Your moral and intellectual superior, apparently. Now: rephrase that which I just wrote. Unless you're... scared? I guess that must be it. We wouldn't want anything to upset our apple cart.
You're just some guy on the internet who just excused rape to me. I don't particularly care how you may think your self importance matters. It doesn't matter to me. So.. Considering I did put it into my own words and you didn't get it, why should I bother doing it again?
Do you get a thrill out of intellectual disjunction? I mean, when you deliberately misrepresent a person, does it make you happy in some way? Is it enjoyable because you feel you're getting your own on members of the society you feel made your life hard, earlier on?
But I haven't misrepresented you. You do think that rape is about sex and that it has a biological imperative to spread one's genes - while you completely disregard that babies, children, men, the elderly and women who cannot have children are also raped in exceptionally high numbers. As scientists noted in response to Thornhill and Palmer, their argument is absolutely flawed, not only because of the lack of data to back up their claims that it is biological, but also because they disregard and ignore the rapes of children, men, the elderly - where it is clearly not for 'biological' reasons.
My personal opinion supported by the links I gave to James? *chortle* Ah, even I don't go so far as they.
No, it's just a general observation and especially in the manner in which you dismiss actual scientists who disagree with you and who are the ones who have studied rape in quite a bit of detail. What is it that you do again? Are your subjects of study even human? Or are you like Thornhill and Palmer who based their rape is about sex and biological on the scorpion fly?
You're a man who has taken on the mantle of defending rape?
Oh look, more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty..
Bells, your personal circumstances - assuming they're actually true - have nothing to do with anything else. Neither does it prove much of anything. It has no place here. Sorry.
Assuming they are true? So rape apologist and rape denier.
So you think forcible copulation and infanticide neither terrorizes nor harms others.
Okay.
Yet more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. Is this what I actually said? No. Instead of answering the question, you troll by trying to misrepresent what I actually said.
Here is the question again.. "Which animal species uses sex as a weapon or tool to terrorise and harm others?" .. Come on GeoffP, this is an easy question for even a two bit biologist like you to be able to answer.
I agree that the will to nearly constantly distort other people's posts is a kind of unfair advantage, yes. I think there must be a good 3-4 per post of yours. I bold them occasionally, just ridicule you at other times, but there is a wealth of them on the forum. Is this your considered strategy, or just laziness?
Considering that you have been found to have edited your own posts in quoting them, you claim for context, but in reality you altered it when you quoted it so that it was completely different, that you have willfully and deliberately misrepresented what I have said (just refer to above), you have deliberately misrepresented links you provided in claiming that it was evidence of other animals using sex to terrorise and harm others when your links actually do not show that.. Do you really want to try and go with that argument?
That's a complete load of shit. Gorillas, bonobos and chimps do not lead "very solitary existences" and engage in all sorts of sexual violence. Chimpanzees are famous for not leading "very solitary existences". Pathetic.
Did I say that it was gorillas, bonobos and chimps that lead a very solitary existence? No. I did not. I said "primates that lead a very solitary existence". You do know that the term "primates" covers other animals and not just gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees, yes?
In other words, "a couple that use forcible sex to breed - usually seen in primates that lead a very solitary existence"..
Which is actually wrong. Because what rape apologists like you often disregard when you use the biology argument is that babies, children, men, the elderly and women who cannot 'breed' are raped in equal numbers.
Not that this would actually disprove the hypothesis, let's see the polls of rapists in Bosnia wherein they claimed they, themselves, did it only to humiliate the opposing side.
I'm sorry, are you going to try to argue that rape in war is not used as a weapon to humiliate, instill fear, subjugate, control and demoralise the enemy? Ermm okay..
In Bosnia and Herzegovina 20,000 – 50,000 women were raped by Serbian forces during five months of conflict in 1992. (IWTC, Women’s GlobalNet #212. 23rd October 2002). In some villages in Kosovo, 30%-50% of women of child bearing age were raped by Serbian forces (Amnesty International, 27 May 1999).
In her “Mass rape: the war against women in Bosnia-Herzegovina“, Alexandra Stiglmayer et al conclude:
“In war, men rape for various motives, and we can identify nearly all of them in every war. Yet not all wars are the same, and each war provides its own specific motivations for rape. For the Russians who raped German women by turns during the invasion of Berlin in 1945, the key motives might have been revenge, a desire to break the pride of the German master race, and the feeling of having earned ‘thanks.’ For the Americans in Vietnam the motive was more likely the frustration of being in a foreign country and having to fight a war that was not ‘their’ war. In neither case was the goal to drive away the women and their community; both the German and the Vietnamese women were to remain where they were.
But dispersion is precisely the goal of the Serbian forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their purpose is to drive Bosniaks [Bosnian Muslims] and Croats [Bosnian Catholics] away from the conquered territories. Besides brutal terror, deliberate murders, mass executions, internment camps, deportations, and torture, one of the means they are employing is rape. Rapes spread fear and induce the flight of refugees; rapes humiliate, demoralize, and destroy not only the victim but also her family and community; and rapes stifle any wish to return. A rape is a ‘surefire weapon that doesn’t need any fuel or ammunition,’ as the Zagreb feminist Asija Armanda once said… In Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, rape has been an instrument of ‘ethnic cleansing’. The UN Commission of experts that investigated the rapes in former Yugoslavia has concluded. ‘Rape cannot be seen as incidental to the main purpose of the aggression but as serving a strategic purpose in itself,’ reports the European Community mission concerned especially with the situation of Muslim women.The report of the humanitarian organization Amnesty International states: ‘Instances that have included sexual infringements against women are apparently part of an inclusive pattern of war conduct characterized by massive intimidation and infringements against Bosniaks and Croats.’ The American human rights organization Helsinki Watch believes that rape is being used as a ‘weapon of war’ in Bosnia-Herzegovina: ‘ Whether a woman is raped by soldiers in her home or is held in a house with other women and raped over and over again, she is raped with a political purpose – to intimidate, humiliate, and degrade her and others affected by her suffering. The effect of rape is often to ensure that women and their families will flee and never return.’
Best tell the UN, world governments and all human rights organisations that they are wrong, because GeoffP, the so called biologists, thinks it's just in the genes and biological..
And coincidentally spreads the genes of the conquerors. There is certainly no way in which that could be seen as a sick reproductive issue.
And why do they do that, GeoffP?
I mean heaven forbid it's used to subjugate and terrorise the population because it is used as a form of ethnic cleansing and genocide.. Naw, can't be that, surely..
Hmm. Never been either laughed at or discredited, actually. I assume from the above you've never heard of inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization. This is why I say stick to the law, counsellor. It seems you have trouble enough with that.
So by that, I assume you take the raping of babies, children, men and the elderly is also biological because of "inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization"..? Ermm.. Okay..
I didn't think you could get worse, but you did.
And I knew this because...? And it had what to do with the discussion?
You failed to read the giant clues that this was the case when Fraggle and Tiassa responded to him? As a bare minimum, they were giant warning signs that something was not quite right. But no, you jumped in and defended him, and kept doing so and continue to do so (remember your Hitler wanted trains to run on time, so he wasn't always wrong argument you tried to use to justify your defense of a poster who advocates rape?) even after his encouraging people to rape was pointed out to you. I mean I get it, you have a pathological need to always be right, but to lower yourself to this sort of level where you discredit scientists who have actually been studying rape and your response to the rapes of children, men and the elderly is to ask me if I have ever heard of "inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization" and to attempt to actually question and deny my own rape? Really GeoffP? Is this how low you plan to go?
Do you think I read every post you write, or that it even matters to this issue? Talk about fawning...
So when you responded and argued against Fraggle and Tiassa and advised that darksidZz was not exactly wrong, you did this without having read their posts?
Only to those with an actual interest in it, Bells.
So what is your reason, GeoffP?
That's a lie. Not unexpected. Do you think the backpedaling is going to make much difference. What you did was borderline sexual harassment. I've asked - several times now - for you to stop. That should include stopping the mention of it.
You responded by commenting how you were responding to the questions about prison rape and the scenario by commenting about posting one handed, commenting repeatedly about the fictitious name used and using him to describe various sexual acts to support your contention that prison rape is just about sex.
Wow. If that's true, I am so sorry to hear that. I wouldn't want to be a child around the likes of you.
That's okay GeoffP. You see, I am the type of parent who will teach my sons that rape is never acceptable. I get why you would think I would be such a bad parent in that regard. And that's okay. I am absolutely fine with your disgust at my parenting two sons. Because your disgust actually tells me that I am doing something right with my sons. So thank you. See, your comments about my sons and about me tell me that I am on the right track. Had you agreed with me, then I would have been very concerned, because you are simply the guy doing his best to downplay rape.
Ah - so now I am mandating rape. I think I'll kick this up to staff again. A lot of what you say is intolerable and offensive, but this is even beyond the usual tripe. I've been given the word that no one wants overmoderation of our fights, but this is, again, far too far.
Ah, righteous indignation. People who resort to biology to explain rape, especially going to the lengths that you have gone to in this thread, often do it to excuse rape. To deny it entirely (you even tried to deny my rape, could you go much lower than that?).. And you complain about being offended? Is that meant to be a joke?
See GeoffP, the arguments you have resorted to in this thread won't really get you anywhere.
No they don't. That would be some kind of (shudder) biological response, and I have it on your authority that this would be socially impossible.
No they don't. This would also be a kind of biological response; frankly, if there were some kind of biological adjustment of whatever kind, then this would be tacit admission that rape is a 'natural' phenomenon also. So they simply can't make such alterations in perception. Sorry. And this is doubly true because the women were ovulating: clearly, all risk must be identical, because if risk were not identical at any point, that would suggest that there might have been some kind of putative evolutionary advantage to forced copulation at some point, which might persist generally or as an atavism. And that would mean to you that rape - specifically here, the defense against it - had some kind of 'biological' thresholding effects, which then in your lexicon would mean that it was (somehow) 'natural' and therefore 'good'. You know, like how a hurricane is 'natural' and therefore 'good'.
No, I'm sorry, but this will not do. All three of these findings - none of which are cited, BTW, which is yet another violation of SF rules - suggest some kind of biological or evolutionary strategy for avoiding unwanted copulations/fertilisations. And that would imply that such things had 'biological' promoting factors, and that would mean in your lexicon that they were 'natural', and then that would mean that you were some kind of rape enabler. And then I'd have to ask questions like Why are you trying to support rape with this information, Bells? Of course, that would just be foolishness.
I see.
See, that article was a satirical response to the idiocy that is rape is biological..
And yes GeoffP, it means that when the woman shaking your hand has a strong grip, it means she thinks you are a potential rapists. Biology says this is so.
Reap it well.
Bells, I gather that you take a certain pride in what some people now are calling the "political twist of the knife", but half the time it just looks stupid to the external viewer. Sure, I get it, this is just polemic: it's not real, it's not grounded in anything and the sane reader knows from knowing you not to take it seriously but honestly, people do have a certain obligation to a fair and accurate discussion, and hyperbole just doesn't fit the bill, I'm afraid. Here's an interesting chunk of that usually misapplied semi-argument:
Well no, because as you have clearly displayed and argued in this thread, the response to rape is too political for your liking. Even with evidence from scientists that you are wrong, to you, it is merely political.
I see you are still misrepresenting what is said..?
Oh, so this is now about race? Shall I expect a new kind of bigoted screed in the next post? That would be novel, anyway.
Well that is what a couple biologists claim it has to be. That white women react negatively towards black men during their ovulation period, so it must be an evolved biological response - you know, this is the response to you and your ilk who argue that men evolved to rape.
I think it's your education, actually.
Well it can't be. Because if you, as a man, evolved to rape, then I, as a woman have evolved to resist rape by apparently having a tighter hand grip when ovulating, being racist and viewing all men as being potential rapists.. So because I am none of those things, there must be something wrong with me.
Now do you understand why your repeated assertions that rape is biological is completely bunk?
So you're in the pro-rape crowd? I see.
Cute. That would be you. By "anti-rape", the author means those who argue that rape is not really a bad phenomenon. You know, they argue that rape is simply biological and thus, natural.
God intended rape, did he? Now careful there, Bells. This could be seen as an attack on theists. I mean, don't have these politicians fired or removed for their disturbed comments. Instead, shoot the messenger, and leave the insane pols in place. That's really what God intended.
Well your side argues that if rape is biological, then it must be natural and if it is natural, then as that creationists argues, it must be as God intended.. But there was a very Christian politician who argued that any pregnancy that results from rape is what God intended, and as such, God must intend for women to be raped.. I mean I get how that would offend theists. It offends anyone with more than two brain cells.
But the same contention is argued for rape is biological by those like you.
None of that word hash matched up to very much: "support", "actual reality of rape", etc. I guess it fits most appropriately under the heading of 'trolling'. Enjoy your day.
Well of course it wouldn't to
you. All those scientists are arguing against rape is biological and using fact and science to do so. I get how that might escape you.
