Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Aug 20, 2019 04:27 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Trump's bigotry and womanizing behavior isn't defensible.

There's nothing to defend. There is no bigotry. That's just propaganda and baldfaced lies...that you eat up because he offends your delicate sensibilities. And when women throw themselves at rich men, it's the women who taught them what behavior was acceptable. So unless you're willing to start "slut shaming", you're the one with a bigoted double standard, against men. SS' misandry might be rubbing off on you.

Quote:This thread isn't about me or you, it's about Trump and evangelicals.  Why can't you ever stick to the topic, and not insult/attack/berate the people whom are discussing the topic? And didn't you get upset in another thread recently, where you were ''misjudged?'' I wasn't an evangelical by the way.

You've made it all about your delicate sensibilities, because you keep telling us what you think of him without offering anything to support your opinion. And one article from a main stream source about evangelicals is hardly conclusive.

I never said you were an evangelical. I said it's hard to guess you were a Christian, considering your large gaps in knowledge about their very basic beliefs.
Lol, I already told you that I was only testing your hypocrisy. But apparently you're actually worried about being "misjudged". Even if you have to erect a straw man to justify that worry, because you and I both know "love the sinner, hate the sin" is central to Christianity.

Quote:You're on ignore, going forward. It's not worth reading your nonsense anymore.

Good. I won't have to suffer your prattling replies, where you moralize and refuse to answer simple questions or support your own claims.

(Aug 20, 2019 04:47 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]How do evangelicals reconcile their faith views with cheering on Trump, I wonder? Jesus seemed like he would be a socialist, even though he believed in separating church from state. I doubt he meant to ignore your faith, so you can support your state. I can't see Jesus finding the border situation to be acceptable. I doubt Jesus would be okay with Trump's comments about women, and people of color. I doubt he would be for gaining as much wealth and toys as one can, before he/she dies. I honestly don't think Jesus would find the ''American dream'' all that dreamy.

So, I wonder...how do evangelicals reconcile their faith beliefs with their views about Trump?

I've already told you, but you refuse to accept it. Only the biblically illiterate think Jesus would be a socialist. "Submit to Caesar what is Caesar's" isn't about separation of church and state. Just more of your agenda-driven ignorance of basic Christianity. Jesus definitely didn't say to allow babies to be killed, but only if the guy trying to save them is too offensive or coarse. Jesus would have understood that open borders makes everywhere a third world country, because the same people who will not fight for or improve their own countries will not do so elsewhere either.

Saying what gold-digging women allow is just a fact of life. What comments about people of color? O_o

---

(Aug 20, 2019 04:54 AM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 13, 2019 10:53 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Really? So supposedly evangelicals can overlook infidelity and sexually crude comments but they can't overlook him saying "god damn"? That's complete nonsense. 

Very true.  But that's evangelicals in a nutshell.

Tearing kids from their families and throwing them in freezing cages?  That's OK.  Rape?  Well, he said she said.  Sexual assault?  The women are ugly so they must be lying.  Admitting to sexual assault in his own words?  Well, fake news liberal media blah blah.

But saying "goddamn!"  THAT is unacceptable to their brand of Christianity!

Continuing the policies of Obama, except trying to stem the tide instead of encouraging it. Yes, rape often happens to those making the trek, which is why we want them to stop coming.

There is no sexual assault where there is mutual consent. But then, leftists don't like/understand the consensual free market either.
Lol, you're citing the "liberal media", with no indication of a personal understanding of Christians.

(Aug 20, 2019 11:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]There's nothing to defend. There is no bigotry.

You are OK with sexual assault and rape? Wow.

Quote: That's just propaganda and baldfaced lies...that you eat up because he offends your delicate sensibilities. And when women throw themselves at rich men, it's the women who taught them what behavior was acceptable. So unless you're willing to start "slut shaming", you're the one with a bigoted double standard, against men. SS' misandry might be rubbing off on you.

So when Trump's wife said he raped her, that's "slut shaming?"

Quote:I've already told you, but you refuse to accept it. Only the biblically illiterate think Jesus would be a socialist.

Jesus wasn't a politician. Today he'd be labeled a socialist, simply because the right wing uses it as an insult for anything they don't like, like accepting refugees, helping the poor, and welcoming strangers and foreigners.

Here's one of the many times Jesus tells his followers to help the most wretched refugee and treat him as if they were God himself:

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:Saying what gold-digging women allow is just a fact of life.

?? What do they 'allow?'

Quote:Continuing the policies of Obama, except trying to stem the tide instead of encouraging it.

Nope. Obama did not tear kids away from their parents and throw them in freezing cages. He either detained them together or released them together until their hearing.

Quote:Yes, rape often happens to those making the trek, which is why we want them to stop coming.

Yep. That's sad. When a man rapes women and is then eleceted president by people who claim to be moral, that's a bigger problem.

Quote:There is no sexual assault where there is mutual consent.

"Consent" is not "they let me get away with it" or "they didn't call the cops on me." If you think it is, I feel very sorry for any woman you have ever dated.

Quote:you're citing the "liberal media", with no indication of a personal understanding of Christians.

No cites of the liberal media (unless you think the Bible is "liberal media!" LOL! LOL!)

(Aug 21, 2019 12:38 AM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 20, 2019 11:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]There's nothing to defend. There is no bigotry.

You are OK with sexual assault and rape?  Wow.

Nope.
So you really don't understand the simple concept of consent, huh? O_o
You know, the thing that has to be lacking to make it sexual assault or rape? Ringing any bells? No? Well, leftists don't understand how free market capitalism is a 100% consensual system either. So you're probably misunderstanding a lot of consensual things. Someone has explained sex to you, right? You don't always have to pay for it, you know.

And what does that have to do with bigotry? Try replying to what you quote....instead of what you imagine.

Quote:

Quote:That's just propaganda and baldfaced lies...that you eat up because he offends your delicate sensibilities. And when women throw themselves at rich men, it's the women who taught them what behavior was acceptable. So unless you're willing to start "slut shaming", you're the one with a bigoted double standard, against men. SS' misandry might be rubbing off on you.

So when Trump's wife said he raped her, that's "slut shaming?"

You mean his ex-wife...in their divorce...which she later backpedaled on and said not in a "criminal sense"?
The only way rape isn't criminal is if there was consent? Oh right, you don't understand consent. Never mind.

Quote:

Quote:I've already told you, but you refuse to accept it. Only the biblically illiterate think Jesus would be a socialist.

Jesus wasn't a politician.  Today he'd be labeled a socialist, simply because the right wing uses it as an insult for anything they don't like, like accepting refugees, helping the poor, and welcoming strangers and foreigners.

Here's one of the many times Jesus tells his followers to help the most wretched refugee and treat him as if they were God himself:

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

You know what Jesus never told people to do? He never told them to go twist their neighbors arm to force them to help the poor...or tax them and do it with their money. Trying to force others to be virtuous is fascism, not Christ-like. Maybe we should add fascism to the list of words you don't understand.

Quote:

Quote:Saying what gold-digging women allow is just a fact of life.

?? What do they 'allow?'

Depends on how rich/famous you are.

Quote:

Quote:Continuing the policies of Obama, except trying to stem the tide instead of encouraging it.

Nope.  Obama did not tear kids away from their parents and throw them in freezing cages.  He either detained them together or released them together until their hearing.

Yes, he did. For their well-being or when there was doubt of legal guardianship. What "freezing cages"? The ones we have pictures of children in from Obama's administration? Trump has only enforced the laws that existed during Obama's term. Trying to stem the tide of children making the long trek and women and children being raped and trafficked for sex.

Quote:

Quote:Yes, rape often happens to those making the trek, which is why we want them to stop coming.

Yep.  That's sad.  When a man rapes women and is then eleceted president by people who claim to be moral, that's a bigger problem.

Where's the charges, suits, or even just corroboration from a credible news outlet? Nowhere, because you've swallowed a load of shit.

Quote:

Quote:There is no sexual assault where there is mutual consent.

"Consent" is not "they let me get away with it" or "they didn't call the cops on me."  If you think it is, I feel very sorry for any woman you have ever dated.

Hey, I'm not the one who has to pay women. 

Consent is them agreeing to it at the time, likely being transactional and thinking they'd get something out of it. Until you can conclusively show otherwise, it seems you like to infantilize women, assuming they just don't have the wherewithal to say no or report a crime. Lemme guess. They're just too emotional and fragile to be expected to stand up for themselves, huh? 

Quote:

Quote:you're citing the "liberal media", with no indication of a personal understanding of Christians.

No cites of the liberal media (unless you think the Bible is "liberal media!"  LOL!  LOL!)

You've been talking about a Politico story this whole time. Try to keep up.

---

(Aug 20, 2019 05:36 AM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 20, 2019 05:29 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]If Trump was a "bigot", that might be a problem. But I don't perceive that he is.  In fact, I perceive him as making a last-stand against bigotry. Against the kind of identity-politics that tries to have everyone identifying with their own race, ethnicity or "gender" (as long as they aren't white or male, it's forbidden for them) and encourages everyone to be as angry, alienated and militant as they can possibly be.  Trump on the other hand champions the United States and its symbols.

Trump is a bigot because he has demonstrated prejudice against blacks, women, Muslims and Mexicans.  Not because what sort of symbols he likes.

There's you regurgitating that load of shit you swallowed.

(Aug 21, 2019 02:23 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Nope.

OK. So you are just OK when Trump is the perpetrator.

Quote:So you really don't understand the simple concept of consent, huh?

I understand it quite well, thank you. And despite what you have read on 8chan, "she didn't go to the cops so I got away with it!" does not equal consent. Again, I feel sorry for the women you've been with.

Quote:You know, the thing that has to be lacking to make it sexual assault or rape?

Lack of consent.

Here are some simple examples:

Trump grabbed Jessica Leeds' pussy, a stranger he was sitting next to on a plane. "He was like an octopus. His hands were everywhere. It was an assault." No consent.

Trump grabbed Kirsten Anderson's pussy, a stranger in a club he was in. "I don’t know why he did it. It was like just to prove that he could do it and nothing would happen. There was zero conversation. We didn’t even really look at each other." No consent.

Are you getting this yet, or do you need more examples?

Quote:That's just propaganda and baldfaced lies...that you eat up because he offends your delicate sensibilities. And when women throw themselves at rich men, it's the women who taught them what behavior was acceptable.

Yep. And when rich/famous men assault women because someone taught them that that behavior was acceptable, that's not OK either. And now Trump is teaching a generation of men that it's OK to grab strange women by the pussy as long as you are famous.

Congratulations; you are really supporting the teachings of Jesus. I am sure he is smiling upon you.

Quote:You mean his ex-wife...in their divorce...which she later backpedaled on and said not in a "criminal sense"?

Yes. After he had one of his fixers threaten her, she backed off. Note that one of those fixers is currently in jail for his crimes. Perhaps not the best way to demonstrate his morality.

Quote:You know what Jesus never told people to do? He never told them to go twist their neighbors arm to force them to help the poor...or tax them and do it with their money. Trying to force others to be virtuous is fascism, not Christ-like. Maybe we should add fascism to the list of words you don't understand.

Why is it that the people who always pull out Jesus to support their bigotry have never read the Bible?

Here's Jesus twisting someone's arm to force them to help the poor:
=================
Mark 10: Then Jesus, looking at him, said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
=================
So yes, twisting someone's arm to get them to sell their stuff to help the poor is . . . exactly what Jesus did. Even when they didn't want to do it because they were rich.

Tell you what. Go study the Bible, and come back once you are better up to speed on it. I can wait.

(Aug 21, 2019 03:44 AM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 21, 2019 02:23 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Nope.

OK.  So you are just OK when Trump is the perpetrator.

Again:

(Aug 21, 2019 02:23 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Where's the charges, suits, or even just corroboration from a credible news outlet? Nowhere, because you've swallowed a load of shit.

You're going to have to support your claim before I even need to bother lending it any credence whatsoever.

Quote:

Quote:So you really don't understand the simple concept of consent, huh?

I understand it quite well, thank you.  And despite what you have read on 8chan, "she didn't go to the cops so I got away with it!" does not equal consent.  Again, I feel sorry for the women you've been with.

Uh, you're the only one here who has "inventive" interpretations of consent readily at hand. And you seem to be a good authority on 8chan...I'll have to take your word for what goes on there. Again, you do know you don't always have to pay for sex, right? O_o

Quote:

Quote:You know, the thing that has to be lacking to make it sexual assault or rape?

Lack of consent. 

Here are some simple examples:

Trump grabbed Jessica Leeds' pussy, a stranger he was sitting next to on a plane.  "He was like an octopus.  His hands were everywhere. It was an assault."  No consent.

Supposedly happened in the 80s, but no one heard of it until after Trump was elected, and with zero corroboration.

Quote:Trump grabbed Kirsten Anderson's pussy, a stranger in a club he was in.  "I don’t know why he did it. It was like just to prove that he could do it and nothing would happen.  There was zero conversation. We didn’t even really look at each other."  No consent.

Are you getting this yet, or do you need more examples?

90s, not made public until after Trump was elected, and only corroborated by a friend, who could easily share a political agenda. Anderson has been a registered democrat, and said "both of them [Trump and Hillary] have some things that are bad". That doesn't pass the sniff test for someone who truly felt they were sexually assaulted.

Just like atheists won't believe in god without definitive evidence, there's no reason, but political, to smear someone without any verifiable corroboration. I'm guessing you're not consistent on those two. You believe women but not Christians or MR telling you about ghosts.

Quote:

Quote:That's just propaganda and baldfaced lies...that you eat up because he offends your delicate sensibilities. And when women throw themselves at rich men, it's the women who taught them what behavior was acceptable.

Yep.  And when rich/famous men assault women because someone taught them that that behavior was acceptable, that's not OK either.  And now Trump is teaching a generation of men that it's OK to grab strange women by the pussy as long as you are famous.

Congratulations; you are really supporting the teachings of Jesus.  I am sure he is smiling upon you.

No one ever said assault was okay. That's your straw man. If you think the tales of a rich/famous guy are immutable life lessons, that on you. Don't be that naive.
I'm not a Christian, so I don't know what you're on about.

Quote:

Quote:You mean his ex-wife...in their divorce...which she later backpedaled on and said not in a "criminal sense"?

Yes.  After he had one of his fixers threaten her, she backed off.  Note that one of those fixers is currently in jail for his crimes.  Perhaps not the best way to demonstrate his morality.

Evidence? O_o

No, just talking out of your ass?

Quote:

Quote:You know what Jesus never told people to do? He never told them to go twist their neighbors arm to force them to help the poor...or tax them and do it with their money. Trying to force others to be virtuous is fascism, not Christ-like. Maybe we should add fascism to the list of words you don't understand.

Why is it that the people who always pull out Jesus to support their bigotry have never read the Bible?

Here's Jesus twisting someone's arm to force them to help the poor:
=================
Mark 10: Then Jesus, looking at him, said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
=================
So yes, twisting someone's arm to get them to sell their stuff to help the poor is . . . exactly what Jesus did.  Even when they didn't want to do it because they were rich.

Tell you what.  Go study the Bible, and come back once you are better up to speed on it.  I can wait.

Wow, you really can't read, can you? Jesus telling someone to simply do something has no threat of force behind it. Forcing someone to do something involves a penalty for not doing it. Your quote literally says the man just went away. Zero penalty. Learn how to read before you waste all that time hunting up Bible verses you imagine affirm your bias.

Jesus then goes on to explain that no man, rich or not, can be saved by his own deeds alone, but "all things are possible with God". Having "treasure in heaven" is not the same as being saved. These are all very basic Christian dogma....that you should know if you're going to try playing the "people who always pull out Jesus... have never read the Bible" bullshit.

(Aug 21, 2019 11:37 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, you're the only one here who has "inventive" interpretations of consent readily at hand. 

Consent is pretty simple.

If you do something with someone else that they consent to, either verbally or by their actions, that's consent.

If you go up to strange women and grab them by the pussy without warning, there is no consent.
If you sit next to a stranger on an airplane and stick your hands down their pants, there is no consent.
If you corner a woman in a dressing room and force yourself on her, there is no consent.
If you sit next to a woman you don't know at a bar and grab her pussy, there is no consent.
If you chase a woman into a bedroom and grab her by the pussy while she is saying "stop it" there is no consent.
If you come up behind a woman, reach around her and touch her breast, there is no consent.  Even if, afterwards, you say "Don't you know who I am?"
If you attack your wife and rape her, there is no consent.

"She didn't press charges" is not consent.  "If you are famous they let you do it" is not consent.  

Please learn what consent is before you do something you might regret for the rest of your life.

(Aug 22, 2019 03:16 AM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 21, 2019 11:37 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, you're the only one here who has "inventive" interpretations of consent readily at hand. 

Consent is pretty simple.

If you do something with someone else that they consent to, either verbally or by their actions, that's consent.

If you go up to strange women and grab them by the pussy without warning, there is no consent.
If you sit next to a stranger on an airplane and stick your hands down their pants, there is no consent.
If you corner a woman in a dressing room and force yourself on her, there is no consent.
If you sit next to a woman you don't know at a bar and grab her pussy, there is no consent.
If you chase a woman into a bedroom and grab her by the pussy while she is saying "stop it" there is no consent.
If you come up behind a woman, reach around her and touch her breast, there is no consent.  Even if, afterwards, you say "Don't you know who I am?"
If you attack your wife and rape her, there is no consent.

"She didn't press charges" is not consent.  "If you are famous they let you do it" is not consent.  

Please learn what consent is before you do something you might regret for the rest of your life.

That's the only bit you could muster a response to, huh?

You keep vomiting a bunch of crap, but you've yet to support any of it. Again, until you do, there's nothing to argue.
Aside from all your "inventive" straw men, no one is arguing the definition of consent. You're just making up bullshit and then arguing yourself. Considering the sparse reply, I guess that feedback loop is finally dwindling down to nothing.

Again, you're the ONLY ONE here coming up with all these inventive examples of "consent". That's not something I'd advise making a habit of. You already seem to have a tenuous grasp on reality as it is.

(Aug 22, 2019 11:13 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]That's the only bit you could muster a response to, huh?

The only bit I cared to respond to.  The rest is Trump supporter BS.

Quote:You keep vomiting a bunch of crap, but you've yet to support any of it. Again, until you do, there's nothing to argue. 

I know you can't respond.  Which is wise; claiming that you can grab women by the pussy as long as they don't object could really come back to bite you in the ass if you ever end up in court.  "Was this a one time thing, Mr. Syne, or is there any evidence that you think it's OK to assault women?  Let's check the Internet . . ."

Quote:Again, you're the ONLY ONE here coming up with all these inventive examples of "consent".

I advise you to consider what consent means before you end up in jail because of your misconceptions.  (Perhaps Trumpconceptions would be a better term.)

(Aug 23, 2019 04:07 AM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 22, 2019 11:13 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]That's the only bit you could muster a response to, huh?

The only bit I cared to respond to.  The rest is Trump supporter BS.

The rest are facts you can't bear to examine lest they upset your brainwashed and biased apple cart.

Quote:

Quote:You keep vomiting a bunch of crap, but you've yet to support any of it. Again, until you do, there's nothing to argue. 

I know you can't respond.  Which is wise; claiming that you can grab women by the pussy as long as they don't object could really come back to bite you in the ass if you ever end up in court.  "Was this a one time thing, Mr. Syne, or is there any evidence that you think it's OK to assault women?  Let's check the Internet . . ."

I did respond, but you apparently can't be bothered to read anything that doesn't fit into your little feedback loop of straw men, where you're far too busy arguing yourself.

Again, you need to quit paying for sex and earn it occasionally. Then maybe you'd actually learn enough about women not to conflate regret with a lack of consent. Women view things through a lens of their current mood. Not consenting to a past act now doesn't not mean it was not consented to at the time.

Again, are you arguing that women should be infantilized, instead of treating them like adult equals?

Quote:

Quote:Again, you're the ONLY ONE here coming up with all these inventive examples of "consent".

I advise you to consider what consent means before you end up in jail because of your misconceptions.  (Perhaps Trumpconceptions would be a better term.)

Again, for like the third time, you are the only one who has a wealth of alternate definition of "consent" at your fingertips. All these warnings appear to be projection. So heed your own advise.
And yet again, quit paying for sex. Get some actual experience with consent beyond the transactional.