Joined: Mar. 2009
Well, on the the third question. This has got to be a classic example of how a creationist will use quotes. Read on:
|3. Is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science? (This is in response to his contradictory assertions that science drives technological advancement and my supposed ignorance of science. As he questioned my technological credentials, which are well-known in the game industry, I referred him to Engadget, which described one of my various technology designs as "the most advanced they had ever seen.")|
As I've said before, science is needed for technological development.
I like how he cherry-picked the review on that site.
Here's another excerpt from apparently the same review:
|Getting the Meta set up really isn't the struggle here. Nope, the struggle is all in remembering what you set each of the buttons to do. It's not that we have the memory of a goldfish, but trying to recall what 14 different buttons and each of their double click functions – yes, you can actually program this to do up to 48 shortcuts or commands per mode – requires an incredible amount of brain power. In practice we only ended up using a few of them: we got the hang of using A2 to copy, A4 to paste, B7 to open Engadget, and B5 to open a Google search in Firefox.|
From their conclusion:
|However, at the end of the day we can't help but wonder who could possibly remember how to use so many buttons on a single gadget. Sure, there's niche appeal for designers or gamers, but if you have $80 to spend on a mouse we'd honestly go with a more ergonomic option, like the Logitech MX 1100, and if you are a gamer the $130 Razer Mamba is rated amongst the top.|
Get that? The very same site that you used to show off your "technological superiority" is the same site where the reviews basically say that they'd rather use something else!
Yeah, that's real "bleeding edge" all right!
But hey, it's not all bad:
|But hey, if you have a stellar memory and need a mouse with 18 buttons that can manage more shortcuts than anything else out there, there's nothing quite like the WarMouse Meta.|
So yeah Vox, you're a master of nothing.
On a different article on that same site, I found (if one enables the comments):
|After years of trying, someone finally made a mouse worse than Apple's Hockey Puck. Congrads. There is an entire ring of Hell reserved just for you.|
|OpenOffice mouse? The uncomfortable interface makes it more like a GIMP mouse.|
|Or you can pay $60 to get a 3-PC license Office 2007 Home and Student, and $15 for a cheap wireless mouse|
|Or for $5 less you could just get MS Office! Isn't the whole point of OpenOffice that it's free? |
|4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?|
Nope: You can't "reasonably defend" something based on a law that's all but outdated. Yet the title of your post dealing with that topic said that there is no marital rape, period. If that was the fucking case, then there would not be laws against it.
Horrifyingly, as you no doubt know, this part of "common (or English) law" is rather recent:
|Since the 1970s, the marital exemption has been under attack. The conclusive presumption that a wife always consents to sex with her husband, regardless of circumstances, is obviously untenable. Modern apologists for the exemption argue instead that in cases of marital discord, criminal sanctions represent an intrusion that could disrupt "the ongoing process of adjustment in the marital relationship" (American Law Institute, pp. 344–346). In addition, they argue, the harm of forced intimacy is less serious when the victim and the offender have "an ongoing relation of sexual intimacy."|
Opponents of the exemption attack both claims. As to the first, they note that the marital exemption in its traditional form applies even when the parties are legally separated; moreover, when the parties are living together, legal sanctions for assault apply in cases of domestic violence, so there is no reason why other violent offenses within marriage should not be subject to punishment as well. As to the second claim, opponents of the exemption note that "wife rape can be as terrifying and life-threatening as stranger rape. In addition, it often evokes a powerful sense of betrayal, deep disillusionment, and total isolation" (Russell, pp. 190–191, 198–199).
All things that Vox doesn't seem to give a fuck about...but at least he's no atheist! This is nuts. Shouldn't the "good xians" be the first people in line to support these new laws while trying to foist the blame for the old ones on "darwinists and atheists"??
Anyway, here's where it's shown to be out-of date:
|Responding to these criticisms, many states have abolished their marital exemption completely, either by legislation or by judicial decision reinterpreting the common law. At least one court has ruled the marital exemption unconstitutional on equal protection grounds (People v. Liberta, 474 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1984)).|
Nonetheless, the exemption survives in modified form in most of the states. Though only fifteen states have abolished all distinctions between marital and nonmarital rape, many states still treat marital rape as less serious than other rapes or permit prosecution for marital rape only when aggravated force was used; some states permit prosecution only when the parties are legally separated or permit prosecution only when the parties are living apart (Shulhofer, pp. 43–44).
So, at best for you, Vox, you'd get a lesser sentence than he otherwise would for raping his wife.
Never mind that the UN has a higher opinion of the value of women's lives than Vox does:
Meanwhile the good libertarian christian Vox sees nothing wrong with it.
The real kicker is is this story in the Bahamas where they're trying to outlaw marital rape. Guess who's fighting against it, and on what basis?
|Some local religious leaders have argued that a man cannot rape his wife claiming the Bible dictates that a wife must physically submit to her husband. |
Controversial pastor Cedric Moss has vocally opposed the legislation claiming the amendment would create a "society of rapists." Citing the "word of God", Mr Moss argued that rape cannot be committed in marriage because the couple
gave each other authority over the other's body and agreed to open-ended sexual consent in the marriage contract. He argued that including spouses as potential rapists would contradict the sacrament of marriage.
"But can it be right to bring married people under such a law designed for unmarried people? No, and a thousand times, no! It is not right and it can never be right to bring all married couples under this definition of rape whereby moment by moment consent is required for every stage of every act of sexual intercourse.
So yeah, Vox, you are still "inane" and a misogynit prick from what I've read of your constant rantings about women on your blog, though I concede that how big a prick you are has no bearing on your debating ability...wait, scratch that. It probably makes you better at debates.