No, that statistic is in line with my personal experience. But you have to know a woman pretty well before she'd tell you if she'd been raped, so it's likely that you just don't know how many of the women you know have been raped. The statistic is not bunk at all, and I'd strongly encourage you to learn more about this subject.
You are reading rape into the verse. It's not really the way things were thought of back then. All that verse is saying is that if you have sex with a young woman who is not betrothed you have to marry her. If you went to rape a young woman, and she cried out, her father and her brothers would come and kill you, and there would be no punishment mandated for them. But the prospect of a young woman being in an unprotected position would have been so uncommon they haven't really addressed it specifically here. It is worth noting that the exception was specifically called out in other cases, so it would apply here as well.
Basically, you don't understand the context, and you're reading it the worst way imaginable.
They aren't reported to law enforcement. These statistics are gathered from surveys and interviews. Surveys consistently show that between 1/4 and 1/3 of women in the US have been raped at some point in their lives.
The section of Deuteronomy I quoted above, equates rape with murder:
For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor
Murder is explicitly forbidden, rape is like murder, so it also is explicitly forbidden. Does that make sense? So three of the ten commandments outlaw rape:
You shall not murder.
Because rape is like murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
Because if you were to rape someones wife, or anyone who is betrothed it would be adultery.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.
Because if you were to rape your neighbors wife or their servant or their daughter you would be coveting them.
As far as using the word rape specifically, that just wasn't a word they used.
That's an interesting question. In the Bible, marriage is not the legal fiction it is today. The woman was considered to be the property of the man. But bear in mind that they didn't live in the "use it and throw it away" culture we live in today. Owning something meant taking care of it. It was much more like the caring relationship marriage aspires to be than what ownership means today. If a woman was unwilling to have sex, forcing her would be a prevision of the idea of marriage, as would refusing sex in the first place (since marriage was meant to produce offspring). If the woman no longer found favor in the man's eye (they stopped having sex) he'd give her a certificate of divorce and she'd move on with her life.
So yes, rape inside of marriage it not really considered in the Bible, since it isn't sensible.
A lot of this is a matter of what you read into the bible and how you deal with the cultural differences. The verses in Deuteronomy are principally about punishments for adultery and premarital sex. As evidenced by verse 27: "because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." and in verse 24 "she did not cry for help though she was in the city" the woman is never considered to be wrong in the case that she was raped.
Here are the verses in question:
22 “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
It's important to understand that at the time men were expected to look after women, so your daughter would live at home until she was married and if she was attacked it was assumed that there was someone who could come and fight off her attacker. In the case of a wife, it was assumed that the husband or his slaves or servants would be there to keep her from getting raped. So the assumption is that if she's having sex, she is doing it willingly and concealing it from her husband/father.
Applying these verses to modern life would be difficult as many women live independently for much of their lives. But they clearly can say a woman who was raped has not sinned. These laws don't consider the case of a woman who isn't living at home and isn't married, so it would probably be wrong to try to apply it in that case. Also, it is no longer culturally acceptable to betroth you daughter to someone, so that further complicates any contemporary application.
You can't really tell if someone's crazy by looking at their unconventional beliefs. Given the governments record for truthfulness, it's probably less reasonable to take them at their word than to believe they're involved in a vast consparicy. For some reason, the conventional wisdom is to take them at their word, maybe because that's the easiest, most reassuring way to look at things. But it's certinaly not "sane," people who look at things that way are actually in denial.
That's not to say that conspiracy theories make sense or are well founded, but at least the overall suspicious view of government and authority is sensible.
That's what I'm saying. It's totally unreasonable to have someone committed over his use of an ordinary figure of speech. It's not a threat, it's a simple metaphor which doesn't actually imply any violent intent at all.
So is charging into a showing of The Dark Knight Rises with smoke bombs and guns.
If you were going to kill a bunch of people, that's what you'd do. "Heads will roll" is an obvious figure of speech. It's a reference to an antiquated form of execution.
I don't know what to say about this. As cool as that would be if it were true, it still seems awfully impractical. Besides, wouldn't fair notice need to be in the form of some kind of new declaration of independence? I doubt a Facebook status update would be formal enough (maybe in a few years, but a tweet would be more appropriate in that case).
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but this page looks pretty normal to me. 9/11 truth and chemtrails and so fourth. If they were going to lock up everyone with a page like this, it would be tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I don't see a good reason to believe he is mentally disturbed, or that he is going to act out. His detention is alarming, to say the least. Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
It's a way to get their foot in the door. They will either make a new agency, or expand the FCC to essentially police the internet. You'll need someone to check up on ISPs to make sure they're staying neutral, and a bunch of new regulations that define exactly what neutral is. ISPs will probably need a license to operate which can be revoked in the event an ISP is found not to be neutral. From there, they can probably add new regulations to prevent sharing copyrighted materials without even passing new legislation. Since its already illegal, all they'd need to do is expand the meaning of net neutrality as necessary.
And net-neutrality advocates really need to get real about this. The Internet is moving away from preferred content, not toward it, and users would perceive blocked content as "broken links." Customers would have a shit fit, and probably sue their ISP for false advertising if that happened (not to mention the Feds could bring antitrust charges). Net neutrality legislation is an unnecessary opportunity for the government to break the Internet. Don't fall for it.
The question is whether net neutrality is an unnecessary step to further Internet regulations (like requiring ISPs to police for copyrighted materials), or whether it even matters since they are all so willing to participate with that kind of thing anyway.
The concern is that these techniques could be used by law enforcement agents against people who are not criminals in order to harass or intimidate them.
That's the distance the pieces would miss the earth by. Here are the relavent paragraphs for the reading impaired such as yourself:
"A series of assumptions must be made due to limited information in the film. First, the asteroid is approximated as a spherical object 1000km in diameter (the asteroid is quoted as being the size of Texas) that splits into two equal sized hemispheres. The asteroid in the film reaches a clearance either side of the Earth of 400 miles (640km) which is the assumed value for our calculation," according to the student paper "Could Bruce Willis Save the World?"
The students also said scientists would have to detect the asteroid much earlier if there were any real chance splitting the asteroid before it hit Earth. In the movie the explosions were to split the monster rock so it could pass around the Earth. On top of this, the asteroid would need to be split at almost the exact point that it could feasibly be detected at 8 billion miles, the students said.
If you'd read the article, you'd know that the calculation was to determine how powerful the explosion would need to be to split the asteroid in half so that the two pieces would pass by the earth. Basically, the same thing that was done in the movie. Only, in their calculation, the explosion occurred when the asteroid was still 8 billion miles away.
Corporations are simply orginizations. They are owned and operated by individuals, who themselves bear responsability for their actions. So when people make blanket claims about "The Corporations" they are speaking from ignorance and hate and fear.
Now, the parent brought up hate laws in a compleyly transparent attempt to change the subject. I was simply pointing that out.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that statistic is in line with my personal experience. But you have to know a woman pretty well before she'd tell you if she'd been raped, so it's likely that you just don't know how many of the women you know have been raped. The statistic is not bunk at all, and I'd strongly encourage you to learn more about this subject.
You are reading rape into the verse. It's not really the way things were thought of back then. All that verse is saying is that if you have sex with a young woman who is not betrothed you have to marry her. If you went to rape a young woman, and she cried out, her father and her brothers would come and kill you, and there would be no punishment mandated for them. But the prospect of a young woman being in an unprotected position would have been so uncommon they haven't really addressed it specifically here. It is worth noting that the exception was specifically called out in other cases, so it would apply here as well.
Basically, you don't understand the context, and you're reading it the worst way imaginable.
They aren't reported to law enforcement. These statistics are gathered from surveys and interviews. Surveys consistently show that between 1/4 and 1/3 of women in the US have been raped at some point in their lives.
The section of Deuteronomy I quoted above, equates rape with murder:
Murder is explicitly forbidden, rape is like murder, so it also is explicitly forbidden. Does that make sense? So three of the ten commandments outlaw rape:
Because rape is like murder.
Because if you were to rape someones wife, or anyone who is betrothed it would be adultery.
Because if you were to rape your neighbors wife or their servant or their daughter you would be coveting them.
As far as using the word rape specifically, that just wasn't a word they used.
That's an interesting question. In the Bible, marriage is not the legal fiction it is today. The woman was considered to be the property of the man. But bear in mind that they didn't live in the "use it and throw it away" culture we live in today. Owning something meant taking care of it. It was much more like the caring relationship marriage aspires to be than what ownership means today. If a woman was unwilling to have sex, forcing her would be a prevision of the idea of marriage, as would refusing sex in the first place (since marriage was meant to produce offspring). If the woman no longer found favor in the man's eye (they stopped having sex) he'd give her a certificate of divorce and she'd move on with her life.
So yes, rape inside of marriage it not really considered in the Bible, since it isn't sensible.
A lot of this is a matter of what you read into the bible and how you deal with the cultural differences. The verses in Deuteronomy are principally about punishments for adultery and premarital sex. As evidenced by verse 27: "because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." and in verse 24 "she did not cry for help though she was in the city" the woman is never considered to be wrong in the case that she was raped.
Here are the verses in question:
It's important to understand that at the time men were expected to look after women, so your daughter would live at home until she was married and if she was attacked it was assumed that there was someone who could come and fight off her attacker. In the case of a wife, it was assumed that the husband or his slaves or servants would be there to keep her from getting raped. So the assumption is that if she's having sex, she is doing it willingly and concealing it from her husband/father.
Applying these verses to modern life would be difficult as many women live independently for much of their lives. But they clearly can say a woman who was raped has not sinned. These laws don't consider the case of a woman who isn't living at home and isn't married, so it would probably be wrong to try to apply it in that case. Also, it is no longer culturally acceptable to betroth you daughter to someone, so that further complicates any contemporary application.
Since the vast majority of rapes go unreported, I'd say false rape accusations (at least in a legal sense) are much less common.
You can't really tell if someone's crazy by looking at their unconventional beliefs. Given the governments record for truthfulness, it's probably less reasonable to take them at their word than to believe they're involved in a vast consparicy. For some reason, the conventional wisdom is to take them at their word, maybe because that's the easiest, most reassuring way to look at things. But it's certinaly not "sane," people who look at things that way are actually in denial.
That's not to say that conspiracy theories make sense or are well founded, but at least the overall suspicious view of government and authority is sensible.
Hey, don't give him any ideas! It's unlikely he's able to detect the sarcasm in your post.
That's what I'm saying. It's totally unreasonable to have someone committed over his use of an ordinary figure of speech. It's not a threat, it's a simple metaphor which doesn't actually imply any violent intent at all.
There's an image of his facebook page in the article, if you'd like to check it out.
If you were going to kill a bunch of people, that's what you'd do. "Heads will roll" is an obvious figure of speech. It's a reference to an antiquated form of execution.
I don't know what to say about this. As cool as that would be if it were true, it still seems awfully impractical. Besides, wouldn't fair notice need to be in the form of some kind of new declaration of independence? I doubt a Facebook status update would be formal enough (maybe in a few years, but a tweet would be more appropriate in that case).
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but this page looks pretty normal to me. 9/11 truth and chemtrails and so fourth. If they were going to lock up everyone with a page like this, it would be tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I don't see a good reason to believe he is mentally disturbed, or that he is going to act out. His detention is alarming, to say the least. Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
So do you think he was actually planning to get an axe and chop off their heads? That would be kind of unusual, don't you think?
It's a way to get their foot in the door. They will either make a new agency, or expand the FCC to essentially police the internet. You'll need someone to check up on ISPs to make sure they're staying neutral, and a bunch of new regulations that define exactly what neutral is. ISPs will probably need a license to operate which can be revoked in the event an ISP is found not to be neutral. From there, they can probably add new regulations to prevent sharing copyrighted materials without even passing new legislation. Since its already illegal, all they'd need to do is expand the meaning of net neutrality as necessary.
And net-neutrality advocates really need to get real about this. The Internet is moving away from preferred content, not toward it, and users would perceive blocked content as "broken links." Customers would have a shit fit, and probably sue their ISP for false advertising if that happened (not to mention the Feds could bring antitrust charges). Net neutrality legislation is an unnecessary opportunity for the government to break the Internet. Don't fall for it.
The question is whether net neutrality is an unnecessary step to further Internet regulations (like requiring ISPs to police for copyrighted materials), or whether it even matters since they are all so willing to participate with that kind of thing anyway.
South Africa is really nice.
The concern is that these techniques could be used by law enforcement agents against people who are not criminals in order to harass or intimidate them.
In all fairness to those 73%, I'd be a lot more concerned about the 27% who seem to think we actually had a reason to fight the Cold War.
That's the distance the pieces would miss the earth by. Here are the relavent paragraphs for the reading impaired such as yourself:
That depends on how fast it's going. . .
You're describing Deep Impact.
If you'd read the article, you'd know that the calculation was to determine how powerful the explosion would need to be to split the asteroid in half so that the two pieces would pass by the earth. Basically, the same thing that was done in the movie. Only, in their calculation, the explosion occurred when the asteroid was still 8 billion miles away.
Corporations are simply orginizations. They are owned and operated by individuals, who themselves bear responsability for their actions. So when people make blanket claims about "The Corporations" they are speaking from ignorance and hate and fear.
Now, the parent brought up hate laws in a compleyly transparent attempt to change the subject. I was simply pointing that out.