CDZ Is there something sacrosanct precisely because it's false?

[grbb]

For example. The idea that women are not sex object is sacrosanct. Precisely because women are.

Other samples?

 

[Jackson]

My family is sacrosanct, so I don't like false rumors about them.

 

[jwoodie]

For example. The idea that women are not sex object is sacrosanct. Precisely because women are.

Other samples?

Care to expound?

 

[320 Years of History]

For example. The idea that women are not sex object is sacrosanct. Precisely because women are.

Other samples?

What?

 

[grbb]

I mean trump says that if you're a start women will let you grab their pussy.

That is politically incorrect precisely because it's true.

Other samples?

 

[grbb]

I asked why thinking that women are sex object is politically incorrect. People are mad at other forum that I make that thread. As usual there is an accusation that I am being "disrespectful" of women.

It seems that you can question A, B, C, D, and when you question something that doesn't even make sense, beeeeppppp, wrong.

 

[320 Years of History]

I mean trump says that if you're a start women will let you grab their pussy.

That is politically incorrect precisely because it's true.

Other samples?

Politically incorrect because it's true? Political correctness has nothing to do with it. It's sexual assault to grab anyone, male or female, by their genitals if they don't want to be grabbed there. It's lawfully "incorrect."

 

[grbb]

Trump doesn't say he'll grab anyone's pussy without permission. To the opposite he says, if you're a star they let you do it.

Now let people do something doesn't mean consent. I can let cops handcuffs me doesn't mean it's consensual.

However, look at the context.

If you're a star they let you do it. It's not, if you have good lawyers they let you do it.

Also what about this

German Drug "Minister" (Marlene mortler) Says:"Cannabis is forbidden because it's forbidden"

The idea that drugs are dangerous is sacrosanct for the control of the people.

So you can't even question it. The answers are ridiculously stupid.

What about religion? In Indonesia, a governor with well track record of anti corruption is almost jailed because he said something about islam.

Now say something negative about free market and see how many would protest.

It's as if the more wrong something is the more people protect it.

 

[grbb]

Consent is another issue. Say you go to a store and you grab burger and run away. Is that consensual? No. Say you go to a store you grab a burger and pay. Is that consensual. Yes. Do you sign a contract every time you buy a burger? Come the fuck on.

In every other area of live consent is very easily seen.

In sex, prostitution is illegal.

So how do you define consent?

If she react certain ways then it's consensual. You know what? If that causes certain misunderstanding I understand. What about if misunderstanding happens and Donald grab some pussy? At most it should be misdemeanor.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump doesn't say he'll grab anyone's pussy without permission. To the opposite he says, if you're a star they let you do it.

Now let people do something doesn't mean consent. I can let cops handcuffs me doesn't mean it's consensual.

However, look at the context.

If you're a star they let you do it. It's not, if you have good lawyers they let you do it.

Red:
It's also not "if you are a star, they want you to do it." Read this and this, and then consider how your expressed ideas fit with those ideas.

 

[320 Years of History]

Consent is another issue.

Consent is not another issue. It is the issue to the extent one equates "consent" with "want." The matter of consent has been parsed by legal scholars so that in some instances it's separate from wanting/welcoming an action to occur with regard to one's person. While it seems you may be hinting at that sort of thing, I don't a correspondingly sophisticated argument in the content you've presented; thus I don't quite know what to make of what you've shared. I'm hoping you will refine your argument -- the ideas and their organization and rigor of presentation -- after you read the content at the two links I provided in post #10.

 

[grbb]

I read your article.

Actually http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=fwps_papers

it should strengthen my point.

Consent is so difficult to define in sex. With liberal radical feminazi saying that all sex is non consensual unless the woman has more muscle than men to the libertarian that anything short of fraud or force or underage is consensual.

I think drinking together and get drunk and have sex together is consensual.

That is another reason why market price for women's service should be well defined. Such market should exist and we shall know more easily what is consensual and what's not.

 

[grbb]

Imagine if Donald says if you're handsome they let you do it. You would think it means consent right?

If you're a star they let you do it means the same thing.

Stars do not necessarily have good lawyers. You got to look at context of why would someone let you do it.

If you are paying Mc Donald will give you burger. That means consent. If you have a gun, Mc Donald will give you burger. That doesn't mean consent. However, we can make a pretty good guess of what it really means.