Rape is an act of violence. Does this man who claims a believe in God believe that God sanctions violence against women? Breathtaking! This message courtesy of Republican Candidate for Senate Murdock.
http://www.wlky.com/news/politics/Senate-candidate-s-comment-about-abortion-and-rape-cause-shock-controversy/-/9365900/17109472/-/gu60de/-/index.html
Diane Melendez
Not just the will of God but a Gift fro God. Even a woman's ability to have her body reject pregnancy from legitament rape can't over come the will of God. At least it is a good thing no harm can come to the mother during pregnancy.
Where do Republicans get their wacky ideas.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 24, 2012, 05:37:25 PM
Rape is an act of violence. Does this man who claims a believe in God believe that God sanctions violence against women? Breathtaking! This message courtesy of Republican Candidate for Senate Murdock.
http://www.wlky.com/news/politics/Senate-candidate-s-comment-about-abortion-and-rape-cause-shock-controversy/-/9365900/17109472/-/gu60de/-/index.html
Diane Melendez
I heard this on NPR today and was shocked that this IDIOT would say such BS! He doesn't know my God.
The fall out continues. The television ad with Romney supporting Murdock will not be taken off the air according to his reps. I find this to be amazing. On another note, a female Senator that was to have campaigned for Murdock announced she would not be doing so and has pulled her support. Good on her.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2012/10/24/news/doc5087d2dc07443695635277.txt
I think the guy is a heinous asshole.
But, really, has anyone here read the bible? Rape is more or less condoned. His god may not be "your god," but it's selective reading of the same damn book.
What is breathtaking in my view is that fact that this fellow believes rape (i.e. violence on women) is a gift. The man is insane IMO.
QuoteThe only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from god and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that god intended to happen,†said Mourdock.
Read more: http://www.wlky.com/news/politics/Senate-candidate-s-comment-about-abortion-and-rape-cause-shock-controversy/-/9365900/17109472/-/gu60de/-/index.html#ixzz2AGX5HaSj
You're butchering his remarks. Not that I agree or disagree with them. How the hell am I supposed to know the will of God? I've asked, and have yet to get an email, a text, a smoke signal..... nada. (I'd settle for a voice in my head. I love and admire Joan of Arc)
That said, he commented that life created is the will of God... not the rape.
"The audacity... Buckethead.... How can you defend such a heinous statement from an evil tyrant?"
Well... in a previous life I was Satan. I know the response of a Christian as well as any atheist:
"All things are not good, but God can use all things for good."
No, friends... I don't agree with his statement, but neither am I all aghast over it.
buckethead, you always speak your mind. lol Whatever this poor fool meant he would have been much wiser to have kept his mouth shut. After a bit a woman gets very tired of hearing men wax poetic about rape.
dumb comment, just dumb.
Well I find rape to be quite rude. I never abide rudeness. (Even Satan is well mannered)
Being a father of four lovely daughters, I share your hatred for any violence against women and/or girls. I don't think this guy is attempting such, nor is he condoning it. He is certainly not waxing poetic about rape, but he is a bit cavalier about one of the potential results of rape and the fact that the victim has rights and a will of her own. (A fact his zealotry has blinded him to) For this, I would join you in voting against him, but I won't join in condemning his soul to hell. (Yeah... I'm a softy as Satan... Prolly why they ran me out of that joint)
(You might have heard that Kansas City has the best BBQ... Not true... That distinction belongs to Hades.)
There is an argument to be made that a US citizen exists prior to said citizen's exit of the birth canal. If this is true, that citizen should be protected by the constitution.... Life, liberty and the pursuit of cinnabons etc... I think this is his point, although he uses religious vernacular to make it.
Quote from: ben says on October 24, 2012, 06:50:49 PM
I think the guy is a heinous asshole.
But, really, has anyone here read the bible? Rape is more or less condoned. His god may not be "your god," but it's selective reading of the same damn book.
So is five people seeing a Car Accident? If we all saw the same accident how can five people have different views. ::)
Maybe I could go along with the idea that it's a nuanced position if Republican's who have won primaries in this election cycle hadn't already chimed in to let us know you can't get pregnant from legitimate rape and that in the modern world the mother's life is never in danger from child birth. Along with the God's will gift crap.
No my friend Bucket there are too many who marginalize the pregnant woman and have decided they are better at making her decisions for her. The nutty statements are just symptoms of their rationalizing that God has put them in charge of their women folk.
No merit to the notion that at some point during a pregnancy a human/US citizen exists?
Feigning outrage is the easy thing to do here.
It is outrageous to say getting pregnant is a divine appointment that is wholly seperate from the violence going on at conception. The fact that humans can have babies IMO is a merical. The process on how a person becomes pregnant is a product of the people involved's will unless one was raped.
At some point the fetus is a sentient being but health of the mother is the late term option.
I would even add that her mental well being as well as her desires are reasons to protect her option to abort.
I'm not a zealot. If.....big if.... a citizen can exist within the womb, then a citizen exists regardless of the circumstances of conception. Again, I'm not saying this is the case, but at the same time, I'm not convinced it isn't.
All that said, I don't want a rapist's baby in my womb. (If I had a womb).... and it would be my baby as well... a tough frikkin spot in which to find one's self.
So... I have definitely convinced myself that Abortion is okay in any case of rape. (Not that it was difficult) What I haven't convinced myself is whether in doing so I have violated the rights of another US citizen.
This guy is delusional at best. Perhaps he should get raped himself and he might have a different view. Scum bucket.
“It is better to open your eyes and say you don't understand, than to close your eyes and say you don't believe.â€
-The Wizard
Good to know Ben Roethlisberger was only ever doing the Lord's work.
Colbert says it best! Hope you will watch.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420541/october-24-2012/richard-mourdock-s-rape-com
Diane M.
I support abortion rights, so I want to make that clear from the outset. And I also believe rape is a crime.
But let's be honest here: this guy is probably one of the first honest pro-life politicians I've come across. He is actually being consistent with his beliefs. You cannot believe that life is sacred and oppose abortion and then make an exception in cases of rape or incest, as many so-called "pro-lifers" seem to. It's not the fault of the "unborn child" if it was conceived by rape or incest. If abortion is murder, then aborting the product of rape is murder.
This guy's comments clearly seem to indicate (to me, at least) that the will of God or whatever is that life is created. Not that women are raped. I can see the outrage, but I think it is misplaced. People are going after him for the wrong reasons - he shouldn't be criticized for his comments about rape (he stated in his initial comments that rape was "horrible" or something like that), but should be held up as an example of what it means to be pro-life and how views like his could potentially shape the country.
It's easier for some people to swallow the notion of pro-life politics when they have "escape clauses" for things like rape or incest. But those really are all smoke and mirrors - life is life.
I applaud this guy for at least being honest and not sugar-coating his stance on abortion. I just wish people weren't being distracted by knee-jerk reactions to the word "rape."
So God is sitting back thinking when should I give this woman this wonderful gift. I want to get this just right so she will always remember getting it.
I guess the "gift" is also a gift to the father as what a reward for his actions?
God gave humans the gift of being able to have children but the conception results from choices of our free will.
It is gross to pin rape as a gift giving occasion which is exactly where the candidates logic takes you.
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 26, 2012, 09:01:44 AM
So God is sitting back thinking when should I give this woman this wonderful gift. I want to get this just right so she will always remember getting it.
I guess the "gift" is also a gift to the father as what a reward for his actions?
God gave humans the gift of being able to have children but the conception results from choices of our free will.
It is gross to pin rape as a gift giving occasion which is exactly where the candidates logic takes you.
Well, as "God" is most likely a complete figment of our imaginations, it's probably all academic anyway.
And he isn't "pinning rape as a gift-giving occasion" he even said it was a "horrible situation". But he said that life is a gift from God. I'm not excusing his logic or his words - I'm just saying people are bridging two separate issues here. If you read his comments, he's basically saying that he is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape, because he views life as a gift from God, even when that life is created in the "horrible situation" of rape.
He's not trying to say it is a gift giving occasion but that is what he is actually saying. I can understand the sentiment that it is still a life no matter what but God's will or gift that it happen during a rape nauseating.
Religion is not compatible with the modern world. People like to pick and choose what parts of christianity (or whatever religion) they wish to follow based on how well those bits of the religion fit with their lives. They decide what parts of the bible they wish to interpret literally and which bits they decide to view as being parables or allegories.
That's how they take something that's utterly ridiculous and essentially psychotic and make it "work" in the 21st century.
So people are bothered by what this guy said for two reasons: either because it repulses them as people (and they are offended by the notion that a woman would or should be forced to bring a child to term against her will, especially if she was raped) or because it forces them to confront the notion that their own "spiritual" beliefs or approach to their religion are nothing more than a bunch of bullshit.
Quote from: Adam W on October 26, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
Religion is not compatible with the modern world. People like to pick and choose what parts of christianity (or whatever religion) they wish to follow based on how well those bits of the religion fit with their lives. They decide what parts of the bible they wish to interpret literally and which bits they decide to view as being parables or allegories.
That's how they take something that's utterly ridiculous and essentially psychotic and make it "work" in the 21st century.
So people are bothered by what this guy said for two reasons: either because it repulses them as people (and they are offended by the notion that a woman would or should be forced to bring a child to term against her will, especially if she was raped) or because it forces them to confront the notion that their own "spiritual" beliefs or approach to their religion are nothing more than a bunch of bullshit.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most refreshing thing I've read all day.
Quote from: Adam WI applaud this guy for at least being honest and not sugar-coating his stance on abortion. I just wish people weren't being distracted by knee-jerk reactions to the word "rape."
knee-jerk reaction to the word rape...really. I'd say there's one hell of a valid reason for the reaction. Have you ever been raped, any family members...friends? If so, then you'd better appreciate the reason for the reaction
Quote from: Adam W on October 26, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
Religion is not compatible with the modern world. People like to pick and choose what parts of christianity (or whatever religion) they wish to follow based on how well those bits of the religion fit with their lives. They decide what parts of the bible they wish to interpret literally and which bits they decide to view as being parables or allegories.
That's how they take something that's utterly ridiculous and essentially psychotic and make it "work" in the 21st century.
So people are bothered by what this guy said for two reasons: either because it repulses them as people (and they are offended by the notion that a woman would or should be forced to bring a child to term against her will, especially if she was raped) or because it forces them to confront the notion that their own "spiritual" beliefs or approach to their religion are nothing more than a bunch of bullshit.
"because it forces them to confront the notion that their own "spiritual" beliefs or approach to their religion are nothing more than a bunch of bullshit." Who screwed you up in believing there is no God? Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God? I'm in peace knowing that God is with me each and everyday. 8)
Quote from: Springfielder on October 26, 2012, 08:43:30 PM
Quote from: Adam WI applaud this guy for at least being honest and not sugar-coating his stance on abortion. I just wish people weren't being distracted by knee-jerk reactions to the word "rape."
knee-jerk reaction to the word rape...really. I'd say there's one hell of a valid reason for the reaction. Have you ever been raped, any family members...friends? If so, then you'd better appreciate the reason for the reaction
You're missing my point. People are focusing on the word 'rape' and thinking it is what he is saying is the 'gift from god' or whatever. But that's not what he's saying at all.
To answer your question: No, I've not been raped. As a man, it's not impossible to be raped, but it's less likely. I've had family members and close friends who've been raped, though. Obviously, that's about as much as I'd ever want to discuss about that.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 26, 2012, 09:10:07 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 26, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God?
I don't understand the question. Can you clarify?
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 02:45:48 AM
Quote from: Springfielder on October 26, 2012, 08:43:30 PM
Quote from: Adam WI applaud this guy for at least being honest and not sugar-coating his stance on abortion. I just wish people weren't being distracted by knee-jerk reactions to the word "rape."
knee-jerk reaction to the word rape...really. I'd say there's one hell of a valid reason for the reaction. Have you ever been raped, any family members...friends? If so, then you'd better appreciate the reason for the reaction
You're missing my point. People are focusing on the word 'rape' and thinking it is what he is saying is the 'gift from god' or whatever. But that's not what he's saying at all.
To answer your question: No, I've not been raped. As a man, it's not impossible to be raped, but it's less likely. I've had family members and close friends who've been raped, though. Obviously, that's about as much as I'd ever want to discuss about that.
"One answer, of course, is yes -- by another man. In fact by some estimates, 10% of rape victims are men, though they rarely report the crime. But the interesting question, in light of the current debate, is how a man could be raped by a woman.
Most men would say, with physiological confidence, that if a man doesn't want to have sex, he can't be tied down and forced. Human anatomy provides him a special protection. But there are sex therapists who dispute this notion; some point to "masochistic titillation," while others speculate that panic, along with fear of bodily...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973073,00.html#ixzz2AVAtV8Xj "
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 02:47:41 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 26, 2012, 09:10:07 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 26, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God?
I don't understand the question. Can you clarify?
Who screwed you up in believing there is no God? Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God? I'm in peace knowing that God is with me each and everyday.
I don't know what this sentence means:
"Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God?"
Can you rephrase that? If not, no biggie. But if not, I won't answer it.
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 11:18:34 AM
I don't know what this sentence means:
"Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God?"
Can you rephrase that? If not, no biggie. But if not, I won't answer it.
Not knowing your Age "How old are you?" When you were a child did you believe in God?
“For those who may not find happiness to exercise religious faith, it's okay to remain a radical atheist, it's absolutely an individual right, but the important thing is with a compassionate heart -- then no problem.â€
Dalai Lama quotes
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 27, 2012, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 11:18:34 AM
I don't know what this sentence means:
"Not knowing your age when you were a child did you believe in God?"
Can you rephrase that? If not, no biggie. But if not, I won't answer it.
Not knowing your Age "How old are you?" When you were a child did you believe in God?
“For those who may not find happiness to exercise religious faith, it's okay to remain a radical atheist, it's absolutely an individual right, but the important thing is with a compassionate heart -- then no problem.â€
Dalai Lama quotes
I still don't quite follow the first bit. But....
I stopped believing in god when I was around 7 or 8. That's at least when I seriously started having doubts. I guess when you're a kid, you believe anything your parents (or other people) tell you. As you get older, you start thinking for yourself and forming your own opinions. At least, you're supposed to. Sometimes your opinions mirror those of your parents. Sometimes they don't.
Now, back to my original post. Nowhere did I say there was no god - even though I don't believe in god. There may well be a god, even though I'm pretty comfortable saying there probably isn't. But even if there is a god, I'm 100% certain that religion is complete and utter bullshit.
^ +10000000000000
No, we call that foreign policy.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 12:30:39 PM
bullshit in what context?
I think I understand you to mean that religion as a divinely inspired set of rituals and ceremonial chants provided by the Creator or one of the creators divinely natured offsprings, representatives etc for the purpose of pleasing the god(s) is bullshit?
Is that accurate?
Not that you disagree with what most people call the universal truths....not murdering other people, not stealing from them, not breaking covenants, telling the truth, not raping etc....
You don't think that stuff is bullshit, I would presume?
Am I wrong?
Yes, Stephen, that's what I mean. The idea that the second batch of "universal truths" were handed down to us by some sort of divine being or revealed through sets of fancy books with other rules that we have to follow.
Most of the second stuff just amount to laws. And laws are man-made. We don't need gods to tell us what to do. There may be a god or gods. But I guarantee (okay, I have no way to actually "guarantee" anything) that the bible, koran, torah, bhagavad gita, etc etc etc are just made up by a bunch of dudes somewhere, someplace in time and have no real functional relationship to the actual god or gods if such beings actually exist.
So religions as we know them are made up by men to control men and to explain things they don't understand, most notably, what happens to you when you die.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 02:21:33 PM
Well I think I would agree with you that Religion causes pleasure for the creator (or some representation therein) in much the same way that laws cause Justice.
But I dont think that I would characterize the idea of Law as 'bullshit' simply because one of the arbitrary systems of laws do not cause Justice.
I wonder if you would agree with me, that however badly an imperfectly structured legal system might cause "Justice", the idea of The rule of Law is and has been a very good thing for our species? Separate from its function of causing 'Justice'.
Would you also agree with me that no matter how badly religion serves the aims of the Divine, it does preserve a reliable codification of culture that makes it possible for people and cultures to survive through catastrophes?
Stephen, I'm not saying law is bullshit at all.
I'm saying religion is bullshit. Laws can (and should) exist outside of religion.
And no, I don't think religion serves humans well at all. I think it holds them back. I think it causes them to rely on superstition and fear to interpret the world around them instead of using logic and knowledge.
I think it reinforces hatred, sexism, bigotry and a whole host of other "isms" that cause division. It's best left behind and has no place in the modern world.
Language is the best tool for codifying culture.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
And no, I don't think religion serves humans well at all. I think it holds them back. I think it causes them to rely on superstition and fear to interpret the world around them instead of using logic and knowledge.
I think it reinforces hatred, sexism, bigotry and a whole host of other "isms" that cause division. It's best left behind and has no place in the modern world.
would you say this about buddhism?
It depends, but yes in most cases - especially in Tibet (and especially the second part of the statement above).
Which is ironic, considering Buddhism is essentially an atheist religion.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:23:15 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Language is the best tool for codifying culture.
ah linguistics. But where would our rich mythology and metaphor come from? Linguistics alone doesnt provide a framework for the genesis of art or romance.
And who knows what interstellar civilization survives only in the Vedas?
I have no idea what you're on about, Stephen. Religion doesn't provide a framework for the genesis of art or romance. People create stuff. They can do that with or without religion.
As far as that stuff about the Vedas is concerned, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:23:15 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Language is the best tool for codifying culture.
ah linguistics. But where would our rich mythology and metaphor come from? Linguistics alone doesnt provide a framework for the genesis of art or romance.
And who knows what interstellar civilization survives only in the Vedas?
I have no idea what you're on about, Stephen. Religion doesn't provide a framework for the genesis of art or romance. People create stuff. They can do that with or without religion.
Well provide an example of an athiest culture that arose from logic somewhere in the pantheon of human societies.
Im sure there must be one if what you say is true.
Not sure I get what your point is.....
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 03:21:52 PM
Which is ironic, considering Buddhism is essentially an atheist religion.
Buddhism is by no stretch an athiest religion. But it does have a different definition of the Divine.
But when it comes to the irrational, buddhism has pretty much outdone all other religious systems. The belief in the afterlife is about as irrational as it gets, and most of the desert religions are pretty unimaginative. One afterlife, divided between paradise and hell.
Buddhism provides for infinite afterlifes and a potential for group consciousness and merging with the whole in infinite cycles.
Its about as irrational and unempirical as it gets.
But I havent really noticed it falling into your neat little categories of criticism.
Which is important I think, since the majority of our species is actually buddhist of some derivation.
There may indeed be plenty of buddhists in the world. But that doesn't mean that they're above reproach. Same deal with hindus. One need only look at the violence perpetrated by hindus against muslims in India and review the caste system (and its pre-Raj roots) to see that religion has done India no favors.
And as for Tibet? Well, this is an interesting view:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:36:44 PM
Its just a question. Which athiest culture(s) or society(its) has (have) arisen from logic in the history of our species?
What artifacts did they leave behind? What are some examples of its poetry, metaphor, art?
Stephen, my point was that religion has no place in the modern world. Or have you forgotten that?
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 03:36:44 PM
Its just a question. Which athiest culture(s) or society(its) has (have) arisen from logic in the history of our species?
What artifacts did they leave behind? What are some examples of its poetry, metaphor, art?
Stephen, my point was that religion has no place in the modern world. Or have you forgotten that?
Is this an admission that you don't know of a single example of an athiest culture or logic based human society in the whole of our history as a species?
Well, Stephen, I'm saying I don't really see your point. I don't know of any exclusively atheist societies, no. Apparently there were atheist Indians at one point:
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/carvakas.asp (http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/carvakas.asp)
And certainly atheists have existed throughout history. No society has been 100% theistic. Or are you contending that all art, knowledge, music, etc has been created by theists? Because if you aren't, then surely you must concede that atheists are capable of creating and transmitting culture.
My point is that human beings have the ability to create and transmit culture. Religion is part of culture. It can be a vehicle for the transmission of culture, sure, but it is not necessary.
I would never argue that religion has never done anything good, either. My point is simply that has outlived its purpose and we should put it out to pasture.
Situations like this "rape gift" thing result when religion and the modern world collide.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 04:04:59 PM
Well you said that cultures could produce what we call the 'humanities' from basically a linguistics viewpoint---completely independent of religious or irrational belief.
And yet there are no examples that you can name of a culture that has ever done this.
What do you base this opinion on? Belief?
I never said that Stephen. You're now completely misquoting me. I said the following:
*Language is the best tool for codifying culture.
*Religion doesn't provide a framework for the genesis of art or romance. People create stuff. They can do that with or without religion.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 04:19:10 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 27, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
*Religion doesn't provide a framework for the genesis of art or romance. People create stuff. They can do that with or without religion.
Ok, back to the question. Which society -----free of religion--- has done that?
Stephen, I've answered the question. Go back and read again.
You're reducing all culture to religion - you're essentially saying that all culture a society produces is 100% reliant on religion. Religion MUST be present for culture to exist.
That argument is flawed. And atheists have been shown throughout history to create great works of art, literature, etc.
And, as I said, it's irrelevant anyway. Because I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about the present - but you keep refusing to acknowledge that. I have said religion has no place in the modern world. We've outgrown it.
So I fail to see why you need to keep talking about the past. You're sticking with this straw man argument and I really don't see the point.
It's cool that you don't agree with me about the usefulness of religion in the 21st century. That's fine. I'd rather we debate that, if we're actually going to debate anything about this.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 04:25:07 PM
And I ask this because I think that all culture and most of the humanites are based on the irrational. Without the ability to project beyond the possible or orthodox, we cannot evolve culturally.
And I would suggest to you that the repository of the irrational has been religion.
Its dangerous to dismiss it.
Although I agree that religion is irrational, I don't agree that it is "the repository of the irrational" because that sounds like a sweeping statement that doesn't actually mean anything.
I've got nothing against the irrational, when it comes to things like the humanities.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 04:35:53 PM
Hmm. I think if you review the discussion you will see that the only one who has spoken in absolutes is yourself.
Aside from that absolute, how about this:
"[A]ll culture and most of the humanites are based on the irrational. Without the ability to project beyond the possible or orthodox, we cannot evolve culturally."
And regarding Buddhism, "Its about as irrational and unempirical as it gets."
Those are just two examples from this page of the thread. I wasn't going to bother, but since you tried to call me out for being the only one speaking in absolutes, I couldn't resist.
Anyway, I'm going to try to watch a bit of this FL-GA game before I turn in for the night. I might try to check back in, if I can't help myself ;)
So how 'bout that asshat who said rape was a gift from god?
Crazy, huh?