Rape being re-defined by Senator Akin

Okay, if you don't like America, then leave? No one's forcing you to stay in this cesspit. You can apply for citizenship in another country (like Germany, I personally want to go to Germany) and move there. I mean, it'll probably be laborious and time-consuming to adjust, but it's not impossible. Besides, it'd be a great life-enhancing experience that could possibly, and probably (if you hate America so much), make you even happier!

Reason A: Europe as a whole is undergoing it's own financial and moral collaspe. Leaving one cesspit for another isn't my idea of improvement.

Reason B: I can't imagine visiting the graves of the Founders and telling them: Sorry we couldn't prevent Liberalism from violating the country, as you feared, it destroyed it completely and so your ancestors chose to run like cowards.

Rather than We Americans leaving the country, it's about time we banned Liberalism. WW2 as well as the Cold war were partially a movement against Communism(Far-Leftism). When Democracies and Dictatorships agree on the threat of Leftism, you KNOW it's devastating.

Leftism is an Anti-Human political movement, if we didn't know that from the abortion push, how about the push for Carbon Taxes, and the "little guy" living within his means(IE: Living poorer than he already is), based on a theory that is not scientifically proven(and even if it were proven, the proof is in the pudding that the advocates for this mass genocide aren't going to help by committing themselves to the process.)

I was only partially serious about that. Before I get into this any further, let me point out some things.

One: communism originally started out as an worldview ideology. Communism was thought up as, by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, a utopia where people didn't rely on a government to dictate what they would do, and would rather naturally and wholly assume roles needed to keep the society functioning. However, people over the past century, mainly, have used this ideology to impose dictatorships and oligarchies. From we have seen, these people tend to be greedy and impose ill will rather than to guide society to the ideal state of communism.

Two: Liberalism is, oversimplified, just a political ideology where people are equal and have freedom in their lives. That's not too much. In fact, our country tries to pride itself on the fact that the people have basic rights observed by the government that allows them to have a good control over their daily life. I mean, governments should enforce laws that keep the population in a relatively safe environment. No, it's resources shouldn't be abused by people who make bad choices that are unhealthy and blame everyone else for it.

Besides, how is abortion mass genocide? How is this even remotely related to events like the Holocaust or the Russian purges being gassed alive, starved to death, physically abused and shot and killed in truck loads? I personally believe that fetuses (embryos) should not have "person-hood" because until at least 24 weeks after conception, which by then it has been aborted in most cases, they cannot think or feel.

Anti-human? Liberalism is the belief that people should be human and respected as an individual while being able to have access to whatever resources they want to. Telling women what not to do with their bodies is like telling someone they can't breathe. It's an automatic function, of course their going to breathe. And women are going to do whatever they want with their bodies. I personally believe that it's a personal, private matter; not one that's dictated by a legislation (of relatively few numbers) into a written law of any sort.

This is just how I feel about abortion and people forcing women to birth their offspring.

You're confusing your vision of Communism with Anarchy(Note:Anarchy failed along with the Currency Crisis of the late 17th-early 18 century). You're also confusing Liberalism(State Welfare), with Libertarianism(Which follows those beliefs that you espoused as far as people having freedom and access to choice).

Killings are never related, in only one aspect though: Murder is occurring, people are dying. And as it regards killing off the developed lives, it's America's greatest tragedy. We've no business crucifying China, the only difference between the Chinese Stasi, and the current state of America, is that Americans are more than willing, and consider the implorable, a 'choice'. I suppose it could be worse, we couldn't be debating it at all, and we would truly become the Communist Chinese State.

It'll be of great interest to me, in combination of the excessive baby boomer retirement dilemna, as well as the excessive divorce/abortion policy. Right now, at least Japan's youth can be assured of birth, even with it's own population crisis. The "most developed country in the world" cannot, and from the voice of the "argument", will not any time soon address this issue.

America has fallen, on the hubris of it's own stupidity. I've already argued with Big Lundi at length, to the moral illegitimacy of saying "It doesn't feel anything, so it's not a being." So I don't feel like rehashing that argument.

God Bless America? If God exists, may he bless the people with some freaking common knowledge...Before this country becomes the Venezuela of the Western Powers.

As I stated, "communism originally was a worldview ideology." I guess I had some bad word choices when I said they wouldn't rely on the government. What I meant to say is that they become the government itself rather than having select individuals doing the daily work by imposing rules over them to keep them complacent, and instead would take over and agree to certain social and legal rules. I think you're also missing points on anarchy. Anarchy is a system where there are no laws to govern people by, and it's not a utopia in any sense.

Also, I did state "oversimplified" when saying liberalism is. It's true that doesn't adequately explain how socially or economically liberalism and libertarianism are different, but I'm not wrong. They both share beliefs; just libertarianism is just more economically conservative compared to liberals. Socially, which is mostly the case here, they have similar beliefs.

You're saying killing people who have consciousness and can feel pain is no where near similar to abortion, yet you say that abortions are the cause of a mass genocide? That's how I read what you wrote, which in my opinion counts a contraction.

And I'm agnostic, so I don't think a divine intervention will help us out. The people themselves have to get their act together in order to better themselves, in your eyes. Anyways, if we completely got rid of liberalism and libeterianism and other like-minded groups and left this to people who prefer to dwell on past traditions and choices, we'll have chaos. Our whole system itself depends on both liberals and conservatives, so remove one and it throws a huge imbalance that'll last quite a long time and possibly even spiral down even more. Or if we keep it the way it is, we're screwed yet again.

I agree with you that America is getting worse, but don't think it's being left or right winged. In my opinion, it's just how we act as a society; staying divided and fighting for one way or the other rather than rationalizing on proper alternatives. Maybe it's a stupid opinion, but at least I express it rather than not saying anything and not liking how others decide for me.

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHHAHA

I CAN'T EVEN DEBATE ANYMORE, YOU'RE JUST TOO FAR GONE. X'D
WOW.

The freaking reason the first "Americans" (and by that, I mean former Europeans) wanted to found their own country was so they COULD be liberal.
Yes, the meaning of the term "liberal" has changed in the country since then, but the founding principles remain the same: freedoms for citizens.

So suck it up, live by your own morals (nothing, aside from basic law, is forcing others' on your lifestyle), let others be, and get the fuck off your high horse.

Morals are subjective.

The Founding Fathers would have an awfully hard time being elected, under the democratic platform of massive spending, government welfare and subjugation of abuse of future American generations(of course, I mean the abortion murder tragedy)

And the Republicans? The conservative base has all but died out, leaving the neo-cons somehow prominent even after the collaspe of the Bush Regime. Neo-cons would want nothing to do with a non-interventionist foreign policy, or with the restrictions as far as monopolies go for their trusted friends on Wall Street.

So to say that the Founding Fathers would approve of this miserable, half-wit state which is only 'America' in name is so horribly false it's laughable.

Also, while the Founding Fathers fought for freedoms, they fundamentally understood that those freedoms were only as strong as their moral conviction, and the responsibility that came with it. If our freedoms were without consequence, our decisions without a higher moral principle, if "freedom" became a namesake for doing whatever the hell we wanted, when we wanted and how we wanted.

Well, then you have modern day 'America'. I have no doubt, if the Founders are looking over us, they're asking themselves: "Why didn't we just assassinate King George and rule over the British Empire."

If America were not 'liberated' from European customs, then maybe we wouldn't have degenerated into such a state. I'm glad you won't "debate" me Gizgal, you see, the train of thought that led to modern day 'America' makes me sick, reading about it, comprehending it and even coming to the cognition that there are millions of, no offense, idiots who believe this garbage frightens me.

It won't be another two decades before America recovers, if that.

Not trying to getting too far away from the topic (but getting anyways) I would like to point out that this view over Marx ideas is a mistake. While the utopic perfect society which communism alludes to is never precisely quantified, its a very vague concept similar to a paradise, the means to achieve it have been quantified by Marx and Engels and they pretty much approved a violent revolution followed by a rule immersed in tyranny.



Obviously the context in which Lustful uses the word “liberal” is much different than classical liberalism that was the inspiration of the Founding Fathers. Liberalism, in classical terms, was pretty much founded by John Locke and he used the concepts of natural rights and social contracts to argue that the Rule of Laws should replace the management of society per traditionalism and absolutism found in their European governments of his time and that individuals had right to life, property and liberty, but that the “rulers” should govern under the watch of the governed.

But to say the liberal philosophy of Locke is the same as the modern liberal political movement is just wrong. Modern liberal movement have taken an instance much more Hobbesian of the State than Lockenian (this is somewhat confusing because Locke was very similar to Hobbes in his political views but distances himself rhetorically from Hobbes principles). They defend that even though people should have their freedom, the State should regulate the society so it doesn't fall over its own weight, by means of economic and politic regulations, where the ruler is not totally under the consent of the governed but in a more reciprocate relation, its not really about classical freedom anymore as the very concept of Natural Rights somewhat enters in a dillema when dealing with abortion, but regulation of society disregarding societies own views. This is very clear in the Keynesian approach the American government has on the economy and the excessive legal regulations over its own internal policies. This is the liberalism lustful alludes to. Today the classical liberalism which inspired the Founding Fathers is more similar to modern Libertarianism (just not so extreme) than to modern Liberalism. Modern Liberalism is really more about “equality by all means”(thus why the State needs to intervene) than the comprehension of liberty and natural rights in itself, which is why it is much more leftist than it was in the past.

Yet it must be pointed out, that via the principle of "equality by all means", that said equality can never be had. For true Equality to be had, it can only be accomplished door to door, man to man. Ideal to ideal. This is why the Founding Fathers brokered the Great Compromise, this is also why they didn't outright ban slavery. They believed that the citizens of the country would determine that.

In order to use correct political language, I will state that Modern Liberalism, is a paux political movement, neither liberal in principle nor theory. It's totalitarian and assumputous. I'd also argue, in the cases of the Soviet Union and modern day America, the Leftist State had/has no social identity outside of the State itself.

I love how this thread (partially my fault) went from a stupid remark by Senator Akin to abortion in general into politics. Now I remember what happens when you debate (I tried to be civil, even if it didn't seem so to the opposition) or argue over topics that almost every person's opinion is different (even if slightly).

And we all wonder why some people cant take a step forward into a moral code.. thinking that way?? really.. that man... took the moronic award ... he is a total ass

Just adding some statistics to the thread. Sourced from the following:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

Don’t believe in rape culture? Here are some statistics for you.

Out of every 100 rapes:

46 are reported to the police
12 rapes will resort in an arrest
9 rape cases are prosecuted
5 rape cases lead to a felony conviction
Only 3 rapists will ever spend a day in jail

In a survey of 11-14 year-old boys:

51% believed rape was acceptable if a boy spent a lot of money on a girl
31% believed rape was acceptable if a girl had past sexual experience
65% believed rape were acceptable if a girl and boy had been dating for more than 6 months
87% believed rape were acceptable if the woman and man are married

A woman might not even have grown up understanding what rape is…because in a survey of 11-14 year-old girls:

41% believed rape was acceptable if a boy spent a lot of money on a girl
32% believed rape was acceptable if a girl had past sexual experience
47% believed rape were acceptable if a girl and boy had been dating for more than 6 months
79% believed rape were acceptable if the woman and man are married

In a survey of college males:

35% admit - anonymously - that they would rape under the circumstances that they could get away with it
1 in 12 admitted to committing acts defined as rape, but 84% of rapists did not recognize those acts as rape

In yet another survey of college males:

43% of college-aged men admitted to using coercive behavior to have sex, including ignoring a woman’s protest, using physical aggression, and forcing intercourse.
15% acknowledged they had committed acquaintance rape; 11% acknowledged using physical restraints to force a woman to have sex.

This 'survey' shouldn't be cited by anyone really, isn't the political scoring points obvious when they interviewed barely adolescent teenagers about the sexual subject of rape!? It begs the question if they understood the question, if their parents even gave consent to the questioning. I highly doubt it, due to this
nonsensical question: 87% believed rape were acceptable if the woman and man are married


Actually, the whole line of questioning is stupid and doesn't truly test their knowledge of rape, it just proves their illiteracy.

And it didn't show a 'rape culture', it showed an ignorance of rape. Even the college numbers, aren't as bad. That means 57% of males engaged in proper sexual conduct, or 2/3rds of males. And in the other survey, you're talking at best 1/5th.

Exaggerating the case and taking advantage of the vulnerable of our society for political points is disgusting, but sadly nothing new.

Lol, 57% doesn't equal 2/3...66% does. 57 is closer to 50 than 66, so it'd be better to say 1/2 if you're going to use rounding.

Also, illiteracy deals with reading and writing. These surveys very well could have been given orally, at least the ones with the younger children.

"showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge". Do you really think, obviously based on the answers that these kids were competent enough to actually answer the question? I would've been more surprised if they answered morally in the affirmative about how rape is an evil and heinous crime.

How can one state in the positive of the Age of Consent laws, yet ask questions that these pre-teens don't even have the knowledge to answer?


57 is close to 60. 60/100=2/3 66 is close to 70 or 3/4th's, try again.

Dude. 66/100 = 2/3, there is no arguing with that. And 75/100 = 3/4. If you try and deny that I pity you.

Also, the point of the survey was just to get the kids' perspectives whether or not they're "competent." Kids can have an opinion too.

They probably did not say "rape". They likely said something like "does ____ deserve to have sex no matter what ____ says in the case that: (married, dating, sex prior, etc)".

Also, why is rape within marriage nonsensical? It happens, and IS rape.
Marriage doesn't entitle anyone to their partner's body 24/7.

Sixty out of one hundred equals three-fifths, not two thirds. Seventy out of one hundred is seven-tenths, not three quarters. Might want to remember basic math.

Edit: Just from seeing this line of thought, it makes me question the thought-process behind your argument. I don't mean it as an insult, just it looks bad when you mess up basic education when presenting arguments.

Perhaps I made some basic miscalculations, but the point I was trying to make is that 57/43 doesn't compute to 50%. Actually, the point was, the numbers weren't as bad as portrayed and that in the case of asking under-aged children a political question of such magnitude, makes me dismiss it altogether.

Would you ask an under-aged child what his thoughts were on say, existence? Hell no, he hardly gave it the thought and you know damn well he didn't. Same thing here.

I can see that. I do believe they haven't really thought about it much, I mean they're just reaching the age of puberty. However, I believe that this is more of a societal question, not political, and they are a part of society, so I can understand why they would be questioned with this. 11-14 is also the age where they start to work their way into society and determine how they want to contribute to society. That's just my thought though.