FOX anchor! Girls who get FRAT rapes, "What are boys supposed to do?"

You keep saying that, but have yet to demonstrate how the behavior of a rapist in any way benefits society...

As we've already discussed, herd animals (like humans) ostracise individuals who display aberrant behavior - and those individuals rarely last long once solitary.

 

Logical fallacy

 

I would agree with you, if Nurture had eradicated the hypocrisy gene from the pool. You can substitute terms to find your answer for loyal subjects of the Animal Kingdom.

 

I think you may have misunderstood what I said - never implied that some cases of rape don't matter. Of course they do. I was just saying that BB bringing up rape in the home are mostly cases of rape/incest and those victims are young children trapped in a home w/a child sexual predator......

She's trying to compare these young children to young women going out partying and there is no comparison.......

 

Who is saying these young women are drunk but the accused rapists? If we accept this then pretty soon it's any girl who goes to a Frat Party and soon after I expect a wave of alcoholism to sweep over the entirety of the female population who go out on a college campus at all.

I sometimes think the FOX news staff aren't allowed to have female children, or don't believe they should go to college.

 

good question. watch the assinine replies youll get.

 

Are you saying you can't agree with me because you're a hypocrite?

Dude, speak English. The point of communication is the transfer of concepts. If you choose to be obscure, you communicate poorly and shouldn't waste anyone's time with your blathering.

 

No. I am saying your premise is false.

 

Based on what?
Can you name any herd/pack/flock animal that doesn't ostracise members of the pack/herd/flock that display aberrant behavior that harms other members?

 

Did you miss it? The abomination of hypocrisy is alive and well even in modern times.

 

Oh, I agree completely that there are many hypocrits in today's society. This forum alone can be used to demonstrate that.
However, being hypocritical is slightly more difficult to quantify that being a rapist, murderer, theif, or otherwise engaging in aberrant behavior.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that hypocrisy is so prevelant that it's a misnomer to refer to it as aberrant.

Do you disagree that humans ostrasize those identified engaging in harmful aberrant behavior (eg: by labelling such folks "criminals" and locking them away from broader society)?

 

I understand that secular and temporal morals may not be identical in their subjective nature with religious morals.

 

So, once again, when you see your argument falling apart, you resort to serving up a word salad...

IF you want to claim that rape - despite being a detriment to society - is somehow understandable because humans are part of the animal kingdom, then you must demonstrate why we shouldn't respond to this aberrant behaviour the same way herd animals do.

 

It may depend on what you mean by "rape" in Nature where might does make right. Only Nurture offers some recourse to the subjective value of morals and ethics, and only for political animals.

 

Dodge noted again but how so?

 

OK so what about the ones that so not occur in the home I have been struggling to get you to acknowledge then?

 

Wrong again. The strongest herd animal is still not able to behave in a manner that harms the herd as a whole without being kicked out.

It's amazing the lengths you go to in your attempt to provide some kind of justification for rapists. It's that type of psychology that'll ensure you end up with one as a cell mate. I'm sure you'll get along great.

 

Survival of the fittest may not include the morals of Nurture but for political animals.

 

Transparent dodge. Pathetic.

 

I am using Nature versus Nurture for comparison and contrast, for political animals and loyal subjects of the Animal Kingdom.

Why do people lie for sex or relationships? Simply practicing the abomination of hypocrisy could be considered a form of "moral rape". Nurture versus Nature.

 

Maybe I should be able to drive like an idiot and everyone else should have to adjust. Problem is, what if I cross paths with another idiot driving like myself. A drunken hippie should be able to go to a redneck bar and denigrate George Jones and Hank Williams Sr. Problem is, redneck bars are filled with drunken rednecks who don't take kindly to drunken hippies putting down the Gods of country western music. Odds are you'll wake up in the emergency room if you wake up at all. Free speech gives you the right to walk the streets of Chicago saying that n****rs should be shipped back to Africa. Problem is......you will have made the biggest mistake of your short life. The list goes on, chimps in apeland, bambi in lionville, sardines in icecream. Some things you just don't do, like women getting passed out drunk at frat parties. Being the weaker and more desirable gender, your'e supposed to be smarter than that.

 

And yet you have done nothing to demonstrate that either "nature" or "nurture" make rape any less wrong.

 

What the hell are you talking about?
If a "druken hippie" denigrates "Gods of country western music", he is actively offending people. Please demonstrate how this is relevant to a girl being raped.
The rights of any individual are limited by the rights of those around them. Holding a woman responsible for the decisions of her attacker is just stupid.

 

We probably could have evolved to be "smarter than that" unfortunately we had to use males for reproduction and that has brought down any ability to increase the average female IQ

What a pathetic excuse for bad behaviour. What is the difference between "You are supposed to be smarter than that" and telling males that they should just "Tie knot in it"?

 

Did you miss the concepts, like usual? In Nature, might makes right, only Nurture provides for the subjective value of morals.