party, cheated on them the week before, hates puppies, is an arsonist, etc.

Cold
9 years ago

>Your argument here hinges on your premise that "PIV sex with a condom" and "PIV sex with no condom" are separate sexual acts and that consent to one is not consent to the other. You are, of course, entitled to believe this, just as I am entitled to believe that "PIV sex with a fertile woman" and "PIV sex with an infertile woman" are separate acts for which consent is not interchangeable. Both of us, however, are engaging in intellectual masturbation since neither the dictionary or legal definitions of vaginal intercourse specify a condom or fertility. For that matter, neither the dictionary nor legal(in most countries) definitions of rape recognize the idea of conditional consent. Consent to an act is either given or not given, with no room for conditions.So, if a woman insists on a condom for sex, she is specifying a condition that must be met before she will give consent. When the man puts on the condom and she gives him the nod, she has given her consent. If he then distracts her at the moment of insertion and removes the condom without her seeing, she won't withdraw her consent because she thinks he is still wearing it. At the end of the act she may be shocked to see a bare penis come out of her, but it is too late at that point to withdraw consent since the activity has already finished. The man is guilty of deceit but not of rape, at least not in most countries. The same would hold true if the man had agreed to pay the woman some sum of money for the act but then ran off without paying or paid with counterfeit bills. Conditional consent is simply not a recognized concept at this time.

Orion
9 years ago

>I think Cold made people so angry that our responses aren't as measured as they ought to be. While I don't agree with his framing of the issue, I do feel several posters (including Amanda, whom I normally respect) are being needlessly callous toward child support payers. The problem is not that could is comparing child support to rape. It's that he's saying it's *worse* than rape. That's oppression olympics, it dismisses other people's experiences and judgments, and we know he's going to use it to argue for less enforcement of child support or rape charges, both of which are things that should be enforced. But Amanada et al. are saying rape and child support shouldn't be compared at all, and basically trivializing the importance of the issue. I think that's wrong. Sure it's easy to say "it's just money," but the economy is bad and a little money can mean a big difference in quality of life. I know child support isn't enough by itself to actually provide a good life for a child, but that doesn't mean it's not enough that paying out can't come between a man and his ability to live where he wants or get the medical care he needs or something else important. Plus, if you're paying child support, that probably means some kind of trauma or at least drama in the relationship with the mother. Whether it's a divorce, an unintended pregnancy you hoped she'd abort, or I guess occasionally a matter of deception, it's probable that there's a lot of shit there. I can easily believe that some men are having flashbacks or breaking into tears as they sign their checks. So yeah, I think it can be an ongoing trauma that could make some people feel violated, and so I don't think saying it feels like a rape would be inappropriate. That doesn't mean the woman didn't have good reasons, the right to make her own choices, or bigger problems of her own. It just means life sucks for everyone. Can't we focus on the real reason child support works the way it does–every human's right to bodily autonomy, plus the need to take care of innocent children–without getting into who's feelings are more important? I think saying "being raped is always worse than child support could ever be" is the same kind of oppression olympics as saying the opposite.

Cold
9 years ago

>Rapists make people less likely to trust men who aren't rapists.Yes, and?Nevertheless, you would object to people assuming you to be a rapist simply because you are male.Objecting to reality doesn't change it. Some men do rape, and because of them all men have to deal with a certain amount of suspicion. I do, however, object to the feminist efforts to exaggerate the amount of rape and man-on-woman violence that takes place and to create much. much more fear of men than would otherwise exist.People who falsely accuse rape victims of making false claims make people less likely to believe genuine victims of false accusations — or would you say it's not fair to postulate something like that?Whatever effect those people have on the credibility on a random rape accuser is a drop in the ocean compared to the harm done by real false accusers.Also, the fact that genuine victims are branded as "false accusers" any time a defendant is acquitted — despite the well-known fact that an acquittal isn't proof of innocence — casts a lot of doubt on claims that false rape accusations are such a huge problem that we might as well legalize rape.Are you talking out of you ass again? I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation, or she admitted herself that it was a lie.Finally relying on a "study" that is unverifiable (because the author would not identify the town where the study was supposedly done) and deeply flawed on its face (due to the admission that rape complainants were unethically pressured to withdraw their complaints, and the author never deigned to interview any of them) proves yet again, that the brouhaha over false accusations is little more than good old pro-rape apologetics. "Women are lying bitches, so there is no such thing as rape even if there is." I mean, what else is new?See what I mean about the strawmen? I said nothing about any study involving a single town, and calling me a pro-rape apologist is just more libel from you. I guess that's all you can do when you have no actual argument to make.

Cold
9 years ago

>I think Cold made people so angry that our responses aren't as measured as they ought to be.Correction: some people allowed themselves to become too angry to make a measured response. That's their fault for lacking control over their emotions, not my fault for making an argument they don't want to hear.I know child support isn't enough by itself to actually provide a good life for a child, but that doesn't mean it's not enough that paying out can't come between a man and his ability to live where he wants or get the medical care he needs or something else important.Child support is indexed based on the man's income in such a way that whatever amount it ends up being will be significant for that man. $200 a month is pocket change for David Foley, but it's significant for a man earning minimum wage. David Foley, by the way, was ordered to pay over $17,000 a month. That would be enough to provide a good life for the child AND allow the mother to buy some luxuries for herself if it was paid every YEAR, yet this is what he has to pay MONTHLY.Not only that, but it's more than he can afford. It was calculated based on a higher point in his career, and the misandrist courts refuse to recognize that he no longer makes that much money. In an effort to TRY to make the money, he did a full nude scene in a movie by notorious director Uwe Boll. If a woman was forced to star in porn films to provide her ex-husband with $17,000 a year on pain of imprisonment, there would be a public outcry. But because Foley doesn't have a vagina, the media and the feminists can barely stifle their yawns. In fact, as one presumably male commenter on that very article put it, "Any time you start talking about 10s of thousands of dollars a month for child support, its just state sanctioned financial rape of the guy because they can."I think saying "being raped is always worse than child support could ever be" is the same kind of oppression olympics as saying the opposite.So far you are the only person who has actually noticed that it wasn't me who initially tried to compare child support and rape. Amused brought that up in an effort to try and trivialize the financial servitude of men, so I called her on it. As I said before, I would choose forced sodomy over being put on the hook for child support for 18 years. I am entitled to my preference, and it is my opinion that most other men would make the same decision, especially considering that they could be forcibly sodomized anyway as a consequence if being unable to pay due to circumstances beyond their control. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have made the comparison if Amused hadn't made it first.

Cold
9 years ago

>Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!Your contract with the phone company is voluntary, moron.

Cold
9 years ago

>This raises all kids of practical issues, of course. For one thing, anyone who files a police report would have to be given some form of Miranda warnings, to advise her that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law and that she is entitled to have an attorney present.It's already a crime to file a false police report, how would actually enforcing that law and raising the penalty to something appropriate suddenly necessitate a procedure that wasn't required before?Also, if the defendant in rape case claims, in his defense, that the sex was consensual, isn't he accusing the victim of a false rape claim?Perhaps, but in that case she, by claiming that the sex was non-consensual, is accusing him of falsely accusing her of falsely accusing him of rape. He, in turn, is then accusing her of falsely accusing him of falsely accusing her of falsely accusing him of rape. To avoid an infinite regression and to preserve sanity, it would be best not to define a false accusation of a false accusation as a crime.You are free to use birth control or to get a vasectomy without fear that the pharmacist will sabotage you, or that your doctor will get shot, or that some conservative wingnuts will push through a law making your birth control illegal.Not true; many urologists are unwilling to perform vasectomies on men that they consider to be at a high risk to later regret said vasectomy and sue. Frivolous trial lawyers are to blame for this.

Cold
9 years ago

>He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty.Whatever sentencing guidelines are in place for the crime that was falsely accused should be applied against the false accuser. If one person falsely accuses another of a capital offense, then that false accusation is essentially an attempt to kill the accused and therefore, as far as death penalty rationale is concerned, it is appropriate to execute the false accuser.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Incorrect Cold-"Using weighted totals, we estimated that among the 2,671,863 patients discharged from New York hospitals in 1984 there were 98,609 adverse events and 27,179 adverse events involving negligence." Source But only about 4% of injured patients or their families sue, according to a Harvard study. And only 1 in 5 lawsuits awards the patient. SourceFear of those lawyers might be the cause but since it is rare that people do in fact sue, and they are rarely the prevailing party, it is an unfounded fear and not the lawyers fault.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>And you see nothing wrong with it do you Cold? Killing someone over a lie is AOK with you.

Cold
9 years ago

>Elizabeth, your reading comprehension is atrocious as always. Anyone with decent reading comprehension would have notice the key phrase, "as far as death penalty rationale is concerned" but apparently that's above your level of reading skill.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Oh I read it, which is why I noticed you think executing people is okay over a lie.

Cold
9 years ago

>Ok, your eyeballs physically scanned each letter and your brain managed to recognize each word, but you still failed to actually grasp the fact that I said it was appropriate according to a specific rationale without saying anything to specify how I personally feel about that rationale. This is what is generally termed "poor reading comprehension"; you have no problem reading the individual words but you have great difficulty comprehending what they mean in a complete sentence.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Cold: "Are you talking out of you ass again? I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation,"The Assange case? At this point we simply don't know what happened, and there is zero evidence that they are lying, but the accusers have been vilified in the media, online, etc etc etc by people who have decided they must be lying because they are feminists, or because they think Assange is being set up, or whatever.

Amused
9 years ago

>It's already a crime to file a false police report, how would actually enforcing that law and raising the penalty to something appropriate suddenly necessitate a procedure that wasn't required before?Because MRA's advocate such a broad definition for the term "false report" when it comes to rape, that it would encompass most truthful reports as well, seeing that you want any rape acquittal to automatically result in the prosecution of the complainant. Also, because rape complainants, unlike those who report other crimes, are particularly likely to be subjected to threats and pressure to recant a good-faith and truthful accusation. Miranda rules are intended as an antidote to police misconduct in situations where police misconduct is particularly likely. Historically, certain police departments have liberally used threats and inadmissible techniques (such as the polygraph) to get rape victims not to press charges. If a rape complainant is automatically to be brought up on charges as soon as the alleged rapist is acquitted, then clearly, statements extracted by such underhanded means should be inadmissible against her. They are inadmissible against a defendant in any other criminal prosecution. Why should there be an exception for false rape claim prosecutions?To avoid an infinite regression and to preserve sanity, it would be best not to define a false accusation of a false accusation as a crime.How very convenient for rapists and rape apologists.Not true; many urologists are unwilling to perform vasectomies on men that they consider to be at a high risk to later regret said vasectomy and sue.Not the same. I've yet to hear of a case of a urologist deliberately sabotaging a vasectomy, religious groups picketing or bombing urologists' offices or legislatures passing laws making vasectomy illegal. In fact, sabotaging an elective vasectomy is medical malpractice. However, both statutory and case law in most states exclude sabotaging a woman's elective birth control or abortion from the category of acts that fall within the definition of medical malpractice. Frivolous trial lawyers are to blame for this.Really? I thought frivolous plaintiffs are to blame for this. After all, they are the ones who go to a dozen lawyers until they find one that will file the papers. They make the decision to sue. No one puts a gun to their heads. These plaintiffs are the kind of people who can't fathom taking responsibility for their own stupid decisions, so they seek out other people to blame. They blame doctors. They blame women. They blame their mothers. They blame the government. They blame their bosses. They blame the Chinese economy. They blame liberals. They blame lawyers. Anybody and anything but themselves. They never EVER see themselves as responsible for ANYTHING that's wrong with their lives. Whatever blame they would accept is invariably confined to being too nice of a person for the bad, bad world which is, basically, just another way of refusing to see themselves as causing or at least contributing to their own misfortune. None of this, of course, stops them from lecturing others on the virtues of taking responsibility.

Cold
9 years ago

>The Assange case? At this point we simply don't know what happened, and there is zero evidence that they are lying, but the accusers have been vilified in the media, online, etc etc etc by people who have decided they must be lying because they are feminists, or because they think Assange is being set up, or whatever.Actually there is substantial evidence that they are lying, but despite that evidence I have not seen any mainstream media outlet call them liars.

Cold
9 years ago

>seeing that you want any rape acquittal to automatically result in the prosecution of the complainant.I never said that, in fact I stated very clearly that they should only be prosecuted if there is a compelling case that they lied. I'm done with responding to your strawman arguments. If you can't address my actual position then there is no point in responding to you except when you say something especially amusing.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Cold-In order to have your belief that a person who files a false rape report is the equivalent to a rapist even though it is not, you also support viewing a false murder report filer as a murderer up to and including executing said filer.And you completely ignore the logical fallacy that arises from sentencing someone to a sentence that never happened (as the criminal act did not occur) for a crime with completely different elements then the original criminal act alleged.

Amused
9 years ago

>I never said that, in fact I stated very clearly that they should only be prosecuted if there is a compelling case that they lied. I'm done with responding to your strawman arguments. If you can't address my actual position then there is no point in responding to you except when you say something especially amusing. Actually, what you said was that you support the idea of the prosecutor having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant lied as opposed to making a mistake. Which would exclude the most likely scenario of the defendant's innocence: that she was indeed raped, but the defendant was acquitted for reasons that are beyond her control.Amused brought that up in an effort to try and trivialize the financial servitude of men, so I called her on it.That's a lie. Your buddy e-string brought it up in an effort to try and trivialize rape, so I called him on it. Then you rushed to his aid with your half-assed "argument" that, because you'd rather be sodomized than support your child (as if you would ever face a choice in the real world that would require you to put your mouth where your anus is), the plight of men who don't want to support their children is worse than rape.I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation, or she admitted herself that it was a lie.And I have. It's quite standard, especially for MRA's, to accuse virtually all rape victims of lying about their rape. They even did it to Lara Logan, despite the fact that there were numerous witnesses to the incident.Whatever effect those people have on the credibility on a random rape accuser is a drop in the ocean compared to the harm done by real false accusers.Wrong. Rape apologism is a significant factor in promoting the myth that rape victims exaggerate or lie about their rapes.Some men do rape, and because of them all men have to deal with a certain amount of suspicion. I do, however, object to the feminist efforts to exaggerate the amount of rape and man-on-woman violence that takes place and to create much. much more fear of men than would otherwise exist.Actually, it's MRA's who routinely exaggerate fears of rape, because they see the threat of rape as a way to keep women in their place. If victims or rape weren't routinely crucified for wearing eye-liner, being "ambitious", acting "grown-up", wearing sexy clothing, etc., if this vilification of rape victims didn't serve to make women paranoid about what they wear, how they walk, how late they are out at night, there would be a lot less fear and suspicion of men. Also, if MRA's didn't claim so much that men have no control over their own sexual behavior, promoting the myth that a man aroused is akin to an unstoppable natural disaster, there too would be a lot less fear and suspicion of men. MRAs' admonition of women when it comes to rape basically boils down to the necessity to assume every man is a potential rapist; but of course, if a woman does come to feel that every man is a potential rapist, MRA's get insulted and blame feminism.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Cold, that's not actually evidence, much less "substantial evidence." We haven't seen the texts, we've simply heard what Assange's lawyer says they said. And even if we accept his description of them as true, they don't actually prove she was lying. They suggest a possible motive that might lead to lying, but they don't prove anything. Why would her being angry at Assange prove she was lying? Maybe she was angry at him because he actually did what he's been accused of.

Cold
9 years ago

>He would release the texts for public viewing if he was legally able to do so. From how he has described them, the texts constitute very strong circumstantial evidence that they lied. There are also the deleted(but cached) social networking posts at the beginning of this whole fiasco whose content and timestamps contradict the rape claims. Even you seem to realize how flimsy the case is, as evidenced by the fact that you have avoided taking any actual position on it.

cboye
9 years ago

>Fun fact: You know how Cold only spends 15 minutes a day on this site? He types a snappy 84 words per minute!(That's only including posts in this thread from March 30, and omitting quoted parts.)

Cold
9 years ago

>Cold-In order to have your belief that a person who files a false rape report is the equivalent to a rapist even though it is not, you also support viewing a false murder report filer as a murderer up to and including executing said filer.A person who files a false report for any crime is attempting to subject their victim to the sentence for that crime. A fair deterrent to this heinous act is for the false accuser to also face the very sentence that he/she tried to inflict on his/her victim if he/she can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intentionally lied. To make the punishment any less is to stack the deck in favor of false accusers by allowing them to take a shot at inflicting great harm on another human being while knowing that should it backfire, they will be suffering much less harm themselves than the harm they were trying to inflict.I have not touched the question of whether the death penalty should be on the table as a sentence for any crime; I have only said that the sentencing guidelines for a false accusation of a crime should be the same as a crime itself. In an area that practices the death penalty, falsely accusing someone of a capital crime is tantamount to attempted murder. If such a false accuser is executed, it wouldn't be "for a lie" as you so disingenuously understated; it would be for a lie that was told with the intention of getting another person killed.And you completely ignore the logical fallacy that arises from sentencing someone to a sentence that never happened (as the criminal act did not occur) for a crime with completely different elements then the original criminal act alleged.There is no logical fallacy here; a false accuser would be getting the same sentence that he/she tried to inflict on his/her victim, and in some cases that sentence may very well have already been served if the evidence that the accusation was false doesn't arise until years later. That, however, should be immaterial; the intention behind a false accusation is to inflict a sentence and it is that horrific intent that should be punished.

Cold
9 years ago

>Yeah I went over 15 minutes today, would you like me to deduct that from tomorrow?

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>@ Cold:What is worse: rape; or a child knowing that their father hates them so much that he'd rather be forcibly sodomized than help take care of them?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Cold, as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think we know enough to know what actually happened in the Assange case. My gut feeling is that the women are telling the truth; their stories are believable, and if they were making something up I suspect they would have gone with much less weird and complicated than what they say (and what I believe) actually happened. But in the end it's a he-said-she-said case and I think that even if what the accusers say is absolutely true it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove that in court.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>You assume that is in fact the intended result of the person filing the false report Cold. Despite your assumption that the only possible reason a person could file a false allegation is to send the other person to prison or to have them land on death row (in the extreme case there of the murder charge), most of the time it is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the possible sentence that the person falsely accusing never even considered when making the accusation.

ginmar
9 years ago

>I see Cold thinks that a defense lawyer who's previously lied on behalf of his client is 'proof' that rape victims lie. The defense attorney's a man, too. The people who are telling the worst lies about the victims in the Assange case—-aside from Naomi Wolf, who apparently likes any sort of attention she can get—-are his defense lawyers and a notorious Holocaust denier. So much for credibility. The "Surprise sex!" defense came from this bunch. And Cold buys this, so much does he hate women.

Johnny Pez
9 years ago

>I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.I find it quite telling of your thought process that you make a blanket statement regarding "the thought process of feminists".Specifically, it tells me that you're full of shit.

Cold
9 years ago

>As usual, not a single cite from Ginmar.I have no interest in addressing any of Amused's strawmen, but I will address the one blatant falsehood:That's a lie. Your buddy e-string brought it up in an effort to try and trivialize rape, so I called him on it.No, e-string, who to my knowledge has never had any kind of conversation with me unless he is someone I know on some other site, made a "by the same logic" argument aka a reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument the logical structure is maintained while the specific objects of the argument are swapped for the purpose of illustrating how absurd the argument is. You only THOUGHT he was directly comparing child support to rape because your intellect is too feeble to comprehend what he was actually saying. YOU were the one who actually made the initial comparison.

Cold
9 years ago

>Despite your assumption that the only possible reason a person could file a false allegation is to send the other person to prison or to have them land on death row (in the extreme case there of the murder charge), most of the time it is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the possible sentence that the person falsely accusing never even considered when making the accusation.I never said that was the ONLY reason people falsely accuse, but the fact is that the false accuser KNOWS that he/she is setting up his/her victim to be given the sentence for the falsely accused crime, whatever that sentence may be, even if that is merely incidental to the primary purpose of the false accusation. Perhaps the accuser is an ignoramus and has no idea how harsh the sentence for that crime is, but in that case he/she still tried to inflict that unknown quantity of harm and deserves to receive the same quantity. Ignorance is no excuse here.