anon #fundie

anon #fundie blogger.com

On rape:

""An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?" It doesn't say an eye for a toe, or a tooth for a fingernail. I could see castration, maybe."

He didn't rip out her womb.
He had sex with her.
His punishment can be her having sex with him.

85 comments

old comment by Murdin

If you pay attention, one of the comments is Bob trying to sockpuppet... without changing his nickname beforehand.

" Bob said...
Anonymous asked, "Would God rape?"

Bob has been reviewing literature regarding the Jewish/Christan God on this question. Information about his personal life is inconclusive. However, Moses who spoke with God and borough his commandments is clearly on the side of rape. In one case his army captured more than 30,000 young virgin females, presumably age 11-13. He gave half of them, about 16,000, to his war hardened troops to do whatever brutal warriors do with virgins. The rest he gave to the church, presumably to be sold as sex slaves for a tidy profit.

Moses was the profit of God who brought the "10 Commandments" and gave the other laws that Jews/Christians still live by today. By his example of giving thousands of virgins for the use and abuse of his troops, with the advice and consent of God, we can clearly see that rape does not always violate Jewish/Christian religious traditions."

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Gnome

"I actually feel ashamed to have a Y chromosome because of these assholes."

Don't be. By the mere act of contemplating the notion of even thinking the way they do, they prove themselve to be the inferior subhumans they really are.

No normal decent man worth his Y-chromosome would be misogynistic in word, action or thought. Therefore we men who aren't like them, are infinitely superior to those who are misogynists.

Revel in your superiority to these not-men, Gnome.

[/Sauce for the Goose]

@#1250010

"What are the odds that if we sent him to prison he will claim rape if Bubba touches his butt?"

Which is exactly why I'm all for rape-condoners (misogynist/fundie*/whatever) getting a taste of their own medicine. See how they fucking like it?!

*-Especially fundie homophobes. And no doubt Kent Hovind has spoken out against LGBT people. Keep dropping the soap, Kentypoos!

[/Sauce for the Goose]

old comment by SpukiKitty

Sometimes & wonder if some Blogs are a form of Trolling...junk cranked out just to annoy folks.

Unless these folks are genunelly psycho, I would imagine that they have these Blogs for the sole purpose of annoying people...Like jerks such as Maddox & Tucker Max to completely deranged legitimate whackos like this "Bob" clown, Eivind Berge, Mule-Sex Guy, Gerard Polley, etc.

The same is true for many YouTube Accounts...start a full-blown, fully-functional YouTube page for the sole purpose of being a jerk...with Jerk Commentary, Jerk Content, Jerky Videos, Trolling & general Jerktitude.

The only time these Troll turkeys use their troll "talents" for good is when they crusade against Scientology & a disgusting cat-abuser (the ONLY decent thing the 4Chan bunch has done)....why can't they do that? Troll monsters who deserve it? I'll only welcome Trolling & Hacking against Hate Groups & other freaks.

Regardless, trolling is stupid.

P.S. I'm aware Maddox is a satirist of some sort but I put him in there because his blog's there to provoke & sound like a douche.

Anyone remember a site by a complete nut called "Ted Jesus Christ GOD"? Now, THAT GUY HAD ISSUES!

old comment by Murdin

@Rat of Steel "I'm a libertarian also, and this waste of his daddy's sperm makes me sick as well. I don't know exactly when those Tea Party ass-clowns decided to raid a perfectly good political philosophy and claim it as their own, but rest assured, neither they nor the OP here speak for us all.
*sits here fuming some more*"

Huh, my successive edits made it sound like I was implying that libertarians as a whole tend to be misogynistic assholes. This is obviously not the case.

Bob's professed libertarianism is "unsurprising" because in America, selfish, authoritarian nutjobs like him do tend to qualify their ideologies as such. Not because all libertarians are really hypocrites who only want to reduce the power of the government when and where it suits them, while (ab)using this same "hated" political power in order to enforce liberticidal laws against the targets of their prejudices.

Hell, even Ayn Rand was many despicable things, but not... not like that. Also, she had actual excuses to develop an irrational hatred for anything statist, while guys like Bob are just a bunch of brainwashed morons.

old comment by Tempus

His punishment can be her having sex with him.

I actually like this idea, as long as she is allowed to pick the orifice she wants to use. If he has none suitable for her needs, then give her a good, sharp scalpel, a drill with a hole saw bit, and a skull saw, and allow her to manufacture one to her liking. A small propane mini-torch can be used to minimize blood loss, if need be. Allow her to use her choice of tools for the "sex" part or design her own, and have a team of doctors standing by to keep him functional at least long enough for the sentence to be carried out to the satisfaction of the court. In the event of a male rape, then the male victim should be given the same right. Should the rape victim be unable or unwilling to carry out sentence, then the court can appoint one or more stand-ins to carry out sentence in the victim's stead.

Have I mentioned that I'm not particularly fond of rapists?

old comment by Skyknight

One thing to remember about eye-for-an-eye was that it was supposed to set a CEILING on how much retribution ought to be exacted for any given crime. Think of it as a ward against blood feuds. In later Judaism, because of the risk literal eye-for-an-eye and its ilk carried for taking life where it was not required, it became accepted to render monetary reparations equivalent to the loss of the eye/etc. and/or work that the lost element would have allowed.

The problem comes when people see eye-for-an-eye as the FLOOR of retribution.

Not looking at the weblog in question (I don't think I could steel myself for it), I'd guess that the first three sentences were from someone unconvinced that rape ought to merit the death sentence (although using the toe and fingernail as the analogs to rape doesn't exactly scream commiseration), and that castration was the furthest punishment of such could go before, for lack of a better way of putting it, hitting a rollover bug. Then Anon proceeds counter-argue and hit a rollover bug the OTHER way. That, and showing an utter failure to understand the true nature of the offense.

old comment by Balthazar The Wise

@Professor: Ignoring for the moment whether or not prejudice of any kind is ever justifiable, or whether the collective guilt of 'privilege' exists...

As a clearly learned man, surely you realize that putting people on the defensive, and pointing fingers of blame at the people you are trying to convince, regardless of whether it is true, will not sway them? Criminals often believe they've done a good thing rather than a bad thing, how much more so do normally decent people believe that way as well?

You might say that the privilege argument isn't blaming, but the point is that it sounds like it, and as my mother always said, avoid even the appearance of evil.

After all, the people you want to convince, unless they are particularly vulnerable to shaming and guilt trips, all they are going to hear is "blame whitey," so I believe a change in argumentation is desperately needed.

anon #fundie blogger.com

85 comments

Confused?