Dasa and the thought police

Originally posted by FMF
Your morally unsound stances on rape are well documented and well known. Your claim that forcing women to have sex was not rape (in a marriage) was trotted out across 40 thread pages on two threads on two forums. Your defence of the cover up of the rape of children in your organization, and the downplay of its prevalence, along with the attempts to discredit vic ...[text shortened]... out you on the now deleted "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" thread was entirely true

This is nothing more than another vile and slanderous attempt at vilification, the argument that i presented was not a personal perspective and had been made before. Why is it that you are unable to grasp this and continue to make vile assertions? Personally i think it is because you are intellectuality incapable of objective rational thought that is why you seem to be unable to divorce the proposer of the argument form the actual argument and their personal perspective and reiterate here the same slimey arguments because you have nothing else.

Again i have not defended the cover up of anything, especially the rape of children, this is again nothing more than a slimey and vile argument that has not basis in reality. The arguments of penitent privilege and the reporting of child abuse are well known and not a personal perspective, why you think hey are is again a testimony to nothing more than your slimey perspective. Infcat if anyone reads the thread they will find I actually support mandatory reporting making your allegation not only false, but demonstrably so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is nothing more than another vile and slanderous attempt at vilification, the argument that i presented was not a personal perspective and had been made before. Why is it that you are unable to grasp this and continue to make vile assertions? Personally i think it is because you are intellectuality incapable of objective rational thought that ...[text shortened]... personal perspective and reiterate here the same slimey arguments because you have nothing else.

So for you forced sex on your wife is rape?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So for you forced sex on your wife is rape?

Yes

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is nothing more than another vile and slanderous attempt at vilification, the argument that i presented was not a personal perspective and had been made before.

On this forum you argued that marital rape is "not logically possible". That means there are perhaps countless hundreds of thousands of rapes in a country like India every year that you deny were rapes. What was said about you on the "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" thread was completely true

sonhouse: So for you forced sex on your wife is rape?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes

So why didn't you just say so when we were having a discussion about domestic violence and marital rape in India?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The arguments of penitent privilege and the reporting of child abuse are well known and not a personal perspective, why you think hey are is again a testimony to nothing more than your slimey perspective.

What does "penitent privilege" have to do with allegations of sex abuse? Why have you made excuses for the fact that out of hundreds and hundreds of allegations of child sex abuse made against "elders" and members of your organization during the last five decades, none were reported to the authorities?

Originally posted by FMF
On this forum you argued that marital rape is "not logically possible". That means there are perhaps countless hundreds of thousands of rapes in a country like India every year that you deny were rapes. What was said about you on the "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" thread was completely true

No the argument concerns a Christine perspective and the idea of consent, infcat its rather interesting that a Christian man or women cedes authority over their own bodies when they are married and what implications this has under the definition of rape. it does not apply to anyone who is not married or who is not a Christian as you have once again, erroneously assumed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No the argument concerns a Christine perspective and the idea of consent, infcat its rather interesting that a Christian man or women cedes authority over their own bodies when they are married and what implications this has under the definition of rape. it does not apply to anyone who is not married or who is not a Christian as you have once again, erroneously assumed.

So a man can have sex with his wife even when she doesn't want to? That's "a Christian perspective"?

Originally posted by FMF
What does "penitent privilege" have to do with allegations of sex abuse? Why have you made excuses for the fact that out of hundreds and hundreds of allegations of child sex abuse made against "elders" and members of your organization during the last five decades, none were reported to the authorities?

again this has already been explained in the thread, if you do not understand it ask someone for help. i have explained it countless times and will not do so again, especially to someone who has little ability for objective rational thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Infcat if anyone reads the thread they will find I actually support mandatory reporting making your allegation not only false, but demonstrably so.

Do you defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there isn't "mandatory reporting"?

Originally posted by FMF
So a man can have sex with his wife even when she doesn't want to? That's "a Christine perspective"?

again this is another instance of your slimey methods, attempting to state values that have not been explicitly expressed, why you need to be so slimey i cannot say but i should really thankyou for demonstrating how you take a value, twist it and present an entirely different perspective to attack because well, you are incapable of anything else.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this has already been explained in the thread, if you do not understand it ask someone for help. i have explained it countless times and will not do so again, especially to someone who has little ability for objective rational thought.

You have attempted to defend the cover up of sex abuse by citing "penitent privilege" but that applies to some sort of formal, sacramental "confession" scenario. The question you have dodged meticulously for weeks and weeks is, what does "penitent privilege" have to do with allegations of sex abuse ~ not "confessions" - but allegations?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there isn't "mandatory reporting"?

I do not defend the cover up of anything , the arguments that i have made are well known and understood to those with insight into the issues and will not be dumbed down to a tabloid level by the likes of you. Why are yo so slimey?

Originally posted by FMF
You have attempted to defend the cover up of sex abuse by citing "penitent privilege" but that applies to some sort of formal, sacramental "confession" scenario. The question you have dodged meticulously for weeks and weeks is, what does "penitent privilege" have to do with [b]allegations of sex abuse ~ not "confessions" - but allegations?[/b]

No i have attempted nothing of the sort, your slimey perspective and false accusations are fooling no one. Once again i have not attempted to cover up or defend the cover up of anything, your slime isnt working here FMF.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this is another instance of your slimey methods, attempting to state values that have not been explicitly expressed...

What are you on about? You just said, on the matter of rape in marriage: "the argument concerns a Christine perspective and the idea of consent, infcat its rather interesting that a Christian man or women cedes authority over their own bodies when they are married and what implications this has under the definition of rape". This is explicitly what you expressed, verbatim.