Dasa and the thought police

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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?

This does not answer the point blank question: do you or do you not defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there isn't "mandatory reporting"?

Originally posted by FMF
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.

You see you have not the slightest idea what the argument is, its rational basis, who it applies to, the implications of the principles and how they have a bearing on each other, you dont understand anything at all concerning the argument that was proffered, all you understand is slime.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

This response is dodging the question: what does "penitent privilege" have to do with allegations of sex abuse? You ask the alleged perpetrator about the allegations and - all of a sudden - everything he says then becomes confidential as long as he is "penitent"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You see you have not the slightest idea what the argument is, its rational basis, who it applies to, the implications of the principles and how they have a bearing on each other....

Well, consider your "rational basis" and your "implications" and your "principles". And then tell me: Is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is rape or is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is not rape?

Originally posted by FMF
This does not answer the point blank question: do you or do you not defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there [b]isn't "mandatory reporting"?[/b]

You have insulted my intelligence, my religion, my morality and personal integrity, you have attempted through nothing more than vile insinuations and a complete failure to understand almost anything with regard to the principles and ideas and issues in those threads except to foment slimey arguments against the person who proposed them. You are for want of a better word simply a slimey little man. I have never defended the cover up of child abuse when there is no mandatory reporting, but of course the issue is not that simple and there are many factors to consider but I don't expect an ill informed and ignorant contributor like you to care or even understand it, you are quite simply incapable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have insulted my intelligence, my religion, my morality and personal integrity, you have attempted through nothing more than vile insinuations and a complete failure to understand almost anything with regard to the principles and ideas and issues in those threads except to foment slimey arguments against the person who proposed them. you are for ...[text shortened]... and ignorant contributor like you to care or even understand it, you are quite simply incapable.

You are still dodging the question of whether you defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children when there isn't "mandatory reporting"?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, consider your "rational basis" and your "implications" and your "principles". And then tell me: Is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is rape or is it an "argument" that says a man forcing his wife to have sex is not rape?

please go away you slimey little man, you have not a clue about the issues that were presented, the implications, all you have and all you understand is slime. Now if you dont mind i have better things to do than remonstrate with a slimey ignoramus.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have never defended the cover up of child abuse when there is no mandatory reporting...

Do you think allegations of serious sex crimes should be reported to - and handled by - the authorities "when there is no mandatory reporting", yes or no?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think allegations of serious sex crimes should be reported to - and handled by - the authorities "when there is no mandatory reporting", yes or no?

I think you are a slimey ignoramus if thats any consolation? and the issue as i have stated is not that simple You don't seem to understand anything regarding the issue.

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.

You appear to be arguing that only a Christian man ~ not other men ~ can force his wife to have sex with his wife without it being rape [because a woman women cedes authority over her own body when she is married] and that this is "a Christian perspective". Why not clarify?

Originally posted by FMF
You appear to be arguing that only a Christian man ~ not other men ~ can force his wife to have sex with his wife [b]without it being rape [because a woman women cedes authority over her own body when she is married] and that this is "a Christian perspective". Why not clarify?[/b]

dude you do not understand anything about the argument and i for one will not do battle against your ignorance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you do not understand anything about the argument and i for one will not do battle against your ignorance.

Why not clarify then? I have simply been scrutinizing the words you have used to make "the argument".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No the argument concerns a Christian 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....

Is this "Christian perspective" which you claim affects "the definition of rape" also your own perspective?

Originally posted by FMF
Why not clarify then? I have simply been scrutinizing the words you have used to make "the argument".

Do you own research, you have goggle, why not use it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you own research, you have goggle, why not use it.

You want me to use Google to find out your perspective on rape in marriage? That seems peculiar.