Judge Brett Kavanaugh— “It Ain’t Necessarily So!”
Rape is having sex with a woman while she screams for help. No scream, no rape according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
DISCLAIMER: Note that the seeded article and the linked website are NOT credible news sources. The linked website is widely considered to be an anti-LGBT hate group.
*****************************
Some common sense definitions are necessary regarding this accusation. Rape is having sex with a woman while she screams for help. No scream, no rape according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24. Ford says Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth so did she scream for help when his hand was elsewhere? After all, it was in a bedroom of a house; surely, one of the other 4 teens could have heard him scream when she bit his hand.
Did she bite his hand? Poke him in the eye? Women know instinctively how to protect their honor: screaming, shouting, slapping, spitting, slugging, and stabbing with a finger, pencil, or hat pin. Since she did not cry out or stab him, I will not believe her without a film of the event.
Moreover, Matthew 18:16 clearly commands that there must be at least two witnesses to validate a charge against a person. This is a repeat of Old Testament law. Ford has no witnesses. The other man who was allegedly there, Mark Judge said, “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” This week, another teen that was supposed to be there Patrick J. Smyth said the incident did not happen. That should settle it; now let’s all go home, pull down the shades, and get some sleep.
Tags
Who is online
569 visitors
Note that the article's author is Don Boys, a Christian extremist and a former Indiana state rep. I'm posting this to show what the Christian Taliban and much of the misogynistic far right wing actually think about claims of rape or sexual assault and why they're so quick to dismiss it.
Note however that the website, BarbWire, is generally considered a far right wing Christian hate group particularly in regards to LGBT folks. It's not a credible news source but it's a good way to see how loony and profoundly misogynistic these Christian extremists truly are.
As far as the claim that it's not rape if you can't hear her scream, the great sky fairy can be forgiven on this point because the Bronze Age didn't have a radio whose volume you could crank up to cover the screams of your rape victim while you covered her mouth with your hand.
This guy seriously puts forth OT laws as criteria for rape? I thought he was being facetious but the expected exposed contradiction never arrived in his column. Amazing.
Do NT Christians support this? A woman must scream for a rape to be 'real'? A rape must be witnessed by two people for it to be 'real'?
This does not strengthen or weaken the Kavanaugh case since it is not evidence of any kind, but it certainly raises an important question of biblical morality.
It would seem that biblical morality is an oxymoron. Has anyone asked Ted Cruz, Screwy Louie Gohmert, or Rick Santorum for their input?
It will be interesting to see if the article will be censored and removed by the moderators as they do with other members for not meeting credible requirements.
[deleted]
It is not a parody source. These people are serious and others should know about their religious lunacy that they use to defend their actions.
That's why I made the statement I did because it's really about current politics but the seed is from one of the loony and superstitious RW hate groups.
It also explains a lot about the twisted views of the far right wing. These are the same folks who draw a distinction between "rape" and "legitimate rape".....where pregnancies can't result from the latter "because a woman's body has ways of shutting that whole thing down."
The mods have been removing other articles that are not parodies. They have been claiming sources of this nature are no longer permitted here. How are the recently censored articles posted by Jefferson any different than this one?
Would that be "xx jefferson" ?
( aka : heartland america, singled out, corncob for palin, etc., ect.)
Yes he has recently had seeds removed and the reason given was the source was unreputable. Had he been the one to post this seed it would be removed. Either he has been singled out or the unreputable source rule is not uniformly enforced. I advocate for letting this seed stand and restoring his censored seeds.
These people are obviously part of current events and their claims for the defense of the alleged actions are deserving of being discussed, even if the extreme lunacy makes some religious people embarrassed. Maybe Kavanaugh should crawl back under his rock and people should stop using the Bible to defend a sexual predator.
XXXXXX Jefferson was evangelizing.
No, it just means that they can't be cited as credible news sources. In this case the citation isn't about news but instead a critique of the source itself as well as of the article's author and the numerous Christian extremists who share those vile misogynistic views.
Barbwire is not rated that I can see.
Therefore THIS seed stays.
Rated Sources where any part of the yellow ball is in either arrowhead, right or left, are not acceptable as sources for seeds.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
Of course... Unrated sites are clearly fine... No bias here...
They should remove all his seeds so he can't procreate!
Even when the seeder openly admits the source is garbage and is widely recognized as a hate group.
Yes even when XX uses unrated sites, Dean, they have been allowed to stand.
Dean,
Here is the deal. During the course of the CoC, we went over how we would identify bad media sources. The conservatives wanted nothing to do with the SPLC or Media Matters, saying they were biased, if not hate sites on their own. So we went with MBFC. If something is not listed there, we don't remove it, since that is NOT what the group decided on and I don't invent new rules.
Is this why XX' has been on a rampage about the supposed tyranny of MBFC recently?
That's correct but it's not being cited as a news media source but rather (in part) as the subject of the seed.
Now you can make an argument that it isn't "news" per se and thus belongs in a different category, but if not here then where?
By the way this part of the discussion is all meta and should be stopped since it's being used to deflect the discussion from the real topic.
I've updated the article to include a clear disclaimer in addition to the disclaimer at comment # 1.
I hesitantly must agree. If dubious/not credible/fake news sources are no longer permitted, nothing but a vacuum of silence will be emitted from the right wing and their christian taliban allies.
They still have Breitbart, CNS, World Net Daily, Drudge and Ken Ham's religious site to choose from, plus Fox. Many of the "stories" are cross-posted on various sites of the conservative echo chamber so they shouldn't have a problem.
True. They won't have a problem. And that is the problem.
I still maintain that 'lie speech is not free speech' and deserves no First Amendment protections.
There should be a line between genuine legitimate opinions and blatant lies hiding behind religious beliefs and spin.
Is this the old testament?
Not that it matters, I look at Religion as a outdated book of Morals. I think people need morals but I'm waiting for all the Religion haters to come up with a government plan to instill them. Laws don't work unless you have a conscience.
I dunno.....you'll have to debate that with the Christian extremist who wrote the article.
The separation of church and state prohibits religious morality being enforced as secular law because if that was law then the religious rights of other citizens would be trampled because they are forced to live by the religious beliefs of others.
Don't do it to others unless you want them to do it to you has worked for a very long time as a moral concept.
Would you like to discuss utilitarianism moral philosophy?
" the Christian Taliban", ya got that right:
since age 15, I have kept my hands to myself and strictly followed the “Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell rule” never to be alone with an unrelated woman.
Seriously ? You can't trust yourself to be alone with "an unrelated woman" ? ? ?
I wonder if they're into "honor killings" too? So if some dude rapes an unmarried woman but she doesn't scream loudly enough should she therefore be stoned to death? Maybe that's why the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee are unhappy with Ford and the other victims......because they weren't killed at the time?
What Db range for her screams is loud enough? Will all confessionals and frat parties now be required to have decibel meters for our protection?
The absolute Db level which triggers a "legitimate rape" is different depending on whether the rape occurs in a bedroom on the 2nd floor of a brick house or the 2nd floor of a tent in the desert.
But the safest thing is for the rapist to wear hearing protection. If he can't hear her scream it's not a "legitimate rape" anyway.
Issues like this are why I think minors need concealed carry permits.
Theophobic bigotry.
That would save a lot of time and money on those pesky rape kits and the police investigations.
All women need to carry pistols to protect ourselves and our friends from religious conservatives. I need something unobtrusive that won't clash with my designer shoes and purse and it better not ruin my manicure.
Do you support the biblical claims made by the Kavansughs?
No, just bigotry against excuses for rape. The fact that those excuses are based in Bronze-age superstition is ultimately irrelevant, but what IS relevant is that there's a large number of right wingers and Christian extremists who really do think there are valid excuses for rape......including perhaps some of the Republican members of the senate judiciary committee who voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Faux christian bat shit nuttery draconian bull shit twisted sense of reality these backwards asswipes live in.
So if these asswipes' mother, sister, wife or daughter gets raped and they don't scream that means they weren't raped at all. I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if this happened to the aforementioned women in their lives. Or would they blame them for having wicked and impure thoughts so they deserved it? Never can tell with these holier than though ass backwards sanctimonious scumbags.
Here's a chicken and egg question....which came first, rape apologists or Bronze-age patriarchal & misogynistic superstition? Would Don Boys be a pro-rape misogynist if he weren't steeped in the profound misogyny of Baptist fundamentalism?
Or is it just a guy thing?
Apparently, it's a guy thing in the minds of a few Republicans. I wonder how much she is being paid to sacrifice what remains of her political career? She lost in the primary so she has little left to lose by defending Kavanaugh.
I guess that answers that part of the question - even women can be rape apologists. I've never understood that but I guess everyone is exposed to the same adverse cultural influences. Still very bizarre.
Conservative Christian women are taught to be subservient, compliant and not oppose men or their needs. We're supposed to be baby makers and keep out mouth shut and our legs open. I was told by the nuns that I was rejecting God's love when I said that was crazy. The Catholic Church and Bill Donahue are blaming the boys for inducing the priests who abuse them.
We need more than lions now.......
Here's another one who should be lion feed:
As baby Jeebus said, if you rape someone and no one else sees you, it's not a "legitimate rape."
Plus this from the same right wing loon:
Fischer is a reliable wackjob for a juicy quote.
Dave Daubenmire is always a reliable wingnut for a quote
Where is Rick Santorum when you need him?
There's also the fundamental lack of empathy which so many conservatives exhibit (I think it's actually a defining trait). We've seen it here on NT with certain female members regarding rape and in other contexts like how severe one's pain is during menstruation. There's an inability to accept that another person's experience and reactions might be different from one's own.
This is a defining trait of late 20th century conservativism
Another situation of lack of empathy and understanding
[deleted]