RemyBrown

They say to you, "regardless of what anyone else does, helping victims of rape is the right thing to do." Since you can't accuse that person of hypocrisy, how would you rebut their argument?

If they are able to provide sufficient proof that their being honest, then I would call them the exception. You might be the exception. But the truth is, most people don't care.

Most people have heard of Epstein and know he raped kids, but they can't name any of the kids because it's just news to them. The only people who care enough about Epstein's rape victims to be willing to sue over it are the parents. It's similar with murder; if there is a murder on Person A's block of a complete stranger (lets say they're in NYC), then Person A is upset, but it's not at the murderer killing someone, it's because they're afraid they might be next.

If that same murder happens in Chicago, then Person A is indifferent (or maybe even a bit happy, not because they enjoy others getting murdered, but because if Chicago's murder rate is 2x as high as NYC, then Person A feels safer living in NYC, but only because of those Chicago murders).

People often get a lot of joy of putting other cities down. If NYC's homicide rate is 8 per 100k and Chicago's is 16 per 100k, then NYC residents will feel safe; if NYC is 8 per 100k and Chicago is 4 per 100k, then NYC residents feel afraid. They felt better when Chicago's homicide rate went up because it made their own city look better.

Human beings aren't angels; they're selfish and they have egos.

Does the school know the Frat house address? If so, then send guards that make sure no alcohol enters.

Anyone who refuses to disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files is pro Jeffery Epstein.

Things like prohibition lead me to believe banning alcohol isnt the best pathway. 

Prohibition banned alcohol NATIONWIDE. All this is doing is legally making people drink their booze off of a college campus with beds and places to have sex while drunk (aka rape).

Even if people are hypocrites my point is that that's not a good reason to stop caring about women who have been raped. 

We should care about women who get raped equally to men that have been raped. But you're not willing to care for men that get raped to the extent of being willing to sacrifice 1 year of your life to sue the rapist of the man.

Why fight for 1 year for women rape victims and not for 1 year for men rape victims with equal effort? Because that's what you're undeniably endorsing.

Is it because of their cute faces and small child like bodies (like that makes an objective difference)?

Your argument boils down to saying some people are mean to men so let's also be mean to women.

You're one of those people by the definition of, "Not fight for 1 year for a rape victim of this gender". Equality is not pleasant for women. Women deserve all the rights and responsibilities of children (with one exception: they can consent to sex).

Yes. And putting them in jail.

I believe your conviction as much as I believe someone who runs a 1600 m in 5:00 that really enjoys running telling me they would happily run an ultra marathon of 160 km; one's passion and verbalized commitment often fades once they have to prove it in real life.

I'm saying if slavery was still legal in the US and someone used that argument.

If slavery was legal, then that means many people around today would still support it. If you're telling me that if you were in the 1600s that you would be just as much of an abolitionist as John Brown, then you're delusional. People are often a product of their environment and if you think you're the exception, then you're not.

Humans aren't angels nor demons; they're selfish and indifferent about the suffering of strangers.

If is a requirement to have an alcoholic beverage to get drunk. It is a requirement to have a body to have sex.

You can't ban bodies from in person colleges; you can ban beer.

Sperm is a noun; fucking is a verb.

Exactly; human beings aren't angels.

Wouldn't it make more sense to be nice to both men and women rather than being mean to both of them?

If your brother got raped, then I can see you giving him words of reassurance. But would you go out of your way to dedicate months to years of your life suing the man who raped him only for it to probably fail? No. But you would for your sister. Being nice to men/women has a cost; and that cost is the sacrifice of your time; months of it. The truth is, people are lazy and unempathetic when something effects them personally because empathy has a cost to it; lots of your time, effort, and money. People don't want to pay when reality strikes.

Your conclusion seems akin to saying the solution to slavery is to also enslave white people.

Except that if a black person was a slave today, then I know the master would be prosecuted as would the enslaver of a white.

If you are a man and your sister gets raped by a group of guys, then obviously you will care, and you will care so much that you would want to get a trial going and you would want to sue the men that raped your sister and you would want to heavily prosecute them.

If you are a man and your brother gets raped by a group of guys, then you might care; rape is bad even if it happens to men. You'll give him reassuring words. Will you spend months of your time to sue the men that raped your brother like you would for your sister? No; you wouldn't.

If you are a man and your child or dog gets raped, then the rapist can expect to be sued massively.

Only women, children, and DOGS are loved to the extent of anyone who rapes them will have people on their behalf spend months of their time and stress to prosecute the person who raped them. Men won't get that protection.

If someone rapes me and I tell my family, then they will want me to be hush about it or deny that it happened; maybe some principled progressives will give me reassuring words, but they won't sue the guy on my behalf (and if those progressives find out I'm an anti abortion man, then they would say that I deserve to be raped because in their minds, I don't respect their bodily autonomy, so they won't respect mine even with the meaningless reassuring words).

If someone gets raped, then the willingness to fight in the courtrooms to sue the rapist should be equal regardless of the gender of the person who was raped. Anytime a woman experiences something bad, don't immediately feel bad for her.

Instead, ask, "If this bad thing happened to a man, then what would my reaction be?", and use that as a precedent for how to treat then woman.

Since when do people have sex in any area other than a private bedroom? Sex is a verb; alcohol is a noun. You can enforce bans on nouns; enforcing a ban on verbs is harder.

Has a 37% approval rating.

Nobody will admit to being pro Jeffery Epstein, but I think anyone outside the 63% is pro Jeffery Epstein. You've seen Fuentes with the Epstein Jacket; Wylted had a picture of Epstein.

These people are the exception, but many agree with them (37% of the population). Most don't outwardly say it.

I'm anti Epstein; sex harms kids. But 60% of republicans are pro Epstein.

"I was drunk" is no justification for rape.

"I was drunk" is not an ethical justification for rape, but it's a catalyst for rape.

Ban alcohol's existence at all colleges and problem solved.

And THAT is why you will die before 80.

The problem isnt alcohol. It's that these individuals disregarded the most intimate and fundamental boundary. ...and at least 56 others did nothing to stop it.

You think they would behave differently if they're sober? Sober people fear consequences.

That's retarted.

You're Damn RIGHT.

From what I heard, a bunch of men had sex with a woman and because she said yes while drunk, people are arguing she didn't consent.

I've never had alcohol, so I don't know of it's effects. It's better to ban alcohol for all college students, even those above 21 with the penalty being the same for underage drinking. Less alcohol for college students means less college women getting raped.

Hopefully SkyWalker and I can come to a rare moment of agreement here.

I agree and this should be the default. Americans should be encouraged to lose empathy for convicted murderers and public executions are good for making Americans more thick skinned.

If you don't want to view an execution, then you're free to walk away, but eventually, your curiosity will win you over and you will want to watch a murderer being executed.

This you do at your own pace.

1 in 4 women are victims of attempted or completed rape. When we account for sexual harassment, we might as well conclude sexual offenses are more common than abortion.

Rapists rape many women. Sexual assault should get you SAed by a machine. Proportional penalties should be the target.

There are about as much rape cases per year as abortions. 

That's not true. Abortions are more common.

No, my point is insanity pleas need a specific exception; hormones aren't one of them.

That's fine, but it's proof that gays ought to be thinking like conservatives because it saves them money on taxes and they won't lose their marraige rights.

Convince the jury the same way Lindsay was able too.

Find a way for men to be as on code with other men as women are with other women.

There is state sponsored kidnapping (called imprisonment). What's the difference?

That's easy to do. Tell someone you're insane and you get off? Easy sacrifice.

Rapists should get raped by a machine. Abortion; make the penalty community service; death penalty for abortion is unrealistic because abortions are common. The rarer they become, the tougher you can make the penalty; but death penalty is way too unrealistic for abortions performed before Jan 1 2027.

The penalty for a man raping a woman should be the man gets raped by a machine (same for sexual assault). Eye for an eye; genital for a genital.