NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699

alrighty then.

I don't know what I really think about this........I mean I am sure the kid meant no harm, but where is the line between intent and result?

and why did the teacher not just talk to the kid about it?

That kid got farther with his teacher than I do on most first dates.
But seriously, did he really intend to bury his face in the teacher's chest?
I think not.
Certainly I wouldn't have when I was four.
Because I was scared of everything.


And how could the kid have reached her chest, unless she was kneeling.
I'm average height (5'8") and the average four-year old is just above waist level on me, I'd assume...

*refrains from using headband "smilie"*

Thank God I live in the only good place in Texas where we don't put up with this shit.

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699

alrighty then.

I don't know what I really think about this........I mean I am sure the kid meant no harm, but where is the line between intent and result?

and why did the teacher not just talk to the kid about it?

See what happens when women believe in Feminism? And people think that the Nazis were bad. :rolleyes:

Thank God I live in the only good place in Texas where we don't put up with this shit.
I agree. That kid ought to be shot.

But that would lead to all kinds of litigation mess...

See what happens when women believe in Feminism? And people think that the Nazis were bad. :rolleyes:

uh......no.

This shit has gone to far. It is time for the poeple in America and other places to get back to living a real life. Damn, a four year old huggs his teachers aid :fluffle: and the next thing you know they will want to charge him with attempted rape. :mad:

uh......no.

Pff. I hate Jews. Feminists hate men.

At least I am a discriminating discriminator. Feminists discriminate undiscriminately.

I agree. That kid ought to be shot.

But that would lead to all kinds of litigation mess...

No, I mean he's just a 4 year old, and he's just being, well, a 4 year old.

I'm saying we don't fill out law-suites for little bits that mean nothing like this.

Pff. I hate Jews. Feminists hate men.

At least I am a discriminating discriminator. Feminists discriminate undiscriminately.

Shhhhh. The grown-ups are talking.

Thank God I live in the only good place in Texas where we don't put up with this shit.

Did you not see the location?

[IMG]http://kxxv.images.worldnow.com/images/static/hdr/hdr_branding.jpg/[IMG]

Pff. I hate Jews. Feminists hate men.

At least I am a discriminating discriminator. Feminists discriminate undiscriminately.

Feminists do not hate men.

Feminists do not hate men.

Don't bother arguing with him Smunkee, it's what he wants.

Feminists do not hate men.

Haha. Suuuure, they don't. :rolleyes:

Haha. Suuuure, they don't. :rolleyes:

Just because you've been rejected by women doesn't mean that they hate men. It's just you. :p

Haha. Suuuure, they don't. :rolleyes:

No, we don't hate men. We just hate men like you.

Haha. Suuuure, they don't. :rolleyes:

Why, hello, supporter of the murderous, repulsive ideology that generated the biggest threat the world has ever seen, how are you this fine day?

Your attempt to pin this on feminism would work better if... well, no, it would not work at all, because it's clearly chosen to be idiotic and inflame people.

Why, hello, supporter of the murderous, repulsive ideology that generated the biggest threat the world has ever seen, how are you this fine day?

Biggest thread to the world? Dude! There are so many things wrong with that it isn't even funny.

The NAZIs were not a threat to the world. They were a thread to certain portions of the world. In the long run, however, it wouldn't really have mattered as far as "the world" goes.

That said, the Feminazis...wait...no, I don't want to insult Mein Fuhrer, the Feminisoviets are killing children in their mother's wombs. Hell, at least Mein Fuhrer waited until the children were OUT of the womb, and then, again, he only executed certain people.

The Femisoviets are willing to have anyone killed at any time.

In fact, certain Femisoviets have actually asked the question, "Why do we even need men?" Yet, you call the NAZIs dangerous?

And c'mon! I doubt that Mein Fuhrer would have had a 4 year old girl executed for giving him a hug.

Haha. Suuuure, they don't. :rolleyes:

No, they just hate you.

I'm pretty sure this thread is about 4 year olds touching teachers, not Nazism vs. Feminism.

And c'mon! I doubt that Mein Fuhrer would have had a 4 year old girl executed for giving him a hug.

Yeah...unless she was Jewish, a communist, a Roma, or disabled.

So when did this troll come right out and start goose-stepping in public?

I'm pretty sure this thread is about 4 year olds touching teachers, not Nazism vs. Feminism.

It is clear that this teacher is a Feminist, and this, ultimately, is a result of Feminism. Naziism is a whole lot less dangerous than this shit.

Biggest thread to the world? Dude! There are so many things wrong with that it isn't even funny.

The NAZIs were not a threat to the world. They were a thread to certain portions of the world. In the long run, however, it wouldn't really have mattered as far as "the world" goes.

That said, the Feminazis...wait...no, I don't want to insult Mein Fuhrer, the Feminisoviets are killing children in their mother's wombs. Hell, at least Mein Fuhrer waited until the children were OUT of the womb, and then, again, he only executed certain people.

The Femisoviets are willing to have anyone killed at any time.

In fact, certain Femisoviets have actually asked the question, "Why do we even need men?" Yet, you call the NAZIs dangerous?

And c'mon! I doubt that Mein Fuhrer would have had a 4 year old girl executed for giving him a hug.

Yes, but just think how many fetuses he killed at Aushwitz, and tell me that isn't a problem?

Watch out for 4-year-olds.
They're quite unpredictable nowadays.

Yes, but just think how many fetuses he killed at Aushwitz, and tell me that isn't a problem?

Yea, but they were Jewish fetuses, some of them may even have been homosexual, so it was ok, see?

Yeah...unless she was Jewish, a communist, a Roma, or disabled.

Are you aware that in China, female infanticide is more prevalant than anywhere else, and abortions are targeted mainly at female embryos?

I am sure that isn't a priority for the Feminists, so far as I've heard.

Der Fuhrer had the people he considered enemies executed.

The femisoviets don't care. They don't think anyone deserves to live.

It is clear that this teacher is a Feminist, and this, ultimately, is a result of Feminism. Naziism is a whole lot less dangerous than this shit.

If you want to remain a troll on NS, you really have to be more subtle than this. Trolling takes a certain amount of skill; a big part of that is having people believe that YOU believe what you are saying. Hey, it's totally possible that you do...but you're not coming across as sincere, and are more likely to get modsmacked.

We love our trolls, and hate to see them die, so you need to work on your approach.

The femisoviets

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea just how ridiculous this is?

Yea, but they were Jewish fetuses, some of them may even have been homosexual, so it was ok, see?

If that's his standard, then he should be gleeful for the Femisoviet efforts. It's not like there are many Dworkins in Sweden.

If you want to remain a troll on NS, you really have to be more subtle than this. Trolling takes a certain amount of skill; a big part of that is having people believe that YOU believe what you are saying. Hey, it's totally possible that you do...but you're not coming across as sincere, and are more likely to get modsmacked.

We love our trolls, and hate to see them die, so you need to work on your approach.
Listen to this women, she had one of the pest puppet troll accounts we've ever had.

at least Mein Fuhrer waited until the children were OUT of the womb.

Okay, flamebait anyone?

It is clear that this teacher is a Feminist, and this, ultimately, is a result of Feminism. Naziism is a whole lot less dangerous than this shit.

Or shes just stupid/sue happy/insane. Not every woman who does something wrong is a Feminist.

Biggest thread ...[SNIP] Mein Fuhrer would have had a 4 year old girl executed for giving him a hug. Man, that was weak! Was that supposed to be insulting?

Biggest thread to the world? Dude! There are so many things wrong with that it isn't even funny.

The NAZIs were not a threat to the world. They were a thread to certain portions of the world. In the long run, however, it wouldn't really have mattered as far as "the world" goes.

Yeah, the intent to take over and repress governments and kill Jews wasn't a threat at all.

But to the topic, double you tee eff? God damn teacher's aide crackpots.

Or shes just stupid/sue happy/insane. Not every woman who does something wrong is a Feminist.

Were the accusation anything other than a sexual one, I would be inclined to agree. However, since the Feminist doctrine includes a litany of rape propoganda...

"If you have had half a tequila, it is rape.
If your husband makes 2 dollars more than you, it is rape.
If your children don't like strained peas, it is rape."

Bah, humbugh! :headbang:

Okay, flamebait anyone?
It isn't even that.

Were the accusation anything other than a sexual one, I would be inclined to agree. However, since the Feminist doctrine includes a litany of rape propoganda...

"If you have had half a tequila, it is rape.
If your husband makes 2 dollars more than you, it is rape.
If your children don't like strained peas, it is rape."

Bah, humbugh! :headbang:

Yea, it sure is worse than "If your husband rapes you, it's not rape because he's your husband".

Yea, it sure is worse than "If your husband rapes you, it's not rape because he's your husband".

Spousal rape is a bunch of horse hockey.

Spousal rape is a bunch of horse hockey.

So a man who has sex with his wife, despite her repeated insistence that he doesn't, is perfectly justified?

Guys, quit arguing with this clown.

So a man who has sex with his wife, despite her repeated insistence that he doesn't, is perfectly justified?

I really can't think of any instances in which a wife really has a good reason to refuse her husband sex that a husband would be asking for it.

Were the accusation anything other than a sexual one, I would be inclined to agree. However, since the Feminist doctrine includes a litany of rape propoganda...

"If you have had half a tequila, it is rape.
If your husband makes 2 dollars more than you, it is rape.
If your children don't like strained peas, it is rape."

Bah, humbugh! :headbang:
So every woman who has ever wrongfully pressed charges for rape is a feminist?

So every woman who has ever wrongfully pressed charges for rape is a feminist?

Now you're getting it! :p

Do you guys not get it that TFHR cannot be reasoned with?

Waco... isn't there where the branch davidian shootout took place in the early 90s?

I really can't think of any instances in which a wife really has a good reason to refuse her husband sex that a husband would be asking for it.

A REASON? So now you need a reason NOT to be raped?
Where's that "Don't feed the troll" image when you need it?

Can someone please check with the mods if advocating spousal rape is okay?

That's absurd. I was burying my face in chicks' tits untill I was 6 before people told me it wasn't okay:D. And do you think we can stay on topic maybe? Although this topic has little potential for actual rational debate...:rolleyes:

I really can't think of any instances in which a wife really has a good reason to refuse her husband sex that a husband would be asking for it."Dear, i have Gonorrhoea... please don't rape me again. I got this wretched disease fucking a passing basketball team because you can't make me come. Please, don't"
Your and your imagination...

Can someone please check with the mods if advocating spousal rape is okay?

A) I am not advocating spousal rape. I am saying that the concept that a spouse can be raped by another spouse is absurd.

B) I am not saying that one should need a reason not to be raped. I am saying that a man belongs to his wife, and vice versa, including their respective sexual organs. If a man wants sex from his wife, then it is his right to recieve it, and the same vise versa.

I can't think of any reason in which a wife has a good reason to refuse sex when her husband wants it.

I can't think of any reason in which a wife has a good reason to refuse sex when her husband wants it.

Bodies are not property. They don't "belong" to anyone.

I really can't think of any instances in which a wife really has a good reason to refuse her husband sex that a husband would be asking for it.

The exact same instances where non-married sex is considered rape; when one of the participants is being forced against their will.

Do you guys not get it that TFHR cannot be reasoned with?

I know, but I'm bored, and its semi-fun.

I am not saying that one should need a reason not to be raped. I am saying that a man belongs to his wife, and vice versa, including their respective sexual organs. If a man wants sex from his wife, then it is his right to recieve it, and the same vise versa.

Develop your reasoning one step further. You claim the wife's sexual organs belong to the man. As such, what are your claims regarding him forcing the act? Do you claim it is okay if he so wishes?

Bodies are not property. They don't "belong" to anyone.

As a Catholic, I must disagree.

Consider for a moment this (http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=485934&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=1&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=15&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=) except from the EWTN questions and answers page.

See Rev. Mark J. Gantley's answer:

The grounds for defects of consent regarding marriage apply not only to Catholics but to all people because they are formulations of principles of the natural law.
From your first sentence, it sounds like you are describing the grounds of canon 1098: "A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disburb the partnership of conjugal life." However, this grounds does not apply to the circumstances that you describe because of the fact that the truth was revealed to you before marriage.

This grounds might apply to the withholding of a history of mental illness, but this would be a rather weak argument, as one would have to prove that the one party deceoved the other party with real malice about the matter, and it would have to be proven that somehow the history of mental illness would gravely disturb the marital partnership. In fact, the more I think about it, the weaker this ground would be.

A sexual dysfunction might be relevant, but it might more accurately fall under another, such as a psychological cause preventing a person from assuming the essential obligations of marriage (canon 1095, 3°) or the impediment of impotence (canon 1084).

The appropriate grounds for the withholding of the marital act is canon 1101, §2: "If either or both parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly." If someone intends from the beginning of the marriage to withhold sexual intimacy completely, the marriage is clearly invalid. However, even a partial withholding can indicate an invalid consent. In the marriage contract, each party hands over a set of rights to the other party. Each right handed over results in an obligation on the party of the giver. For example, by handing over the right to fidelity, a party takes on the obligation of fidelity.

With regard to sexual intimacy, this is an essential right that is handed over by each party in marriage. This also means that each party has an obligation of sexual intimacy. Obviously, there are occasions when a person is not obligated to fulfill the right of the other person -- such as when one party is sick, if the couple is practicing natural family planning, etc. However, generally speaking, each party has the obligation to fulfill this right of the other party. If one party has so restricted the exercise of this right by the other party, then the right has truly not been handed over, and the marriage is thus invalid.

No, we don't hate men. We just hate men like you.

How is he a man now?

How is he a man now?

I have a working penis and testicles. :)

How is he a man now?

Well, boy.

I have a working penis and testicles. :)

Kindly answer my question instead of entertaining us with remarks about your anatomy.

Kindly answer my question instead of entertaining us with remarks about your anatomy.

The question was asked, "How am I a man?" I am a man because I have a working penis and testicles.

The question was asked, "How am I a man?" I am a man because I have a working penis and testicles.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058100&postcount=55

Answer this question, bitte.

The question was asked, "How am I a man?" I am a man because I have a working penis and testicles.You're a male because of aforementioned organs. A man... that takes more.

The question was asked, "How am I a man?" I am a man because I have a working penis and testicles.

Is there any particular reason you put the word "working" in there?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058100&postcount=55

Answer this question, bitte.

I posted an excerpt from EWTN. See Rev. Gantley's answer.

A wife's vagina belongs to her husband, and vise versa.

Is it alright for a husband to force sex on his wife? Well, that's a complex question. The question is whether the wife should have to be forced. The answer is no. A wife has an obligation and a solemn duty to get boned by her man.

As a Catholic, I must disagree.

Consider for a moment this (http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=485934&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=1&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=15&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=) except from the EWTN questions and answers page.

See Rev. Mark J. Gantley's answer:

"Rape" is a legal term. The person you just quoted has no legal background and cannot say what rape is.
Get a lawyer or a judge or a politician. No priests.
(Incidentally, rape is usually defined as non-consentual sex. Which spousal rape fits neatly into.

Is there any particular reason you put the word "working" in there?

You know why. :rolleyes:

You know why. :rolleyes:

No, he doesn't.
I think I do, though.

I posted an excerpt from EWTN. See Rev. Gantley's answer.

A wife's vagina belongs to her husband, and vise versa.

Is it alright for a husband to force sex on his wife? Well, that's a complex question. The question is whether the wife should have to be forced. The answer is no. A wife has an obligation and a solemn duty to get boned by her man.

But, in case she does not follow through with her "obligation", does the husband have the right or not to force her, Reich? Do not dodge the question, you know I will not allow you to.

"Rape" is a legal term.

It is a commonly understood legal term. Rape is nonconsentual sex.

The point of quoting the priest is to show that it is impossible for a husband or a wife not to consent. They do that when they get married.

You know why. :rolleyes:

Why?

Is it particularly important that they are "working"?

But, in case she does not follow through with her obligation, should she, or should she not, be forced, Reich? Do not dodge the question, you know I will not allow you to.

Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation). Seriously man, that ain't cool.

You know why. :rolleyes:

No, I can't say that I do. Unless you're saying that someone who is somehow injured so that certain things don't work isn't a man.

Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation). Seriously man, that ain't cool.

Oh come on, it was much more fun when you were pretending you weren't a troll. Do that again.

Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation). Seriously man, that ain't cool.

Checkmate.

Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation). Seriously man, that ain't cool.

Thats a fucked up philosophy. You need to grow up.

Oh come on, it was much more fun when you were pretending you weren't a troll. Do that again.

Believe it or not, I knew a guy who thought exactly the same way as Herr Reich here does. And he was completely serious about it.

Oh come on, it was much more fun when you were pretending you weren't a troll. Do that again.

I ain't trolling. I am absolutely serious. Unless a wife has good reason, or a husband good reason, it is just wrong to withhold sex from a spouse. I mean, c'mon! The spouse took a vow not to have sex with anything else.

Refusing a spouse after having him/her take that vow is just mean.

That deserves a beating.

Believe it or not, I knew a guy who thought exactly the same way as Herr Reich here does. And he was completely serious about it.

That guy probably deserves locking up or something before he does something seriously wrong...

It is a commonly understood legal term. Rape is nonconsentual sex.

The point of quoting the priest is to show that it is impossible for a husband or a wife not to consent. They do that when they get married.

No, nowhere in any marriage contract you'll find(in North America or Europe, just so you don't try to dig through Saudi Arabia's or something) does it say that consent is assumed.
And even if it was, the way the US legal system is set up, assumed consent just means that if the wife isn't saying anything either way, that's a yes instead of the no. If she's saying no, then that's no by any legal system under any conditions(again, assuming all this is in a country with a decent human rights record).

I ain't trolling... The spouse took a vow not to have sex with anything else.
Sure you aren't.

No, nowhere in any marriage contract you'll find(in North America or Europe, just so you don't try to dig through Saudi Arabia's or something) does it say that consent is assumed.
And even if it was, the way the US legal system is set up, assumed consent just means that if the wife isn't saying anything either way, that's a yes instead of the no. If she's saying no, then that's no by any legal system under any conditions(again, assuming all this is in a country with a decent human rights record).

Right, and I am saying that's a bunch of bullshit. It shouldn't be like that.

I ain't trolling. I am absolutely serious.

Yea, and I seriously don't believe you.

But I'm bored.

Unless a wife has good reason, or a husband good reason, it is just wrong to withhold sex from a spouse. I mean, c'mon! The spouse took a vow not to have sex with anything else.

Refusing a spouse after having him/her take that vow is just mean.

That deserves a beating.

So, I'm lying in bed. Tired, after a long days work. My husband has just been watching porn, he is drunk. He comes in, wakes me up, and wants to have sex with me. I tell him "no, honey, I'm tired, maybe tomorrow night, you need to get your sleep too". He gets angry, rolls me over, forces me down onto the bed, and tries to pull my clothes off. I fight back. He hits me until I give in and lay quietly while he rapes me. Then I roll over and cry myself to sleep.

That's justified?

That guy probably deserves locking up or something before he does something seriously wrong...

There's not much chance of anything going wrong, since women figure out what he's like very quickly. In the 3 years I've known him the longest he's dated a girl was about a week. Also, he's not a very big man, I think he may have a bit of trouble with the whole "beating her" thing unless she's a midget or something.

No, I can't say that I do. Unless you're saying that someone who is somehow injured so that certain things don't work isn't a man.
I think he was trying to eliminate the possibility of sex change.
Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation). Seriously man, that ain't cool.
Damn it, where's that "do not feed the troll" sign?
I ain't trolling. I am absolutely serious. Unless a wife has good reason, or a husband good reason, it is just wrong to withhold sex from a spouse. I mean, c'mon! The spouse took a not legally binding vow not to have sex with anything else.

Refusing a spouse after having him/her take that not legally binding vow is just mean.

That deserves a beating.
Come on, you can do better then this.

So, I'm lying in bed. Tired, after a long days work. My husband has just been watching porn, he is drunk. He comes in, wakes me up, and wants to have sex with me. I tell him "no, honey, I'm tired, maybe tomorrow night, you need to get your sleep too". He gets angry, rolls me over, forces me down onto the bed, and tries to pull my clothes off. I fight back. He hits me until I give in and lay quietly while he rapes me. Then I roll over and cry myself to sleep.

That's justified?

Aside from the fact that I think that him watching porn is a sin, I think that if he wants sex and you want sleep, you should try sleeping while he has sex with you. :)

Refresh my memory please, the rule is that advocating rape gets one banned, no?

There's not much chance of anything going wrong, since women figure out what he's like very quickly. In the 3 years I've known him the longest he's dated a girl was about a week. Also, he's not a very big man, I think he may have a bit of trouble with the whole "beating her" thing unless she's a midget or something.

Well, that sounds a little better...scariest thing is that there are probably bigger guys who could completely dominate a woman who think the same thing...

Refresh my memory please, the rule is that advocating rape gets one banned, no?

Except, of course, that I am not advocating rape. I am saying that a certain thing considered rape shouldn't be considered rape legally. You like to twist things, don't you?

Aside from the fact that I think that him watching porn is a sin, I think that if he wants sex and you want sleep, you should try sleeping while he has sex with you. :)

You've never actually had sex, have you?

You've never actually had sex, have you?

I am as virgin as olive oil.

Except, of course, that I am not advocating rape. I am saying that a certain thing considered rape shouldn't be considered rape legally. You like to twist things, don't you?

Too bad you included the words "then she should be forced...".

You lose, I win. Checkmate.

Well, that sounds a little better...scariest thing is that there are probably bigger guys who could completely dominate a woman who think the same thing...

Quite likely. But that's what prisons are for, eh? Still, that's little consolation to anyone who has to go through that.

Too bad you included the words "then she should be forced...".

You lose, I win. Checkmate.

We'll see what the mods decide. If I am still here tomorrow, then clearly you were wrong.

You've never actually had sex, have you?Was that not clear from the start?

You should try sleeping while he has sex with you. :)assuming that he isn't totally incompetant, that would be impossible for her...

I would smack somebody. He's 4 for christs sake.

We'll see what the mods decide. If I am still here tomorrow, then clearly you were wrong.

If you're not, I'm pretty sure many people here will thank me.

I am as virgin as olive oil.

Then you'll not know that sleeping while having sex is a little difficult most times.

assuming that he isn't totally incompetant, that would be impossible for her...

If he is drunk, how long could the sex act possibly take? ._.

Was that not clear from the start?

Well, you know, benefit of the doubt and all that...

But, in case she does not follow through with her "obligation", does the husband have the right or not to force her, Reich? Do not dodge the question, you know I will not allow you to.

Until 1993 the husband did have the right to force her. (It was banned earlier in some states). There may be some jurisdictions where its still legal.

If he is drunk, how long could the sex act possibly take? ._.From two minutes to 2 hours. Causes scarring too.

If he is drunk, how long could the sex act possibly take? ._.

Longer, as alcohol numbs the senses and increases the stimulation needed for climax to occur.

Until 1993 the husband did have the right to force her. (It was banned earlier in some states). There may be some jurisdictions where its still legal.

It's rape now. And most sane people would see that it was rape back then as well.

Quite likely. But that's what prisons are for, eh? Still, that's little consolation to anyone who has to go through that.Ahh, but the part where they get forced down and have to take it in the but should be.:D

Longer, as alcohol numbs the senses and increases the stimulation needed for climax to occur.

Then if you are really sleepy, that's all the more inclination for you to really be into it, eh? :rolleyes:

I'm off to bed now. Try and not rape me, OK? Bye.

It's rape now. And most sane people would see that it was rape back then as well.

Ag. See why Femisovietism is so dangerous? :rolleyes:

Found it!
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q191/sheni712/Please_Do_Not_Feed_The_Troll.jpg

Then if you are really sleepy, that's all the more inclination for you to really be into it, eh? :rolleyes:

And how would this help the fact that I, hypothetically, didn't want it to happen in the first place, and had just been physically beaten into submission?

Then if you are really sleepy, that's all the more inclination for you to really be into it, eh? :rolleyes:Look. As you have never had sex, and beleive that viewing pornography is a sin, you really have no say in this matter...Right?

Ag. See why Femisovietism is so dangerous? :rolleyes:

I see you're tying quite a knot with the rope I'm giving you.

And how would this help the fact that I, hypothetically, didn't want it to happen in the first place, and had just been physically beaten into submission?

You shouldn't have resisted in the first place. If you didn't wanna have sex, you shouldn't have gotten married. Go cry about it. Wait, you apparently already are. :rolleyes:

Look. As you have never had sex, and beleive that viewing pornography is a sin, you really have no say in this matter...Right?

Um....no. I disagree.

Found it!
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q191/sheni712/Please_Do_Not_Feed_The_Troll.jpg

so why not ignore him?

Dear The Fourth Holy Reich,

We have come to feel that you are giving us a bad name here on NSG, your blantent racism, bigotry, and sexism are all done in the name of your religion. Well sir, we feel that with you doing so, is not in our best interest and in the interest of the image we are trying to established here on NSG. We already have priest abuse and the fact that we're not down with the crowds working against us, we don't need you messing things up even further. We would like it if you can either 1.) Stop doing things in the name of your religion or 2.) Please choose another religion.

Sincerely yours,


The sane Catholics here on NSG.

You shouldn't have resisted in the first place. If you didn't wanna have sex, you shouldn't have gotten married. Go cry about it. Wait, you apparently already are. :rolleyes:

As tempted as you may be, do NOT flame him. He's a dead man walking right now.

Dear The Fourth Holy Reich,

We have come to feel that you are giving us a bad name here on NSG, your blantent racism, bigotry, and sexism are all done in the name of your religion. Well sir, we feel that with you doing so, is not in our best interest and in the interest of the image we are trying to established here on NSG. We already have priest abuse and the fact that we're not down with the crowds working against us, we don't need you messing things up even further. We would like it if you can either 1.) Stop doing things in the name of your religion or 2.) Please choose another religion.

Sincerely yours,


The sane Catholics here on NSG.


Ugh, don't you have a Protestant Bible Study to which you should be attending? :mad:

Um....no. I disagree.elaborate...

You shouldn't have resisted in the first place. If you didn't wanna have sex, you shouldn't have gotten married. Go cry about it. Wait, you apparently already are. :rolleyes:

So, just to summarise:

- A man beating his wife into submission is acceptable
- A man forcing his wife to have sex with him is alright
- A woman resisting during the act is unacceptable
- A woman should just fall asleep during the act
- A woman should actively be involved in the act, in order to end it quicker for her if she is really that bothered

Yes?

Oh, and I'm not married. It was a hypothetical.

So, just to summarise:

- A man beating his wife into submission is acceptable
- A man forcing his wife to have sex with him is alright
- A woman resisting during the act is unacceptable
- A woman should just fall asleep during the act
- A woman should actively be involved in the act, in order to end it quicker for her if she is really that bothered

Ideally, I believe that should be the norm. Yes.

so why not ignore him?

Cause he's fun.

Cause he's fun.

I wish women thought so. :headbang:

Cause he's funny, but not entirely harmless.Fixed.

Fixed.

Haha. Wow. I am almost flattered.

I wish women thought so. :headbang:

I'm pretty sure that attitude will cause you to have plenty of success among women.

Ideally, I believe that should be the norm. Yes.

At least we know for sure where you stand.

Mr. Reich, welcome to my ignore list. You're the only person to have ever made it.

Ugh, don't you have a Protestant Bible Study to which you should be attending? :mad:

No I am Roman Catholic, and unlike you, I do recognize the power of the Vatican II, and I do recognize the power of Pope Benedict XVI. I find it disgusting how you can sit there, claim that you're are Catholic (must less a Christian) and yet you are advocating the deaths of millions of innocent people, rape, and and god who knows what else. I may be a Conservative, but at least I'm a sensible conservative! I really do wish you would stop claiming that you believe in these things because you're Catholic, it's wrong and you know it! You know damn well that the church does not advocate genocide. You know damn well that it doesn't advocate rape! If I knew which Diocese you belonged to, I would have no problem calling up the Bishop of that Diocese and asking you to be excommunicated!

No I am Roman Catholic, and unlike you, I do recognize the power of the Vatican II, and I do recognize the power of Pope Benedict XVI. I find it disgusting how you can sit there, claim that you're are Catholic (must less a Christian) and yet you are advocating the deaths of millions of innocent people, rape, and and god who knows what else. I may be a Conservative, but at least I'm a sensible conservative! I really do wish you would stop claiming that you believe in these things because you're Catholic, it's wrong and you know it! You know damn well that the church does not advocate genocide. You know damn well that it doesn't advocate rape! If I knew which Diocese you belonged to, I would have no problem calling up the Bishop of that Diocese and asking you to be excommunicated!

Except, of course, that you are begging the question. You are presuming that I am advocating genocide and rape. I advocate neither.

I posted an excerpt from EWTN. See Rev. Gantley's answer.

A wife's vagina belongs to her husband, and vise versa.

Is it alright for a husband to force sex on his wife? Well, that's a complex question. The question is whether the wife should have to be forced. The answer is no. A wife has an obligation and a solemn duty to get boned by her man.

I wouldn't use the word "solemn".

At least we know for sure where you stand.

Mr. Reich, welcome to my ignore list. You're the only person to have ever made it.
You are taking the words right out of my mouth. I would never have thought I'd ever use that function.

His comments in the Tazering thread a while back were just as vile and degenerate. This is by far the worst I have encountered in my time here.

No I am Roman Catholic, and unlike you, I do recognize the power of the Vatican II, and I do recognize the power of Pope Benedict XVI. I find it disgusting how you can sit there, claim that you're are Catholic (must less a Christian) and yet you are advocating the deaths of millions of innocent people, rape, and and god who knows what else. I may be a Conservative, but at least I'm a sensible conservative! I really do wish you would stop claiming that you believe in these things because you're Catholic, it's wrong and you know it! You know damn well that the church does not advocate genocide. You know damn well that it doesn't advocate rape! If I knew which Diocese you belonged to, I would have no problem calling up the Bishop of that Diocese and asking you to be excommunicated!Oh boy... excommunication... I havn't heard that one in a long time, but concidering the rational Catholic is the one saying it about the irrational Catholic for once, it's kinda nice.:)

Except, of course, that you are begging the question. You are presuming that I am advocating genocide and rape. I advocate neither.

You advocated rape the second you said "Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation)."

You advocated rape the second you said "Then I think the bitch should be beaten and then forced (except in the case that she is incapable of fulfilling her obligation)."

*Sigh*

Ignored, biznitch. :p

You are taking the words right out of my mouth. I would never have thought I'd ever use that function.

His comments in the Tazering thread a while back were just as vile and degenerate. This is by far the worst I have encountered in my time here.

I must have missed that thread, which can only be a good thing.

You are taking the words right out of my mouth. I would never have thought I'd ever use that function.

His comments in the Tazering thread a while back were just as vile and degenerate. This is by far the worst I have encountered in my time here.

I prefer to give people like Reich enough rope and watch them hang themselves with it.

But that's just me. ;)

Except, of course, that you are begging the question. You are presuming that I am advocating genocide and rape. I advocate neither.

Uh huh, you support the Holocaust, which was responsible for the death of 6 million jews and 12 million people overall. Basically anyone who isn't blonde hair and blue eyes die. Sounds like Genocide to me. Just so we're clear on the defention of Genocide.

# Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
library.thinkquest.org/13915/gather/glossary.htm

# A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation. The word was first used in 1944.
www.bl.uk/services/learning/curriculum/voices/refglos.html

# means an offence under Subdivision B of Division 268.
scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/PA005910.htm

# The systematic, planned annihilation of an ethnic, racial or political group.
www.elissetche.org/dico/G.htm

# is the deliberate destruction of an entire people or ethnic group.
dhrc.wright.edu/faces/glossary.htm

# the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group.
www.earlham.edu/~pols/globalprobs/bosnia/glossary.html

You also advocate that a husband is to force himself upon his wife even though his wife may not be in the mood. Now correct me if I am wrong, but when you advocate someone forcing themselves on another person, that is generally considered rape, it doesn't matter if they're married or not. You even advocate spousal abuse, which is nice.

Please tell me which Diocese you are under, I don't want you in my religion.

just reading one person in this, made me :rolleyes:

какая dum задница

*Sigh*

Ignored, biznitch. :p

I am SO scared of you ignoring me, Reich. :rolleyes:

Oh boy... sxcommunication... I havn't heard that one in a long time, but concidering the rational Catholic is the one saying it about the irrational Catholic for once, it's kinda nice.:)

It just makes me so mad that someone could use his Catholic faith as a justification for his racist, bigoted, and sexist views, and it makes the rest of us look bad.

I don't want him in my religion, I want him out NOW! Right now I am looking through the rules of this religion (forgot the name of it) to see if I do have grounds for having him excommunicated.

It just makes me so mad that someone could use his Catholic faith as a justification for his racist, bigoted, and sexist views, and it makes the rest of us look bad.

I don't want him in my religion, I want him out NOW! Right now I am looking through the rules of this religion (forgot the name of it) to see if I do have grounds for having him excommunicated.

You would if you knew his name or diocese, I guess.

Uh huh, you support the Holocaust, which was responsible for the death of 6 million jews and 12 million people overall. Basically anyone who isn't blonde hair and blue eyes die.

Except you are wrong. Hitler didn't say "anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes die."

So we're clear on the defention of Genocide.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide

Hm...I guess I was wrong. Nonetheless, the Jews are an exception.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

You also advocate that a husband is to force himself upon his wife even though his wife may not be in the mood.

I am advocating the wife being made to fulfill her obligations.

I am advocating the wife being made to fulfill her obligations.

Being made = being forced.

Fulfill her obligations = having sex.

Being forced to have sex = being raped.

If she's raped, it means her husband would have raped her.

Thus, you are expressing support for the act of rape.

Need I be clearer?

You would if you knew his name or diocese, I guess.

Yea, I'm hoping he'll give it to me.

I really would like to know what Diocese you are under The Holy Fourth Reich.

Yea, I'm hoping he'll give it to me.

I really would like to know what Diocese you are under The Holy Fourth Reich.

I tell you what. If you give me sufficient grounds to show that my ideals are in fact contrary to the Catholic Faith, I will renounce them publically.

Otherwise, you have no reason to know that. :cool:

I am advocating the wife being made to fulfill her obligations.

You advocated this:

- A man beating his wife into submission
- A man forcing his wife to have sex with him

That's called assault, battery, and rape. You advocate violent crime. But hey, I guess we shouldn't be surprised about yet another nazi troll. The only thing I'm surprised about is that someone who is willing to say such things, then turns around and tries to deny them with euphemisms and dishonesty.

Here's some advice. If you're going to be a big, bad, anonymous internet forum nazi, fine, but have the testicles to say what you mean and mean what you say, instead of dancing around like a giggling 3 year old schoolgirl with Daddy's soiled underwear in her mouth.

Except you are wrong. Hitler didn't say "anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes die."

Actions speak louder than words.

Hm...I guess I was wrong. Nonetheless, the Jews are an exception.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

How?

I am advocating the wife being made to fulfill her obligations.

Ever been to a Catholic wedding? Ever listen to the vows that the bride and groom give to one another? Those vows are the obligations that the husband and wife have to one another

Also, what Diocese are you under?

Except you are wrong. Hitler didn't say "anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes die."

Hm...I guess I was wrong. Nonetheless, the Jews are an exception.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

I am advocating the wife being made to fulfill her obligations.

I've always wanted to ask this of a Nazi... any particular reason you hate Jewish people, or just because you feel angry at the world and chose the epitome of angry at the world leaders to follow, like the rest of the neo-nazi bastards?

No offense.

It just makes me so mad that someone could use his Catholic faith as a justification for his racist, bigoted, and sexist views, and it makes the rest of us look bad.

I don't want him in my religion, I want him out NOW! Right now I am looking through the rules of this religion (forgot the name of it) to see if I do have grounds for having him excommunicated.

you think you have it bad. I have to deal with morons like al-Qeada claiming to be Muslims.;)

I've always wanted to ask this of a Nazi... any particular reason you hate Jewish people

A) Because, so far as I am concerned, I am bound by Faith to oppose them. Take a look at the site I gave, man.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

B) Because they control the world's money and media

C) They are the fathers of leftism

Here's some advice. If you're going to be a big, bad, anonymous internet forum nazi, fine, but have the testicles to say what you mean and mean what you say, instead of dancing around like a giggling 3 year old schoolgirl with Daddy's soiled underwear in her mouth.

Okay, Trostia, nice points all around, but... EW!

I tell you what. If you give me sufficient grounds to show that my ideals are in fact contrary to the Catholic Faith, I will renounce them publically.

Otherwise, you have no reason to know that. :cool:

Ok, just let me look through Catechism of the Catholic Church and I will get back to you on that.

For those who don't know what it is, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is basically a book that defines what Catholics believe in, the faith, the dogma, etc. stuff like that. So if there's any grounds for excommunication it will be in here.

Ag. Think what y'all want. I am out of this thread.

you think you have it bad. I have to deal with morons like al-Qeada claiming to be Muslims.;)

LOL, I guess we both got our assholes to deal with. Tell me, Do Muslims wish that terrorist who do their attacks in the name of Islam didn't do so? Have anyone of the Muslim community try to "excommunicate" them from your religion?

you think you have it bad. I have to deal with morons like al-Qeada claiming to be Muslims.;)

Meh, I only have to deal with goths and "pink wiccans" in my field of occultism, so I guess I'm off easy. It IS a field that other people attack pretty damn frequently though.

Ag. Think what y'all want. I am out of this thread.

LOL. I'm still looking through the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

LOL, I guess we both got our assholes to deal with. Tell me, Do Muslims wish that terrorist who do their attacks in the name of Islam didn't do so? Have anyone of the Muslim community try to "excommunicate" them from your religion?

Islam does not have a clear hierarchy, so I'm guessing no. Right? o_O

Okay, Trostia, nice points all around, but... EW!

Heh. Sorry about that. I just like vivid imagery, don't you? :p

Ag. Think what y'all want. I am out of this thread.

I accept your concession.

A) Because, so far as I am concerned, I am bound by Faith to oppose them. Take a look at the site I gave, man.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

B) Because they control the world's money and media

C) They are the fathers of leftism

As a former Jew, I can assure you that B and C are not true, because I never would have left if B was true, and all the rabbis I know except for one are rightist(and the one needs to argue that his position isn't contrary to Judaism, whereas the others don't.)
And the only reason I'm not fighting A is because I haven't seen your site yet.
EDIT: Ah, the good old "blood libel" story. Made absurd by the fact that Jews believe that eating or drinking any blood of any animal is a huge sin.
EDIT2:I know I'm arguing with a ghost here, but Wilgrove, I think we might be able to auto-excommunicate him for heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism):
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

A) Because, so far as I am concerned, I am bound by Faith to oppose them. Take a look at the site I gave, man.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

B) Because they control the world's money and media

C) They are the fathers of leftism

A) I'm incredibly surprised people who believe in that can figure out how to use a computer.

B) I'd like to see your idea of evidence for that, I'd like a laugh.

C) I'd not consider that a bad thing.

Heh. Sorry about that. I just like vivid imagery, don't you? :p

Depends. :p

A) Because, so far as I am concerned, I am bound by Faith to oppose them. Take a look at the site I gave, man.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com


From that site.

Unbalanced anti-Semitism is condemned by Traditional Church teaching, as it is sinful to hate a person for their race.

I guess we must've skipped over that part.


Still, Catholic Tradition teaches it is incumbent on every Catholic to oppose with all their energy World Jewry. Pray that the willful blindness of the Jews ceases and they will convert to the only means of salvation for mankind, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Notice it said pray, not beat, not rape, not kill, but pray. To me that usually means pray the rosary, or pray to God, Jesus or the saints that they'll see the light on their own

I will be waiting for that denouncement now.

This shit has gone to far. It is time for the poeple in America and other places to get back to living a real life. Damn, a four year old huggs his teachers aid :fluffle: and the next thing you know they will want to charge him with attempted rape. :mad:
I agree. That's the downright stupidest crap I've ever heard. The poor little guy probably just said goodbye and, heck, I dunno, wiped his little freakin nose on her shirt, or something. When you're that young, you don't understand sexual contact. My little cousin smacks me in the chest and says 'boo!' Now, should I interpret that into sexual contact?

LOL, I guess we both got our assholes to deal with. Tell me, Do Muslims wish that terrorist who do their attacks in the name of Islam didn't do so?

Absolutely. There's not a single Muslim I know that agrees with things like 9/11. No true Muslim would think of doing something like that, its not right, and its not Islam.

Have anyone of the Muslim community try to "excommunicate" them from your religion?

I'm not really sure about that but I do know there have been several clerics and Imams who have strongly denounced what they have done and what they do. Just look at bin Laden, he issues Fatwa as if he is an Islamic scholar, which is he not. He understands about as much about Islam as an ant.

Notice it said pray, not beat, not rape, not kill, but pray. To me that usually means pray the rosary, or pray to God, Jesus or the saints that they'll see the light on their own

I will be waiting for that denouncement now.

Keep reading.

Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. ~ Pope Innocent III

Keep reading.

Good luck Wilgrove - I couldn't stomach more than the first paragraph of that site.

If you make it through without throwing up or shooting someone, you get a cookie.

It's rape now. And most sane people would see that it was rape back then as well.

Whatever. The point is that this attitude is hardly from ancient history.

Sad... Sounds like the teacher just wanted to bitch.

Whatever. The point is that this attitude is hardly from ancient history.

Point.

Whether the fourth reich is a troll or not is irrelevant.

You claim to have put him in his place when clearly he is still rebutting with some valid points.

Guess what, I agree with him on his main point about females claiming rape, especially spouses.

First of all, if the topic of this thread is not enough to convince you that rape and indecent behaviour has been used too liberally and is as abundant as frivolous lawsuits, then you need to realise that claiming rape is a very serious allegation and that it could be infinetly worse for the person accused then the alleged victim. If a stranger commits rape then that person should be punished. If someone claims rape as a means to get out of a relationship then it is wrong the relationship should have ended earlier.

When you get married you make a vough 'till death do us part', 'to love each other in good times and in bad.' If your relationship is irreconcilable(sp?) then it is your responsibilty to get out of the relationship before it turns ugly. Early warning signs should be clear, too often people claim rape to destroy a person when there are better ways for two responsble adults to resolve their differences.

*A cookie to whoever reads this*
*A chocolate chip cookie if you remember me*

See what happens when women believe in Feminism? And people think that the Nazis were bad. :rolleyes:

What has this to do with feminism?

The fact that a female was involved? wow talk about trolling

snip

Too bad Reich claimed rape should be commited when the woman refuses sex.

Too bad Reich claimed rape should be commited when the woman refuses sex.

I was wrong. I shouldn't have said that. My apologies for any offense you or any other woman might have rightfully taken.

I was wrong. I shouldn't have said that. My apologies for any offense you or any other woman might have rightfully taken.

I accept your apology and have posted a remark on the moderation thread regarding it.

A 4 year old? They're learning fast aren't they? :D

But really, this is sad that they made an issue out of this. :(

Too bad Reich claimed rape should be commited when the woman refuses sex.

If a woman is in an abusive relationship she should have found a way out before things turned ugly. If he wanted sex and she said no, and he touched her claiming rape throws out any hope that she actually cared about the guy.

I was wrong. I shouldn't have said that. My apologies for any offense you or any other woman might have rightfully taken.

Finally, you ruined the thead, good job.