Should rape by deception be legal for trans people? To have sex without telling they are trans.

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
So I will cite will cite the laws I agree with, which makes the laws you agree with wrong.
Umm...no.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you or I agree with the laws. It has to do with the laws that are in force in a particular jurisdiction.

As I have repeatedly stated, abortion cannot be murder by definition in jurisdictions where it is legal. Whether you or I like or dislike the law that makes it legal, the fact remains that it is legal (in such a jurisdiction). Which means it cannot be murder.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It obfuscates the fact that murder does not depend on a law code existing.
There is no such fact.

It is thefreedictionary.com one of the first things that comes up in the search results. But however that may be, we know that this is a correct definition, and we know that it doesn't depend on their being alone code. So it refute your argument, the fact that it exists refutes your argument. The reader will note that you're not denying the truth of the definition, and that would be the only thing that would save your argument. You can't deny the truth of the definition, so your argument is blown to smithereens, it's extinct.
Sorry, but wrong. You falsely claimed it to be the 'standard English definition' which it obviously is not. I provided six definitions; you provided one which you had to hunt for.

No that's not blatantly false. Without the concept of "murder" which is an unjustified killing of a human, it would be impossible to write a law against murder. Obviously the concept preceded the law, making it the primary definition which in turn is used to draft the law.
Of course it's blatantly false. Murder is a legal term; its common english definition requires an illegal act.

Are you believe you can disqualify valid definitions of a word. You can't. So until you figure that out you really don't understand how a dictionary works.
Wrong, ad hominem.

Your statement "abortion can't be murder by definition" is false, because I've given you the definition of murder showing it to be false. The only way to save the truth of your statement is to show that the definition that I've demonstrated is false. You can't do that so your argument is extinct.
Wrong again. Six to one.

The truth of your statement never turned on whether there is a legal definition of murder. That's not in dispute, never has been, it's a relevant to the discussion.
Of course it does.

Do you understand that this is not a popularity contest? Because from this comment that's not clear.
wnrt.

I'm address that above. And in so doing I showed very clearly there's nothing stupid or dishonest about it.
No, you didn't.

So you are denying the definition of murder that I cited from thefreedictionary.com website? Because that is the only way your negation here can be saved.
I am stating - correctly - that it is not the standard English definition.

We just showed above that it's not so I don't know what do you think you're achieving with this comment.
Correcting you.

The opinion of an expert… how did you put it? Oh yes, "vacuously stupid or simply dishonest."
No experts are involved here.

"Abortion can't be murder by definition" is not a fact.
No, it's not.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
There is no such fact.
You acknowledge the definition of murder that dispositiviely refuse your point. It's hard to see how contradicting yourself from one post to the next works, at least for you. Works for me great!
Sorry, but wrong. You falsely claimed it to be the 'standard English definition' which it obviously is not.
You're changing the question and moving the goalposts and it's transparently absurd. But if you look in an English dictionary what you find your standard English definitions. So even for all your manipulating it still doesn't work.
I provided six definitions; you provided one which you had to hunt for.
You are simply creating a story to sell your argument again transparently and that's not working either. But it doesn't matter because thedictionary.com is a very standard English language dictionary source. In my search engine it comes up at the top.
. . .Murder is a legal term;
Murder is an English term which has a legal definition, as one alternative. It also has a simple English definition.
its common english definition requires an illegal act.
Murders simple English definition requires no law.
Wrong, ad hominem.
. . . my point is neither wrong nor is it ad hominem.
Wrong again. Six to one.
Dictionary definitions are not competing with one another. And they certainly don't vote each other off of the island.
Of course it does.
You go around telling people that abortion can't be murder because murder is by definition illegal. That's flatly false because the people you were telling that to are using the simple English definition of murder, which is not a legal definition.
If that has a meaning I don't know it…
No, you didn't.
That is a statement of obstinence. I can't see how it's even intended to be believed.
I am stating - correctly - that it is not the standard English definition.
Which is interesting because you state equally declaratively that it is a legal definition.
Correcting you.
And aspirational comment that certainly won't be satisfied on this question.
No experts are involved here.
You've made that clear though apparently unwittingly.
No, it's not.
Because you voted the simple English definition of murder of the lexicographical island?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You acknowledge the definition of murder that dispositiviely refuse your point. It's hard to see how contradicting yourself from one post to the next works, at least for you. Works for me great!

You're changing the question and moving the goalposts and it's transparently absurd. But if you look in an English dictionary what you find your standard English definitions. So even for all your manipulating it still doesn't work.

You are simply creating a story to sell your argument again transparently and that's not working either. But it doesn't matter because thedictionary.com is a very standard English language dictionary source. In my search engine it comes up at the top.

Murder is an English term which has a legal definition, as one alternative. It also has a simple English definition.

Murders simple English definition requires no law.

. . . my point is neither wrong nor is it ad hominem.

Dictionary definitions are not competing with one another. And they certainly don't vote each other off of the island.

You go around telling people that abortion can't be murder because murder is by definition illegal. That's flatly false because the people you were telling that to are using the simple English definition of murder, which is not a legal definition.

If that has a meaning I don't know it…

That is a statement of obstinence. I can't see how it's even intended to be believed.

Which is interesting because you state equally declaratively that it is a legal definition.

And aspirational comment that certainly won't be satisfied on this question.

You've made that clear though apparently unwittingly.

Because you voted the simple English definition of murder of the lexicographical island?
The 'simple English definition' of murder is the unlawful/illegal killing of a person by another person. Sorry if you don't like that. Finding ONE dictionary that gives ONE definition that leaves out the 'unlawful/illegal' aspect, when every other dictionary available, does not make that ONE dictionary's ONE definition the 'simple English definition'.

Abortion, where it is legal, cannot be murder by definition.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The 'simple English definition' of murder is the unlawful/illegal killing of a person by another person. Sorry if you don't like that. Finding ONE dictionary that gives ONE definition that leaves out the 'unlawful/illegal' aspect, when every other dictionary available, does not make that ONE dictionary's ONE definition the 'simple English definition'.

Abortion, where it is legal, cannot be murder by definition.
Well that would depend on whether it is illegal to kill what people consider is a person. So where a law is passed by some people against the killing of an unborn human person, its murder by definition.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Well that would depend on whether it is illegal to kill what people consider is a person. So where a law is passed by some people against the killing of an unborn human person, its murder by definition.
It would depend on it, yes. So...

in a jurisdiction where the law is such that:
a) murder is the illegal killing of a person by another person,
b) abortion is illegal and
c) the fetus is defined legally as a person from conception,

Abortion would be murder.

Good luck finding such a jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, since the above is true nowhere I know of (certainly nowhere in the western world) abortion remains not murder by definition wherever it is legal.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Well my apologies if I insinuated that.
Thankyou.
Now here is the problem. The OP is trying to convince us that his "friend" was tricked unto having sex with a trans person. I'm not buying this for a moment.
If you are close enough to have sex with someone, you are close enough to figure out whether or not they are trans. The only way his "friend" could not tell, is if he was using a glory hole. A wall that prevents the customer from seeing any of the sex worker, with a small hole for the customer to insert his penis.
Anyone who is using a glory hole, already knows he will be serviced by an anonymous worker. And already does not care who that worker is.
So the OP has already told us enough about his "friend", that we dont need to take his belated concerns seriously.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Thankyou.
Now here is the problem. The OP is trying to convince us that his "friend" was tricked unto having sex with a trans person. I'm not buying this for a moment.
If you are close enough to have sex with someone, you are close enough to figure out whether or not they are trans. The only way his "friend" could not tell, is if he was using a glory hole. A wall that prevents the customer from seeing any of the sex worker, with a small hole for the customer to insert his penis.
Anyone who is using a glory hole, already knows he will be serviced by an anonymous worker. And already does not care who that worker is.
So the OP has already told us enough about his "friend", that we dont need to take his belated concerns seriously.
And firstly my view is God's view that sexual relations are for a faithful man woman union, so I dont go with this anyway.
Here is the problem. Are we assuming the trans person was the same sex? If so, say so and dont use the word 'trans' Seems the issue for the person was his friend was the same sex.
 

BMS

Well-known member
A convoluted way to admit that you are God, and that God is you.
Yes but that was what I believe whether you like it or not; you dont need to comment on it when my question was
Are we assuming the trans person was the same sex? If so, say so and dont use the word 'trans' Seems the issue for the person was his friend was the same sex.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Yes but that was what I believe whether you like it or not; you dont need to comment on it when my question was
Are we assuming the trans person was the same sex? If so, say so and dont use the word 'trans' Seems the issue for the person was his friend was the same sex.
I'm taking my best guess, based on the behavior of past evangelical fundamentalists.
JJ most likely went to a creationist convention, and picked up a gay male prostitute. He then panicked the next morning when he realized that someone may have seen him., and might know his secret. His OP is an attempt to present himself as a hapless victim.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I'm taking my best guess, based on the behavior of past evangelical fundamentalists.
JJ most likely went to a creationist convention, and picked up a gay male prostitute. He then panicked the next morning when he realized that someone may have seen him., and might know his secret. His OP is an attempt to present himself as a hapless victim.
So yes or no?
 
Top