Paladin: the Rape Grandfather

Disagree.

If my buddy told me he an encounter with a woman and that she "let him cum in her mouth" -- I would understand that to mean that she consented to him ejaculating in her mouth, and he did.

Consenting to an activity and being happy about it are not the same thing. Power dynamics muddle the concept further. In a perfect world, every woman would say the magic words "I consent," but we all know that's rarely how sexual activity goes down.

There's plenty of give and take here.

I don't know your buddy. But if someone told me that what was special about that encounter was that he no longer had to ask because he had more power now, so now he just took what he wanted and "didn't even wait", that would not inspire confidence. Anyway, we're not talking about your buddy, but about Trump, a known criminal and liar whom several women have accused of rape.

Yes. The give is called sex and the take is called rape.

More just general observation. I'm not "defending" anyone here. But while it is possible to make a reasonable case for Paladin not having the best outlook on this issue (you have done so yourself, multiple times, in this thread), the claim that his children (if he had any...) are necessary the product of rape is not by any means what he actually said or implied.

I just get very tired, sometimes, of the blatantly irrational strawman attacks that stand for "debate" in so many cases. That does not mean that even a reasoned formulation of one's point is necessarily right, but it at least has a chance of being right. A "point" that is founded solely on a deliberate and major distortion of what the person actually said is ultimately an admission that one does not have a strong case for the point one wants to make.

And that holds true no matter who is being accused of what. If someone were to say, "Donald Trump is an idiot because he wanted Dr. Birx to forcibly pour bleach down people's throats," the fact that I thoroughly disapprove of Donald Trump and his "inject disinfectants into the body" ideas would still mean that that formulation does not make a point that contributes anything to the debate. And pointing out the stupidity of the argument would not in any way imply a defense of Donald Trump.

IOW, I can very easily say that an argument is faulty, without that implying anything about the truth of the fallacious conclusion that was put forward.

And to argue that the OP was making a factual verbatim claim about @Paladin having grandchildren and the OP having proof that those being a product of rape would certainly go far beyond what any reasonable reader thinks that OP said or implied.

Oh yeah?

Let me quote from the OP:

While admitting that he is talking about a hypothetical case (that Paladin could someday have grandchildren, which might or might not turn out to be the case in the future but obviously is not at preasent), and accepting that using a hypothetical case for purposes of argument is a very valid debate technique, I don't see how you can possibly get around the clear implication that he is saying that those grandchildren, if they exist some day, will clearly be the result of rape in Paladin's mind.

Which is not at all what Paladin said or implied, even though I disagree with him on whether or not Donald Trump's statements imply genuine consent.

Yeah. I respect you a lot, but in this case I think you are being insincere, perhaps even to yourself. I think that when you examine your own reading of that OP seriously, you cannot honestly tell me that you really thought, "The person who posts under the handle 'Fisherman's Worf' on Wordforge is telling us that he is currently honestly convinced that the poster who calls himself 'Paladin' has grandchildren, that they are a creation of rape, and that this issue should be discussed further on the board. So I should help here by explaining that this would be an incorrect conclusion from Paladin's posts, so as to either disabuse the Fisherman of that notion or, if he is himself insincere, at least prevent others from actually believing it."

I believe that if you're honest with yourself, you understand that what the OP put forward was instead a much more general idea of Paladin's posts displaying a troubling view of sexual consent and behaviour, a point you've just conceded is reasonable to make given those posts.

That is not what I wrote, or what I thought. I very specifically said that he is using a hypothetical case. What is so hard to understand about that? Do I have to post it seventeen times for it to be clear? He is not saying Paladin has grandchildren, he is not saying that Paladin's grandchildren (if he had any) are the product of rape.

But he very clearly is saying that, in Paladin's mind, if there were such grandchildren, they would be the product of rape.

And that is not at all a reasonable or credible interpretation of Paladin's statement.

I admit that I am quite disappointed with you in accusing me, several times, of intellectual dishonesty. I thought you knew me better than that. And I had more respect for you than that myself. Perhaps I was wrong.

And if that is his point (and it is, in my mind a valid point), then he should have made it without resorting to the ridiculous strawman of claiming that Paladin thinks all children are the product of rape.

Which is all I wrote: If you have to violently deform someone's words to make your point, you don't have a point.

Because if you do, you can make it reasonably, without having to use such obviously fallacious tactics.

He is not using a hypothetical case. You are right to say that I should not blindly accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Let me just spell out my own mind very clearly then:

The OP, to my mind, very obviously makes the case that Paladin's statements about sexual consent and behaviour are troublesome and noteworthy. That is it; it says nothing about grandchildren, neither real nor certainly not hypothetical, except by means of a very clear and easily decoded metaphor. I think that that is in fact blindingly obvious, and I assumed it was obvious to you as well. If it isn't, then my point changes from "You know that isn't what FW was saying, right?" to "Hey, look, that isn't what FW was saying."

I would point to the fact that given the very basics of shared morality one might assume for our cultural backdrop, it is very likely that FW thinks that committing rape is bad, whereas it is extremely unlikely that he thinks that being the biological result of rape two generations back is bad, other than by virtue of that fact pointing to the original bad act.

So why do I see Ackbar and his tarp?

What did I do??? Lol

Nothing but be a part of the sexist religious power structure known as christianity. You two seem like you would get along pretty good considering @Asyncritus seems to be all for grabbing a little ass like in the old days.

I've seen paladin's picture. If he gave anyone time to think he'd never get any.

I know we are all home alone, but you need to tone down your masturbation. Just sayin.

Old people should never contort that way. It is dangerous and you are risking injury. Please find a nurse to help you get out of that pretzel.

Told ya so!

You need an emoji for that.

That's cool. Thx.

NEVEEEEERRRRR!!!

I have a box of written and signed consent forms in the garage. Don’t you?

Covers every from kissing to skull fucking while hogtied and upside down. Meaning to get around to scanning and sorting them by date, type, and partner. Hope I haven’t lost any.

Really, technically, a roofied woman "lets you do it". - Diacanu

and you would know this how exactly? asking for a friend

lots of nuance in there though... especially in dating vs. relationships. Obviously the latter is going to have deeper non verbal communications.
But dating? yeah, there's frequently compromised judgments to begin with. Just because you can see across the border doesn't mean you advance without asking if they want you to.
More importantly, even once you get there, you're obligated to go back to your own side if told to.

Then may I suggest a lot more lube?

2000000 dayton points for that one.

"They let you do it" = they consent.

No.

Yes.

“They let you do it” is pretty much the textbook definition of consent.

great band name!

No, it really isn't, not when it follows a 'when'-clause marked as containing a significant exception. Look see:

"When you have a gun, they let you take their money."

"When you have the bigger army, they let you have their resources."

"When you have a corrupt legal system, they let you get away with rape."

Really stretching the use of the word "let." To my knowledge, no armed robber has ever successfully used "they let me have the money willingly" as a defense.

If refusal was an option, if there was no coercion, if participation was willing...there is no rape.

so "no means no" doesn't enter into it if you persist?

fuck.
one of you LEOs around here wanna get on this guy?