>>7670286 >>7670286 >I was trying to point out how ridiculous the notion of legalizing rape being logical is it's just about shifting the burden of determining consent instead of forcing police, prosecutors, juries and judges to get involved and decide if there was or wasn't consent, it draws an arbitrary line in the sand if a woman consents to go on private property of a man, she consents to sex the police and courts won't bail her out later in a he said, she said case they will just say that she consented it takes away that false sense of security so many women have that daddy state is looking after them
>>7670242 Hey, I recognize this guy. On Australian tv people are talking about denying him entry into the country. Looks a bit sketchy to me though, everybody's taking it for granted that he said that he condones rape, or that he's a 'rape advocate' or something, but I have no idea who he is or what he's done. The news showed about one second of him speaking and about all he managed to get in was that he doesn't literally condone rape, then they went right back to calling him a rape supporter.
He does look like a tool though so I don't want to read anything he's written.
>>7670344 it's not about rights it's about state's intervention does the state get involved? it's about determining consent
it's an arbitrary line in the sand like statutory rape law they don't care if she looks older, they don't care if she's already very sexually experienced, they don't care if she's really emotionally mature for her age if you're an adult who fucked a fifteen year old you're guilty. there's no extenuating circumstances
and if you go on some guys private property you consent the state doesn't care if you were drunk, high (probably exceptions need to be made if the woman was drugged against her will) or if she was just selling encyclopedias, it's consent
it isnt about right for rapists, it's about the state not bothering to get involved
>>7670370 Would you care to copy+paste or pastebin that article for us? Not that I don't believe you, just I'm sort of curious as to see how somebody could back that up now but I don't want to visit his gay site.
Are we all sure he wasn't having a giggle when he said this?
>>7670386 >He wrote a satirical article saying legalising rape would make women take more responsibility for their own actions. Oh, it was a satire! Oh, nevermind, that makes it fine! He was merely pretending! It's fine everyone, he was just being ironically sexist in order to make a unironically sexist point. Truly the modern day Voltaire.
>>7670428 >Look at the kind of people who follow him I watched the BBC documentary on him and all the people looked quite normal honestly >he's making no effort to clarify that it was satirical if in fact it was he has literally said it is satirical multiple times
Roosh is just a way to distract from feminism's failure on Cologne
>>7670399 you keep talking about rights and I keep telling you that it isn't about rights it's about determining consent under the proposed law a woman could say. I just went into his house to use the phone, my car broke down and he forced me to have sex. the court would say, you went into his house voluntarily? yes then you consented to sex, it isn't rape but he punched me in the face and dislocated my shoulder when he twisted my arm behin my back the court would say, then that's aggravated assault, lets hear the evidence...
its about making things easier for the state in determining consent, not about giving rapists rights
>>7670442 >I watched the BBC documentary on him and all the people looked quite normal honestly He and his followers came off as sleasy guys who want pussy really.
>he has literally said it is satirical multiple times Not an excuse. Also another anon pointed out the message was "women should take more responsibility" which is still basically pro-rape - "not tempting red-blooded males" and all that bullshit.
>>7670421 >Oh, it was a satire! Oh, nevermind, that makes it fine! even if he was serious, i couldn't care less. thought crimes and feelings crimes are womanish things to worry about its tough enough policing people for their actions discussing a change in law is no crime
>>7670465 >discussing a change in law is no crime Calling Roosh a fucking scumbag isn't a crime either. It's not like he's the only sexist guy in existence but propping up systematic exploitation of women is a bit more than a 'thought crime'. Things don't exist in a vacuum.
>>7670399 >If you are an adult you shouldn't be fucking a minor, whether or not she is sexually experience the point about statutory rape is that defense attorneys would argue that the girl looked older, or was emotionally mature enough to make decisions or she was already sexually experienced the courts had enough they didn't want to hear it they didn't care they drew a line in the sand fuck a girl under the age of consent and you're guilty evidence about her appearance, emotional maturity and past sexual experience were inadmissable they didn't mitigate the sentencing at all because they didn't get heard at all again it's about making things easier for the state
>>7670460 >women should take more responsibility" which is still basically pro-rape the stated aim is to reduce the number of rapes does whose responsibility it is matter if the number of rapes is reduced?
>>7670642 Honestly, I would be down with his suggestion if it reduced rape, although there's a case to be made in terms of how unhappy a world it would be with such less decadence, on a personal level, guys, ask yourself how much harder it would be to land pussy if the girl knows she can be raped if you let her into your land.
But, as I was saying, I don't know, would it really reduce rape? I don't know about the long-term but there will definitely be a lot of guys who take advantage of it in the short-term and a lot of ladies who don't realize they need to back the fuck off.
>>7670685 >although there's a case to be made in terms of how unhappy a world it would be with such less decadence, on a personal level, guys, ask yourself how much harder it would be to land pussy if the girl knows she can be raped if you let her into your land. there is the killer argument i was wondering when somebody would figure it out that's why no such law would ever pass women are too attached to being drunk, irresponsible bimbos normie men like women being drunk, irresponsible bimbos too except when it backfires but men usually prefer to take risks if the reward is something they want so it would never get past any legislative session so much ado about nothing really
Zizek has a lecture where he mentions he's in favor of censorship so long as it preserves a fundemental ethical standard for the society. As he puts it, "I don't want to live in a society where we have people argue against why rape is bad."
Not to mention Roosh is a literal rapist who discusses drugging and overpowering women in his works. But its not like the cancer of /pol9k/ cares, they just hate those damned succubi.
If I, a male, was raped, I would be laughed at and considered less of a man, men can't use their cavity holes as weapons of social control like women can and do. My physical and mental trauma would be a joke in the eyes of society, nothing of real value has been taken from me.
But a woman? It's the worst crime possible. It's worse than murder. You've forcibly given yourself access to her most valued weapon, the holes she uses to control men and their emotions and wallets, the holes she uses to climb the career ladder, to gain positions of influence and power.
>>7670242 I called him a desperate faggot on Youtube and his followers called me a virgin, en masse. Like 15 replies to my comment. He looks like a fucking caveman and is thoroughly surprised that Eastern European women don't fall for his shitty tactics, lmao. An average guy could just go into a club, make some small talk and have consensual sex, while this fag has to resort to some PUA bullshit.
>>7670954 Considering humanity is probably at argueably its best its ever been due to the current moral code, and I dont see how further progress is going to hinder that, yeah not all morality is subjective.
>Say "There is no reason for rape not to be legal" in the middle of my speech
>Professor taps me on the shoulder, says "okay, I think you're done now"
>Rest of class looks angry and frightened
>That feel when no academic freedom
Anyone else hate how there is no free speech in college?
I wrote it down on a sheet of paper that I threw away right after my speech got cut short.
It was arguing that rape wasn't any worse than a minor assault and that no one should have to go to jail for acting on their natural sexual urges. It was arguing for a more sexually free society where people are free to do whatever they want with their own bodies, and have sex with whoever they want.
I argued that rape was a form of genetic control imposed in the past by a patriarchal society that demanded women be bound only to one man, and that legalizing rape would eliminate that historical bigotry.
Rape is similar to eugenics in that it's how a few people try to avoid undesirable genes from entering the gene pool. At the same time, rape promotes genetic diversity.
>>7670976 >Anyone else hate how there is no free speech in college? Anyone else hate how tryhard faggots are now allowed in college? You can be controversial if you have a point to make. I remember listening to a lecture about Nazi sympathizers being pioneers of animal rights. No one booed, no one cried or whined, but the lecturer had a point to make.
>>7670987 Rightists always whine about how the left is the outrage culture, and there are some thin skinned leftists who throw fits over nothing, but its right-wingers who are the real whiners. They can throw out so much shit about opressing different groups, but when they get called out they scream "FREE SPEECH! YOU'RE OPRESSING ME!' They always talk about shit like personal freedom and no state intervention, but het mad at things that don't personally affect them like gay marriage/adoption and abortion. Rightists are literal children.
>>7670999 You don't seem to know the difference between criticism and censorship. Please read a dictionary before you try to hold participate in any conversations on free speech; it will save you from embarrassment and me from a headache.
To be fair I'd say the homosexual/cultural marxist agenda is worse than ISIS, since the stated aim of the left is to destroy the nuclear family, destroy marriage, destroy all the foundations of western civilisation.
If forced to choose between Islam and radical cultural marxism I'd chose Islam because regardless of its barbaric nature at least women would be treated as lesser beings, have to be submissive, couldn't be raging whores, required to dress moderate etc. It's the lesser of the two, I'd rather have a barbaric crazy society where degenerative behavior in women isn't tolerated and have to be virgins, dress moderate, submit to husband's versus a degenerate society where women, trangender lunatics, and non whites have laws set in place forcing you to identify as non binary, take hormone therapy and be forced into cuckold relationships if you're a white male.
>>7671098 The left doesn't want to force you to become a cuckold. They don't want to tear down the traditional family, they just want to let people have the option to live alternative lifestyles so long as everybody in it is capable of consent.
>>7671168 They turn most issues on their head so it defies normal journalism but in this instance they actually do a great job of picking up on how insufferable Roosh le douche is. Such a sad pathetic life.
My favourite thing about this is if you give the daily mail as a source for literally any other topic it gets dismissed by anti-roosh people (who have somehow managed to be even more pathetic than him in the space of a week) so desperately want it to be true that they went with it anyway.
Why is no one discussing the fact that, even though rape is illegal, men are frequently raped in a socially acceptable manner in prisons?
The absence of discussion surrounding prison rape is what I think Roosh was trying to bring attention to with his satire. Note how the backlash to his piece always comes with the implicate assumption that rape is a women's issue.
>>7671236 Most female rapes are false accusations though.
Meanwhile the idea of being a "male rape victim" is so embarrassing that the overwhelming majority of men who have been victims of rape probably will never come forward, which obfuscates figures that are already in their favour.
>While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated.
>I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.
>If a girl is willing to walk home with me, she’s going to get the dick no matter how much she has drunk. …
>I figure my dick was inside her about forty minutes after meeting her, likely my fastest bang ever. The sex was as good as drunken sex can get, but I did notice her pussy was drier than the Sahara desert.
>We moved to my bed. I got her down to her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No, no.” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.
>I put on a condom, lubed up, and finally got her consent to put it in. … I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile. She took it like a champ even though I imagine it must have felt like being fucked by a telescope. My orgasm was from another world.
>After dinner we went upstairs and I eased her onto my king-size bed. It took four hours of foreplay and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, no” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina. No means no—until it means yes.
>I was fucking her from behind, getting to the end in the way I normally did, when all of a sudden she said, “Wait stop, I want to go back on top.” I refused and we argued. … She tried to squirm away while I was laying down my strokes so I had to use some muscle to prevent her from escaping. I was able to finish, but my orgasm was weak.
>>7671340 >>7671327 Can someone explain why antifa and neo-nazis care about each other so much? Other than the obvious hooliganism aspect.
Both groups are completely powerless. It makes no sense for either of them to oppose each other. It has literally zero practical effect in advancing your goals. Realpolitik dictates that you should be beating up centrists, they're the people who actually, you know, vote for the parties that are in power.
>>7670947 >Zizek has a lecture where he mentions he's in favor of censorship so long as it preserves a fundemental ethical standard for the society. As he puts it, "I don't want to live in a society where we have people argue against why rape is bad."
lol, that's not what zizek means by that. He wants a social standard or norm that would make it absurd for someone to argue that rape is good, such that no one would take them seriously. Sorta like how (almost) no one will take you seriously if you argue that the earth is flat. If you need the government to step in and sensor the objectionable arguments then obviously you don't have the shared social standard against those arguments in the first place (and you'd have to be sorta naive to suppose the judicial system could impose such a standard through censorship). That it's illegal in Europe to question the existence of the holocaust is a reflection of the cultural stigma against doing just that, not the cause of the stigma.
And of course we do live in a society like that, where no one will take you seriously if you argue that rape can be morally good. Which is Zizek's point, that even though the liberal west pretends it is totally cynical and secular, and that all values can and should be questioned, there are still "sacred" values that can't be questioned, and that's not necessarily a bad thing (in fact as a Lacanian Zizek sees it as a precondition of the symbolic order and of a social space generally).
>>7671351 they're completely ideologically opposed, and they're both trying to shift political consciousness in opposite directions, so they clash often. Beating up centrists is impractical, they aren't an enemy you can hope to match, and just beating up a few to make an example alienates most outsiders and isn't likely to convince them to join your way of thinking.
>>7671383 Further alienates them, then. I'm not entirely convinced though that centrists cannot change their views, or that an appreciable number of centrists are only there because they haven't really put critical thought into developing their political identity.
>>7671375 it has nothing to do with ideology, once you do away with all the posturing on both sides they pretty much agree on the basics. they clash for the same reasons soccer fans from different teams clash, because they're heavily identified with a specific camp which takes the narcissism of minor differences as its essence and defining feature.
the typical antifa protester simply wants to prove how "radical" and "anarchist" they are to themselves and their pals, much like the far right wants to prove how tough and masculine they are.
>>7671281 see this is why silencing these guys is a bad idea the more you point out what they actually say, the better for the anti-roosh folks give 'em enough rope attempts to silence just makes you look like wannabe thought police
>>7671410 I don't think they really agree on basics, unless you're reducing it down to things like "feed the poor" and "taxation is good for the state." Having a few matching conclusions doesn't change the radically different ideological thought path that it took them to arrive at their conclusions, and is readily apparent when you look at them in more than one dimension. >>7671460 Hierarchy is a great point though, the nazi's love it and organize society around it, the commies want to do away with it.
>>7671544 Someone quoted his excerpts from Bang Poland, so I will now translate an excerpt from the Polish penal code: "Who with violence, illegal threat or deceit subjects another person to sexual intercourse shall be punished by 2 to 12 years of imprisonment."
Article 197 of the Penal Code is also concerned with lack of consent, and I think that a girl repeatedly saying "no" until a muscular men coerces her into saying "yes" = forcing the intercourse which in turn equals no consent (lack of which does not have to be stated verbally). If it wasn't for his low profile while in country he'd be sentenced.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.