Israeli Academic: Raping Palestinian Women Would Deter Future Attacks

[Type Username Here]

Only in your mind.

Imma 'lay hold of' this keyboard. I guess I'm raping it, too.

​

Go out in the street and lay hold of a woman against her will. You could then use your self-anointed title as a theological scholar to defend yourself in court for charges of sexual assault and rape.

 

[Type Username Here]

Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Defend condoning the murder of children and the sexual abuse/rape/forced marriages of young girls brehs

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Go out in the street and lay hold of a woman against her will.

NOW we're talking. You almost got it, but you're still being stubborn because you're wrong.

Imma 'lay hold of' this money and go buy a soda.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Defend condoning the murder of children

Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

and the sexual abuse/rape/forced marriages of young girls brehs

Vietnam?

Keep trying to dig yourself out of a hole, brehs, because you can't read.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

NOW we're talking. You almost got it, but you're still being stubborn because you're wrong.

Imma 'lay hold of' this money and go buy a soda.

​

Like I said, go "lay a hold" of a random woman on the street and see what happens.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki?​

Vietnam?

Keep trying to dig yourself out of a hole, brehs, because you can't read.

​

Your giving examples of things people see a barbaric and unlawful because...? Most of the people who committed those things are worshipers of the Old Testament. That's probably where they saw that god condones such things. I know when I was at war, I didn't murder any children or take any young virgins as my bride, despite being raised on a religion that has a god who condones such things, such as these passages:

Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin.

Judges 21:10-24

When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

The judeo-christian god clearly doesn't understand that women have consent and rights. If the man wishes to have sex against the woman's will or force young girls into marriage, that god approves of it. It appears he had the power to create the universe but not logically understand a woman's say on such matters.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Like I said, go "lay a hold" of a random woman on the street and see what happens.

That's not what is described in the passages you keep referring to. Nowhere do the words 'random', 'rape', 'force', or 'against their will' appear.

Keep reaching, though.

Maybe someone else will read all that claptrap you keep posting, but not I since it's all bullshyt based on your faulty, ignorant opinion of a text you neither read nor comprehend.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I don't know what Socratic method he's using -- and if it ain't it should be. It's still not productive, if it's only meant to troll, though.

What I'm using is Diltheyan Hermeneutics to interpret the text.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dilthey/

What you two are doing isn't productive. What I'm doing, is......

Deuteronomy 21:19 (KJV)

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Sounds like 'rape' to me...............

(I just spit soda all over my keyboard.)​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I just 'laid hold of' my wife's ass.

​

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Already told you guys about this terrorist state and the root of Zionism.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/; from the Greek preposition εἰς "into" and the ending from the English word exegesis, which in turn is derived from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
'explicitly imply rape' ....................

​

 

[Type Username Here]

Continue to defend the condoning of rape and killing of children brehs.

Don't understand that women have the right to consent brehs.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Continue to defend the condoning of rape and killing of children brehs.

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/; from the Greek preposition εἰς "into" and the ending from the English word exegesis, which in turn is derived from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.

Be an eisegete, brehs, and get destroyed in a debate with your own evidence.
​

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.

Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.

— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.

/thread.​

 

[Type Username Here]

This is why we get Christians like this:

I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mourdock#Political_positions

This thread is proof of that. Ironic that I'm being accused of misinterpreting the text for my own benefit. These Christians, after the progress of secularism, have gone out of their way to misinterpret their holy texts. You see, their god is not evil so maybe we read those passages the wrong way.

So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin.

Moses became angry with the officers, the commanders of battalions and companies, who had returned from the war. He asked them, "Why have you kept all the women alive? Remember that it was the women who followed Balaam's instructions and at Peor led the people to be unfaithful to the Lord. That was what brought the epidemic on the Lord's people. So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies. The Lord has given it to you.

I swear to you that I will cause someone from your own family to bring trouble on you. You will see it when I take your wives from you and give them to another man; and he will have intercourse with them in broad daylight. You sinned in secret, but I will make this happen in broad daylight for all Israel to see.' " "I have sinned against the Lord," David said. Nathan replied, "The Lord forgives you; you will not die. But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die."

"When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

fukking sick. Thankfully most modern Christians and Jews have ignored these parts due to secular pressure, laws and common sense. I mean, God condoning the death of children:

So now kill every boy

is sick. Even going on to kill infants himself.

When is murdering an infant ever morally right? When God commands it or does it I suppose.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This is why we get Christians like this:

You're not debating a Christian. You're debating a Theological Noncognitivist.

​

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Noncognitivism, or theological noncognitivism, is defined as the position that religious language — and specifically religious terms like "god" — are not (cognitively) meaningful. This definition means that noncognitivism denies the essential meaningfulness of religious language, religious arguments, and religious apologetics. If they aren't meaningful, then they can't be either true or false and believing them to be true or false is pointless.

[Willy]You get NOTHING!!! Good day, sir!!![/Wonka]

Dap people who try to win debates by using lies, fallacious 'reasoning', bad arguments that were refuted hundreds of years ago, and Richard Dawkins quotes when their argument is ripped to shreds, brehs.

Very clear that this god condones rape in war.

explicitly IMPLY rape.

EDITED for the lulz.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

OK funk doc. We'll pretend we didn't see your original post that referenced rape being condoned in other passages of the OT.

I gave you ample opportunity to PROVE this assertion as well as your original (that rape was condoned in the text) and you can't. You have done everything except concede that you were wrong.

You are not only wrong, but a LIAR, sir. 'Mentioned' =/= 'condoned'.

I'll take a permanent ban from this forum if you can prove otherwise.



If the mods have the ability, put my original, unedited post somewhere in this thread.​