Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you now claiming that 'marital rape "is not logically possible"' AND 'marital rape "is logically possible"' are BOTH objective arguments?
Again why you feel the necessity to ascribe values to people is known only to you. The argument is an objective one and I would be pleased if you discussed it objectively.
Originally posted by FMFthis is the same tedious regurgitation of the previous statement. I have given you the argument it should be enough for you to grasp it by now.
Are you now claiming that 'marital rape "[b]is not logically possible"' AND 'marital rape "is logically possible"' are BOTH objective arguments?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFnot more strange than masquerading as women in order to dupe people. Quite simply you cannot be trusted, look how you turned an objective debate into a slimefest.
So you are hiding your views on rape from me and from anyone reading this discussion. It seems like a strange way for you to behave.
Originally posted by FMFI have outlined the argument for you, if you are having trouble ask someone for help and if you dont mind my Mary Shelley book has arrived and i would rather like to read it.
So has your stance shifted away from marital rape being "not logically possible" as you once stated it to be? Yes or no?
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are saying that "in principle there would never be" rape in marriage? Is that your "objective argument"?
In other words in principle there would never be a forcing of the other party and if there was never any forcing then there could never be rape, because rape by definition is coercing someone through the use of force to engage in a sexual activity against their will.
14 May 16
Originally posted by FMFI think he answered that since I said 'for you'. That seems pretty clear. He may be doing the devils advocate thing on this issue. I don't think he would ever even consider raping either his wife or anyone else.
Is this your own point of view or is it someone else's point of view?
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd of course neither I ~ nor indeed anyone else ~ has ever suggested anything of the kind. What has been interesting has been all the obfuscation since he said "yes" where there is some sort of different meaning of "consent" according to a "Christian perspective" that has "implications for the definition of rape" and all this only applies to Christians. I always know when I have touched upon the core-waffle or the inconsistency in his "argument" when he hurls a few insults. The whole thing about 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 was a spurious maneuver of some kind which apparently had nothing to do with marital rape.
I don't think [robbie] would ever even consider raping either his wife or anyone else.
14 May 16
FMF: Is this your own point of view or is it someone else's point of view?Be that as it may, but he has also repeatedly insisted that his personal perspectives on this issue are secret.
Originally posted by sonhouse
I think he answered that since I said 'for you'. That seems pretty clear.
14 May 16
Originally posted by sonhouseour friend FMF is only interested in slime, he has literally no concept of objective rational debate and struggles immensely with the concept of testing a premise by subjecting it to falsification.
I think he answered that since I said 'for you'. That seems pretty clear. He may be doing the devils advocate thing on this issue. I don't think he would ever even consider raping either his wife or anyone else.