Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is simply nothing more than an ad-hominem attack, it takes no reasoning to justify and it has worked for them to the degree that they have created laws basically stifling free speech by calling topics and perspectives they do not wish to address as 'hate'.
As long as a majority of Americans are either too stupid or too apathetic to see the sophomoric ineptitude of this argument they will continue to use it.
LOL Americans. You want to see a psychologist for everything. All a psychologist does is talk to you and charges you 100$ an hour. If some abused person wants a shoulder to cry on, and has no one at home to cry on, go to a bar. Especially girls will find a lot of shoulders to cry on even if the only goal of the men listening is to get inside their pants. But if you want to use my tax dollars to have someone console you, forget it, I won't support that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
I'm implying what I said.
Scenario: wife slaps husband. Is this a reason to break up a marriage? If you said no then why is it ok to break up a marriage if a husband hits his wife?
Obviously if the behavior is persistent and arbitrary is when you break up a marriage. But everyone loses their cool from time to time.
Why am I supposed to be bothered by people I don't know, raping girls in Europe?
Go ahead and find Nakh (search Chechen to make your life easier) people raping in Europe. That would hit closer to home.
In Chechnya, the vast majority of the rapes were committed by the christian Russians against Muslim Chechens to attempt to exterminate us.
Men rape women for reasons other than religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
Clan refers to blood relation.
In a very broad sense, a VERY broad sense, if I was a Muslim, maybe you could refer to your Muslim tribe. But even that wouldn't make sense.
Make up your mind - are you Muslim or not? Are you a Muslim when it's convenient? You don't have to be a Muslim to think like a jacka$$.
There is no acceptable reason or excuse for rape - at least that's what people in America and developed countries think, except the sick ba$tards that rape.
You sound like a muslim, dude. It depends on the context. Both could be treated as DV. If both were due to self defence, then fine. But men rarely abuse/kill women out of self defence, and men are usually physically stronger than the women they abuse. They can usually defend themselves better than women. Violence against women BECAUSE of their physical weaknesses/biology has always been a more of a problem than women physically attacking men because they are men. I don't recall any history period where women subjugated/abused men and you're a fool if you pretend you don't know the reason why.
LOL I must be a muslim because I believe victims of both genders should be treated equally and no special treatment should be given to one because she is "weaker"?
Women do not need special protections, they have the same legal protections that men do.
Its called equal protection under the law.Giving women an elevated victim status by making the penalties harsher is unconstitutional at its core.
Ideally, that would be true. But each state writes its own laws, and the laws go back many years. In the past, wives were considered the possession of their husbands, in this country, and they were restricted legally in actions they could take against their husbands. Some states' laws placed similar restrictions on mistresses and girlfriends. As recently as the 1970's it was legal in some states for a husband to rape his wife. And in many states, spousal rape was classified differently than non-spousal rape. Because archaic laws remain on the books in several states, the Violence Against Women Act negated the restrictions of those archaic laws. We can hope that the archaic laws have been removed from the lawbooks, and that women now have the same legal protections that men do, in every state, and that law enforcement officers have the training to deal with these situations. We can hope.
How effective was this ACT at reducing violence towards women? Are there any stats on it's effectiveness?
This was a law. It's not a disinfectant where we can measure the germs before application and then afterward. We have laws against murder, and yet murders still occur. Should we simply cancel laws against murder because they are so ineffective? Laws don't prevent crime. Laws address the penalties when crimes are committed. In this case, the intention was to provide the victims of violence with more resources, both to protect themselves from further violence, and prosecute the perpetrator of the violence. The federal law was also aimed at providing more standard definitions and penalties, because state laws vary so much.
Just today, a rapist was freed because of an archaic law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
