Kentucky’s ex-governor pardoned a child rapist because the 9-year-old victim’s hymen was intact
Republican politicians appear to have decidedly outdated and/or weird ideas about anatomy.
Kentucky’s ex-governor pardoned a child rapist because the 9-year-old victim’s hymen was intact
Republican politicians appear to have decidedly outdated and/or weird ideas about anatomy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not just the politicians. You have to ask yourself if Kentuckians are a state of dumb ignorant shits, or sick fucks, or both? The fact that this guy was narrowly defeated is mind-boggling. And why there are no laws (as far as I am aware) protecting against frivolous pardons, is equally mind-boggling.
In this case, the group benefiting from a Republican governor are pedophiles.
Hope is the denial of reality
Disgusting.
And again its a shame America has a lame duck period. In the 21st century it should be possible to do away with that. Had Corbyn clearly won our election this month (thankfully he didn't) he could have been PM the very next day. While our legislature dissolves before an election (so during an election former MPs seeking re-election are legally banned from calling themselves MPs, they're not MPs anymore) and only those who win election return to Parliament. The defeated ones don't return and get a chance to change the laws before the ones who have been elected take their seats.
That a politician pardons a depraved criminal is one thing - it happens from time to time, after all, and politicians from both parties do it (see eg. the President pardoning murderous sociopathic war-criminals). What surprised me was the staggering idiocy that was exposed by Bevin's motivation to pardon this criminal. But, then again, he belongs to the social group that gave us the following gem: "If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I can't believe you actually thought that "clarification" would make the statement not be stupid, when the stupid thing is the absolutely mind-bogglingly dumbfuck belief that women who are raped don't need abortions because their bodies can deliberately prevent pregnancies that may result from rape. I am genuinely shocked that even you would deliberately type out something so stupid - in defense of something so stupid - and then hit "post reply. My god. Just so, so much fremdschämen.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oh my god you ridiculous numpty, no, with or without context the quote is fucking dumb because it indicates that Akin believes that women who are raped don't need abortions because their bodies can magically prevent rapes from leading to pregnancies. The quote is dumb because it indicates that the person making the statement has an extremely dumb belief about the human body. How can you not understand that your attempts to "clarify" this extremely clear and extremely dumb statement only serve to make you look dumb? Lewk, come on. You have to be smarter than this I want to say I'm surprised that you are too confused to understand how dumb that is, but, in context, I guess it's not all that surprising.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The quote is out of context in anything other than an abortion debate.
Ridiculous. It was presented as a piece of evidence about the educational and intellectual quality of those the Republican party elects (and puts on national science committees to boot). It does not misinterpret or mislead in any fashion at all as such a piece of evidence, whether presented "in context" (context of what, the world wonders) or not. There is no biological defense against conception (or carrying to term) from a sexual assault. It was either a deliberate lie, an invented post-hoc rationalization to defend a position he already wanted to take, or inexcusable ignorance and it is equally damning regardless.
And now you're doing the same thing Akin did, inventing things. He didn't say the above, no. Nor was there any allegation here that he did. The focus here is on his claim (which he most certainly did intend to state) that the human body "shuts down conception from rape" (which it manifestly does not and which he damn well should have known and probably did know and chose to ignore) along with some side-attention to the idea that some or a lot of rape isn't real rape and its attendant implication that women so victimized did in fact "want it" and weren't "legitimately raped" if they got pregnant despite the supposed "defense" against conception from rape.I'm clarifying that there was no intent to state that the human body "shuts down rape"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Believing anything close to this after millenia giving evidence to the opposite makes a person not stupid but outright evil.
Congratulations America
"That quote is talking about pregnancy, not the rape itself."
"I'm not defending the legitimacy of using the phrase that way, I'm clarifying that there was no intent to state that the human body "shuts down rape" which is how the quote can often be perceived devoid of context."
1. Is the quote talking about shutting down rape or is it talking about pregnancy from rape?
2. For the person not clued in on the broader discussion, could a reasonable person infer that the quote be about rape and not pregnancy?
Answer those questions and come back to me on what your beef is with providing clarity around the quote.
Nobody here is confused about the meaning of Akin's statement but you. The meaning is clear without context, and the statement only looks more stupid and gross when put into context. Even Akin walked it back, once it became clear that Evangelical biology wasn't selling as well as he'd expected.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You are the only one here who has been trying to make what he said about being able to prevent rape. And you've been doing it since he first made the remarks. I went back to check my memory. Everyone on here knows I don't make many threads. But I'm the one who posted the thread on his comments back then. You posted even back then that you only ever saw people talking about what's rape then despite the fact that you were posting in MY thread and I was absolutely clear from that OP that I was talking about his idiocy/ignorance about conception. Stop being a shill, Lewk.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The FBI is now investigating Bevin's bizarre pardons.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuck...n-report-says/
As for the rest of it....anyone else notice those twisted ideas about sex and science (including rape) always come from Republicans?
This didn't get created by a conservative...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consent...about-consent/
Not to mention the many folks on this board who thought a 13 year old child could consent to being drugged and sodomized by Polanski.
Are you going through some sort of psychotic episode?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm just trying to figure out what makes him think many people on this forum believe it's okay for an adult to rape a thirteen year old. Even with someone playing devil's advocate re. consent, that sounds like a stretch, and, a priori, the only person I'd expect to sincerely argue in favour of adults preying on 13-year-olds is the Evangelical misogynist creep that defended Roy Moore. Is Lewk breaking with his Evangelical pro-child-molesting roots? Or is he just making an exception for Polanski because he's some sort of confused 30-y-o boomer who thinks liberals are in love with Polanski?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Considering his long history of projection, his fixation on child rape is a bit of a concern.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."