Mourdock under fire for rape remarks

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
With that blog? LOL.

No, much more, do you still want more evidence?

[Orangelion]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't know what "prove" means.
Or you would have shown us that the UK is a democracy instead of a monarchy.

It is a parlamentary democracy, it is only a constitutional monarchy.

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
No, much more, do you still want more evidence?

Just some real proof will do.

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Just some real proof will do.

Firstly, it has proven unreliable research that 1 in 4 women have been raped as it is based on whether women were forced to have sex as being rape, women having sex against their wishes as being rape, or women having sex because they feel obliged as rape. And it also counted women who had sex and regretted it as rape. Also, according to a Forensic Book, nothing meant to even counteract the arguements, mentioned the types of victims women were, and that didn't comply with the 1 in 4 women are raped figures either.

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
Firstly, it has proven unreliable research that 1 in 4 women have been raped as it is based on whether women were forced to have sex as being rape, women having sex against their wishes as being rape, or women having sex because they feel obliged as rape. And it also counted women who had sex and regretted it as rape. Also, according to a Forensic Book, nothing meant to even counteract the arguements, mentioned the types of victims women were, and that didn't comply with the 1 in 4 women are raped figures either.

So you say it's unreliable. It has not been "proven". If I recall correctly, all your doing is parroting that blog.

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
So you say it's unreliable. It has not been "proven". If I recall correctly, all your doing is parroting that blog.

Its on other websites as well, not just from that blog. Go on, if you know yourself, what was the research based on in that 1 in 4 women were raped research test? And do you want some information from that Forensics Book as well?(A book documenting Forensic science, a very informative encyclopedia).

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
Its on other websites as well, not just from that blog. Go on, if you know yourself, what was the research based on in that 1 in 4 women were raped research test? And do you want some information from that Forensics Book as well?(A book documenting Forensic science, a very informative encyclopedia).

I don't have a thing to prove. It's your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I have yet to see you offer anything other than that one blog. If you have other proof, provide it.

[barefoot2626]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
Firstly, it has proven unreliable research that 1 in 4 women have been raped

We can rely on all of your posts being unreliable.

[barefoot2626]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
It is a parlamentary democracy, it is only a constitutional monarchy.

Terms are mutually exclusive.

Look it up.

Start working on your "French" alias.

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have a thing to prove. It's your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I have yet to see you offer anything other than that one blog. If you have other proof, provide it.

So you can't disprove my claims? Nice throw LOL. You missed and yet claimed a score. Most rapists don't just rape random women on the streets, they make selected victims. And the victims tend to be new unweary women to the area, and not just any. And they pick carefully. Rapists try to charm or trick their victims, and rape out of power, not necessarily sex, they are narcissists. Doesn't sound quite like 1 in 4 women have been raped does it?

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have a thing to prove. It's your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I have yet to see you offer anything other than that one blog. If you have other proof, provide it.

Its not just on that blog. And the blog gives sources too anyway. Are you implying the blog is an unreliable resource, you liar? Disprove what the blog says and other sites say, rather than simply saying, "its just a blog".

[Orangelion]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Terms are mutually exclusive.
Look it up.
Start working on your "French" alias.

No they aren't.

[Orangelion]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Terms are mutually exclusive.
Look it up.
Start working on your "French" alias.

And your dumb enough to assume an unregistered member can change a username.

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
So you can't disprove my claims? Nice throw LOL. You missed and yet claimed a score. Most rapists don't just rape random women on the streets, they make selected victims. And the victims tend to be new unweary women to the area, and not just any. And they pick carefully. Rapists try to charm or trick their victims, and rape out of power, not necessarily sex, they are narcissists. Doesn't sound quite like 1 in 4 women have been raped does it?

I don't have to disprove your claims. It's up to you to prove them. That's how it works.

Spouting your opinions is not that proof.

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
Its not just on that blog. And the blog gives sources too anyway. Are you implying the blog is an unreliable resource, you liar? Disprove what the blog says and other sites say, rather than simply saying, "its just a blog".

Yes, all blogs are unreliable, as they are nothing BUT someone's personal opinion. COULD it be right? Yes, that's possible. Does it amount to PROOF? No, absolutely not.

WHAT other sites? Bring them forward, by all means. But, not if they are ALSO blogs.

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, all blogs are unreliable, as they are nothing BUT someone's personal opinion. COULD it be right? Yes, that's possible. Does it amount to PROOF? No, absolutely not.
WHAT other sites? Bring them forward, by all means. But, not if they are ALSO blogs.

The blog gives quotes. Look up on other websites yourself. And it may be true, you can't just dismiss a blog as being absolutely false, some blogs may be right, some blogs might be wrong. Come back when you've done some research, and have also disproved what type of women get raped, and how it disproves the idea that women are raped all the time on the streets.

[Orangelion]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have to disprove your claims. It's up to you to prove them. That's how it works.
Spouting your opinions is not that proof.

Your a biased and single minded women, thats all you are.

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
The blog gives quotes. Look up on other websites yourself. And it may be true, you can't just dismiss a blog as being absolutely false, some blogs may be right, some blogs might be wrong. Come back when you've done some research, and have also disproved what type of women get raped, and how it disproves the idea that women are raped all the time on the streets.

No. If you have real proof, bring it forward. It's YOUR claim, it's YOUR job to prove it.

Bring your proof, and we'll discuss it. Fail to do so while still claiming it's true, and I'll continue to call you on it.

And YOU had the nerve to say I was using a cop-out? LOL, you're projecting.

[Bitner]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
Your a biased and single minded women, thats all you are.

Biased? No. I'll gladly read any legitimate proof you bring to the forum, and I'll discuss it with you.

Single minded? Sometimes, yes. Especially when someone is stupidly claiming things they can't prove, and insisting I just take their word for it. Nothing wrong with that.

[barefoot2626]

Orangelion wrote:

<quoted text>
No they aren't.

They are.