Atheist Civil War: Angry Feminists Get Richard Dawkins Disinvited from Skeptics' Conference

[Ulyses]

1 hour ago, compl3x said:

I think we can all safely agree that we are all anti-rape.

I disagree. What I think we can all agree upon is that not all are able to recognise a rape scenario. Under normal circumstances, the chances of sex activity being a rape are already 50/50: word against word. If one partner is drunk, the chances of sex activity being a rape are 90/10. The sooner you understand this, the better for you, as a possible victim of a false rape accusation. Or as a honest fool needing a better grasp on signals.

[DocM]

5 minutes ago, Athernar said:

Bwahaha, I guess that goes to prove it. The Christian right are really no different to the SJW left, you may differ on reasoning and motive, but the end result is the same. Moralising authoritarianism.

No, its just that among most people rape is apolitical. There's no way to get someone into a roofied state where they can't give legal consent,  then procede to pound them into the mattress and make it OK. It isn't. No gray area.

[Ulyses]

35 minutes ago, Athernar said:

Bwahaha, I guess that goes to prove it. The Christian right are really no different to the SJW left, you may differ on reasoning and motive, but the end result is the same. Moralising authoritarianism and infantilisation.

What do you call drunk sex? Self awareness? Responsible behaviour? What do you call defending drunk sex? The epiphany of sexual education? No, real men don't think with their member.

 

If you can get over the authority issues and if you have enough personal growth. Experiment with sex in a educated way. Try the tantric sex, try kamasutra, not the pictures, the sex philosophy. You will have more fun then you ever thought it's possible, sex fun not possible while drunk.

 

Dawkins opinions and yours are from the stone age. He and you are no different from the immigrants groping females on New Years Eve in Germany. You seem unable to conceive civilized restrain.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ulyses

[Athernar]

8 minutes ago, DocM said:

No, its just that among most people rape is apolitical. There's no way to get someone into a roofied state where they can't give legal consent,  then procede to pound them into the mattress and make it OK. It isn't. No gray area.

Ah, the subtle moving of the goalposts from a situation of two intoxicated adults having sex, to a implied malicious intoxication of a single individual by another.

 

How about we put this into the real-world, I take it you're a staunch supporter of Emma Sulkowicz aka Mattress Girl?

[Ulyses]

3 minutes ago, Athernar said:

Ah, the subtle moving of the goalposts from a situation of two intoxicated adults having sex, to a implied malicious intoxication of a single individual by another.

It was always about that: a drunk individual being taken advantage of. You just planted the goalposts of two intoxicated adults.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

31 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

I disagree. What I think we can all agree upon is that not all are able to recognise a rape scenario. Under normal circumstances, the chances of sex activity being a rape are already 50/50: word against word. If one partner is drunk, the chances of sex activity being a rape are 90/10. The sooner you understand this, the better for you, as a possible victim of a false rape accusation. Or as a honest fool needing a better grasp on signals.

That is pretty disgusting. As much as I've debated in here, and don't agree with all viewpoints, to even suggest anyone who has taken part so far isn't anti-rape is to lose your credibility completely. Not one person in here has condoned rape or said anything to suggest it shouldn't be a punishable offence, legally.

[Ulyses]

7 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

That is pretty disgusting. As much as I've debated in here, and don't agree with all viewpoints, to even suggest anyone who has taken part so far isn't anti-rape is to lose your credibility completely. Not one person in here has condoned rape or said anything to suggest it shouldn't be a punishable offence, legally.

What's not disgusting, but pretty serious, is many have their pretty much romanticised or straight up apologetic ideas getting in the way of recognizing rape scenarios. To put it bluntly, they don't own a dime on what forms a rape situation resides. You probably envision film scenes, the reality is often, less violent, looking from the exterior, but many times more frightful.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ulyses

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

8 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

What's not disgusting, but pretty serious, is many have their pretty much romanticised or straight up apologetic ideas getting in the way of recognizing rape scenarios.

The only few doing the "romanticizing" about rape scenarios are those like yourself who seemingly want to try and pigeon hole nearly everyone who drinks into situations most of us never even get involved in in the first place. We can easily consent and be part of safe sex while under the influence, and so can millions of others.

 

Have a bit more conviction the majority of level headed adults who are moral like most of us in here seem to be can co-exist with the opposite sex and have a normal sex life. The justice system is there for those that don't, and for all intents it will also do a good job of crushing false allegations and punishing them as well. I can assure you if you think people on Neowin are getting in the way of the law from what I've seen in here that tinfoil hat needs checked. As I said in the last post I haven't seen one person condone rape, only just try to defend themselves being painted as idiots who cannot drink because a few think we cannot handle ourselves after 3 beers and are liable to abuse someone of the opposite sex.

[Ulyses]

8 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

The only few doing the "romanticizing" about rape scenarios are those like yourself who seemingly want to try and pigeon hole nearly everyone who drink into situations most of us never even get involved in in the first place. We can easily consent and be part of safe sex while under the influence, and so can millions of others.

 

 

Have a bit more conviction the majority of level headed adults who are moral like most of us in here seem to be can co-exist with the opposite sex and have a normal sex life. The justice system is there for those that don't, and for all intents it will also do a good job of crushing false allegations and punishing them as well. I can assure you if you think people on Neowin are getting in the way of the law from what I've seen in here that tinfoil hat needs checked. As I said in the last post I haven't seen one person condone rape, only just try to defend themselves being painted as idiots who cannot drink because a few think we cannot handle ourselves after 3 beers and are liable to abuse someone of the opposite sex.

 

This falls under apologetic ideas, if you don't recognise it. Also, why are you repeatedly implying "people on Neowin" as to suggest the majority shares your view or is behind you, in some form, while I'm probably out to get each and every one of them. That's dishonest, speak for yourself and let the others do the same.

 

Again, you don't condone what you think constitutes rape. However, it's possible what you don't consider rape, to constitute rape for others, for the law. You need to make some adjustments, for your own good, that's the thing you should take away from all this.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

5 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

This falls under apologetic ideas, if you don't recognise it. Also, why are you repeatedly implying "people on Neowin" as to suggest the majority shares your view or is behind you, in some form. That's dishonest, speak for yourself and let the others do the same.

 

Again, you don't condone what you think constitutes rape. However, it's possible what you don't consider rape, to constitute rape for others, for the law. You need to make some adjustments, for your own good, that's the thing you should take away from all this.

Good luck finding anyone on Neowin who enjoys a bit of raping. I'm sure the community will stand behind me and agree I'm right to say they're against all sexual violence. 

 

The only law I really have an issue with for what it matters is Sharia in certain places who do condone rape and/or victim blaming. So no, I don't think I do need to adjust considering my stance on sexual violence seems to align with what most of the good moral human beings on this earth believe.

[MikeChipshop Member]

3 hours ago, DocM said:

Not been drunk for over 45 years. 

My condolences.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

2 hours ago, Ulyses said:

 

From Dear Muslima:

 

I could probably find others, as personal as this. Do we really need more confirmation? I think not: the man is clearly in the wrong here.

 

Just pulled up the whole quote of this "Dear Muslima",

Quote

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself 'Skepchick', and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin

which seems to be partly a response to an "incident" about nothing,

Quote

According to an account she gives in the video below (posted on June 20, 2011), sometime during the period of the conference, she was having drinks with friends late into the night. At about 4am, she told her companions that she was tired and was going to bed. She entered the elevator and was joined by a man. While in the elevator, the man expressed interest in talking to Rebecca some more and invited her to his hotel room for coffee. She declined, but felt that she had been sexualised in the process. She also said it made her very uncomfortable to be approached this way, and suggested to ‘guys’  that – as a general rule – they should not to do this

Now having read this. I have to say I stand by this comment entirely because it is hard hitting criticism here.

[Ulyses]

6 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Good luck finding anyone on Neowin who enjoys a bit of raping. I'm sure the community will stand behind me and agree I'm right to say they're against all sexual violence. 

 

And I'm sure everyone appreciates sexual violence is taking forms only a victim can describe for the rest of us to learn to recognise them. All it takes is our ignorance be allowed to unveil.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

The only law I really have an issue with for what it matters is Sharia in certain places who do condone rape and/or victim blaming. So no, I don't think I do need to adjust considering my stance on sexual violence seems to align with what most of the good moral human beings on this earth believe.

There is more and, as expected, outside the current hype, you need to be aware of. Arranged marriages often spell out rape. Gypsies, Chinese, Indians are not Sharia advocates, but they do marry their daughters young, still having trouble with what we mean by paedophilia, let alone rape. North Africa men regard any woman without companion as fair game. South Africa rape epidemics also have nothing to do with the Sharia law. Yes, it's true, Dawkins doesn't mention these, and yet, these manage to be part of the reality, still.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

7 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

There is more and, as expected, outside the current hype, you need to be aware of. Arranged marriages often spell out rape. Gypsies, Chinese, Indians are not Sharia advocates, but they do marry their daughters young, still having trouble with what we mean by paedophilia, let alone rape. North Africa men regard any woman without companion as fair game. South Africa rape epidemics also have nothing to do with the Sharia law. Yes, it's true, Dawkins doesn't mention these, and yet, these manage to be part of the reality, still.

Most of this doesn't have much to do with Atheism. Atheism is the cure for things like Sharia law because without accepting Allah you are allowed to think for yourself.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Just now, Ulyses said:

Well, I could always consider you a whining prick, there are currently Muslim men being forced to have sex with animals, so poor they have to go back to the breast feeding memories to even remember how a boob looks like, never mind the IoS, Internet of Sex, you have access to. But I don't. Although I promise that when I'm famous as Dawkins you'll get your Dear Muslim paragraph, just right.

What are you talking about?

[Athernar]

Just now, _Alexander said:

What are you talking about?

Methinks he's a tad too intoxicated to consent to posting in this thread.

[ctebah]

2 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

Well, I could always consider you a whining prick, there are currently Muslim men being forced to have sex with animals, so poor they have to go back to the breast feeding memories to even remember what a boob looks like, never mind the IoS, Internet of Sex, you have access to. But I don't. Although I promise that when I'm famous as Dawkins you'll get your Dear Muslim paragraph, just right.

What does any of this mean?

[compl3x]

1 hour ago, Audioboxer said:

That is pretty disgusting. As much as I've debated in here, and don't agree with all viewpoints, to even suggest anyone who has taken part so far isn't anti-rape is to lose your credibility completely. Not one person in here has condoned rape or said anything to suggest it shouldn't be a punishable offence, legally.

I think we may be wasting our time. The term rape as it is being used here has such a broad definition that essentially any sex without written consent, notarized, and witnessed by a 3rd party to ensure continued consent is rape. It seems to dilute the seriousness of the actual crime to me.

 

Everyone in this thread, on both sides of the issue, are probably rapists. Or have been raped.

[Ulyses]

Quote

Only this week I heard of one, he calls himself 'Audioboxer', and do you know what happened to him? A man in a forum disagreed with him.

It means I could also pick an easy target, like Dawkins, and go off the rails, in a completely unrelated way. Isn't that what you admire?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, compl3x said:

I think we may be wasting our time. The term rape as it is being used here has such a broad definition that essentially any sex without written consent, notarized, and witnessed by a 3rd party to ensure continued consent is rape. It seems to dilute the seriousness of the actual crime to me.

 

Everyone in this thread, on both sides of the issue, are probably rapists. Or have been raped.

I certainly got raped... by mods... during the PS3 and Xbox 360 days.

[PGHammer]

6 minutes ago, DocM said:

No, I go by the legal definition which is .08 BAC in most locales, which is likely to be lowered, and for which for the average woman is 2-3 drinks - unless she can't hold it and showed effects sooner.

 

And to be strictly legal, drugs (including some over the counters), weed and an other intoxicant or depressant.  

The legal issue applies there - and is, in fact, often argued in criminal court in simple possession cases.

 

No - it's not.  "Ad hominem" would be "Lot's daughters" -  no way of verifying that the incident actually happened.  (That is exactly why i used the word "literature" to describe that example.)  Still, "Lot's daughters" DOES match up with other examples - "ad hominem" and drawn from real-world case law, however, embarrassing it may be to males - it DOES happen.

 

The political argument, unfortunately, DOES tend to turn into a crusade - and the consequences of that are seldom good (in the short, medium, OR long term) - which is why I don't trust any group that uses it.

[Noir Angel]

12 hours ago, T3X4S said:

LOL - misogynistic ?  really ?  

You are basing this on what exactly ?

Doc bashes SJWs when they're critical of right wing politics, but when what they say lines up with his hatred for atheists, all of a sudden he accepts what they say uncritically.

Remember kids, it's not just progressives that like to live in echo chambers.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

6 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

It means I could also pick an easy target, like Dawkins, and go off the rails. Isn't that what you admire?

OK lets backtrack, I read the "controversial" response and asserted that there is nothing wrong with it and it is nice and hard hitting.

 

You then started talking about forced sex with goats or something.

[Ulyses]

4 minutes ago, compl3x said:

I think we may be wasting our time. The term rape as it is being used here has such a broad definition that essentially any sex without written consent, notarized, and witnessed by a 3rd party to ensure continued consent is rape. It seems to dilute the seriousness of the actual crime to me.

 

Everyone in this thread, on both sides of the issue, are probably rapists. Or have been raped.

Is probably what a rapist would say

[Noir Angel]

7 minutes ago, compl3x said:

I think we may be wasting our time. The term rape as it is being used here has such a broad definition that essentially any sex without written consent, notarized, and witnessed by a 3rd party to ensure continued consent is rape. It seems to dilute the seriousness of the actual crime to me.

 

Everyone in this thread, on both sides of the issue, are probably rapists. Or have been raped.

SJWs and male feminists are pretty good at misusing the term rape to try and shut down any discussion of their opinions. They use it similar to the way the right uses terms like "commie". It's just scaremongering.