Styles Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 At least these girls that were raped were paid for their services. I'm speechless. It's like Hunger4Unger only with less compassion for humanity! I mean really, these 13 year olds forced into sex were paid well... enough to buy bread for their starving out of wedlock children, at least! That's capitalism right there! Meanwhile terrorists are being force fed PORK...PORK I SAY! Is there no justice!?!
kkktookmybabyaway Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Hmmm, perhaps this is "Kamui The Return." U R ALL ST00PID! I MADE IT ALL UP...
Guest thebigjig Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 jesus... I think this argument has sunken to its lowest now that "at least the girls were paid" is being used as a counter point
EricMM Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 so let's not be deliberately ignorant. Listen to yourself, man!
kkktookmybabyaway Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Hey BX, I have a question. Is At least these girls that were raped were paid for their services. a perfectly valid point?...
Guest MikeSC Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Hey BX, I have a question. Is At least these girls that were raped were paid for their services. a perfectly valid point?... Don't dismiss the point out of hand! That's not fair! -=Mike
Jobber of the Week Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Jesus Christ... this whole fucking argument has turned into a finger pointing match... "well THIS is worse!" "oh yeah? Well THATS worse than THIS!" Ladies and gentlemen... it doesnt fucking matter which is worse! It's completely fucking irrelevant! You can't blame America for this one, you hippie! Hmmm, perhaps this is "Kamui The Return." U R ALL ST00PID! I MADE IT ALL UP... YOU GOT SWERVED~!
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 claims that every night teenage girls crawl through a wire fence to an adjoining UN compound to sell their bodies Those are some damn determined hos I'm sorry where in the article is the word "rape" mentioned? Why right here One girl, Faela, 13, whose son, Joseph, is not yet six months old, has described how the social stigma of her fatherless child, the result of repeated rape by militiamen in her village, mean she is treated like a pariah in the chaotic and violent Bunia camp, which is home to 15,000 people. Exactly. They aren't raped by the UN members. And MikeSC..I didn't realize that UN troops have the magic ability to force people to climb under fences and break into buildings in order to have sex in exchange for money and/or food. From what this ONE article presents I'm not exactly ready to light the torches. Is it exxcedingly distasteful? Yes for sure. Should there be punishments handed down? For sure. Is It Rape? not by the evidence presented in that article.
Guest Anglesault Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Is it exxcedingly distasteful? Yes for sure. Should there be punishments handed down? For sure. Is It Rape? not by the evidence presented in that article. Well, I guess it depends on what you think the legal age for sex is/should be. I see statutory rape.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Stat. Rape is distasteful. But we're not talking about 6 year olds. In many countries that the UN go to 14 year olds can already be married and pregnant.
Guest Anglesault Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Stat. Rape is distasteful. But we're not talking about 6 year olds. If it's under the legal age, it doesn't matter. If the legal age in whatever country they're in is 13, It's just disgusting. If it's older, it's illegal.
Jobber of the Week Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 Oh jesus. Ever read any Shakespeare, Anglesault? Juliet (of "Romeo and...") was 14 and her mother was asking her when she was going to find a man and have kids.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 Exactly. They aren't raped by the UN members. And MikeSC..I didn't realize that UN troops have the magic ability to force people to climb under fences and break into buildings in order to have sex in exchange for money and/or food. From what this ONE article presents I'm not exactly ready to light the torches. Is it exxcedingly distasteful? Yes for sure. Should there be punishments handed down? For sure. Is It Rape? not by the evidence presented in that article. By every legal standard known to man --- youths are incapable of giving consent. Just saying. Oh jesus. Ever read any Shakespeare, Anglesault? Juliet (of "Romeo and...") was 14 and her mother was asking her when she was going to find a man and have kids While our adversaries might reside comfortably in the 17th Century --- for the REST OF HUMANITY, times have changed a bit. -=Mike
Guest Anglesault Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 Oh jesus. Ever read any Shakespeare, Anglesault? Macbeth and Othello, like ten years ago.
Guest Anglesault Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 While our adversaries might reside comfortably in the 17th Century That's being generous. I peg many of our current adversaries as 13th century mindset with 21st (or at least 20th) century technology.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 hmm. Because there's NO teenage pregnancy's in the western world. Riiight. People marry younger because people DIE younger. Marrying young and having LOTS of children is the only way to ensure the continuince of your family. At least according to school textbooks and logical thinking
Jobber of the Week Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 While our adversaries might reside comfortably in the 17th Century --- for the REST OF HUMANITY, times have changed a bit. -=Mike Only because of economics (i.e. it's virtually impossible to afford to raise a child at that age.)
Guest INXS Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 At least these girls that were raped were paid for their services. I'm speechless. It's like Hunger4Unger only with less compassion for humanity! I mean really, these 13 year olds forced into sex were paid well... enough to buy bread for their starving out of wedlock children, at least! That's capitalism right there! Meanwhile terrorists are being force fed PORK...PORK I SAY! Is there no justice!?! I didn't mean that as they were paid for sex it meant that it was okay..it wasn't. I said that to illustrate that there is a huge difference between the rape of teenagers (as sick as it is) to the torture/abuse in Iraq as some posters were attempting to trivialize the abuse. Ignorance again prevails as it wasnt just about them being forced to eat pork because they dont like it - it's against their religion. There is no comparison between rape and eating pork, rape is far, far worse, obviously. IT doens't mean that the pork thing wasnt abuse though. Not to mention the forced oral sex, the buggery with a broom, actual rape and er..murder. My point here is that although the troops commit abuse crimes in other places in the world, and whether they are worse than what happened in Iraq or not, it doesn't make what happened in Iraq ok or anyless sick.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 While our adversaries might reside comfortably in the 17th Century --- for the REST OF HUMANITY, times have changed a bit. -=Mike Only because of economics (i.e. it's virtually impossible to afford to raise a child at that age.) Ah, so basic moral principles are based solely on economic factors? Wow. Makes you wonder how slavery got abolished. -=Mike
Guest Anglesault Posted May 28, 2004 Report Posted May 28, 2004 At least these girls that were raped were paid for their services. I'm speechless. It's like Hunger4Unger only with less compassion for humanity! I mean really, these 13 year olds forced into sex were paid well... enough to buy bread for their starving out of wedlock children, at least! That's capitalism right there! Meanwhile terrorists are being force fed PORK...PORK I SAY! Is there no justice!?! I didn't mean that as they were paid for sex it meant that it was okay.. Then you used a really poor choice of words.
Guest INXS Posted June 3, 2004 Report Posted June 3, 2004 Yeah, I did. I honestly didn't mean it to come across like that.
Jobber of the Week Posted June 3, 2004 Report Posted June 3, 2004 Ah, so basic moral principles are based solely on economic factors? There's no moral problem beyond the fact that it's almost impossible to give a child a fair break at that age. I don't advocate reproduction morals beyond "don't rape" much, anyway. As long as it's consentual, go off and be happy.
Guest MikeSC Posted June 3, 2004 Report Posted June 3, 2004 Ah, so basic moral principles are based solely on economic factors? There's no moral problem beyond the fact that it's almost impossible to give a child a fair break at that age. I don't advocate reproduction morals beyond "don't rape" much, anyway. As long as it's consentual, go off and be happy. JOTW, when a girl is screwing you simply so she can get money to keep herself alive, you would be a low person to actually take advantage of that. -=Mike
Jobber of the Week Posted June 3, 2004 Report Posted June 3, 2004 Yes, I would. That's why I wouldn't do it.
Guest MikeSC Posted June 3, 2004 Report Posted June 3, 2004 Yes, I would. That's why I wouldn't do it. And that is what THEY did --- they took advantage of young girls forced to do that to actually have money to eat. They are detestable slugs. -=Mike
Jobber of the Week Posted June 3, 2004 Report Posted June 3, 2004 Actually, in my R&J example, she's from a wealthy family. Perhaps the play doesn't paint a proper picture but I wasn't there, so I don't know how wealthy 14 year old heirs were being treated.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now