Did you even read the article? Or do you simply salivate on cue at the sight of the word "torture"? Why don't you try to break your conditioned reflexes and interact with the substance of the article. And if you can't do that, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this debate.
Which is irrelevant to Burgess-Jackson's article. His article isn't pro "torture" or anti-"torture." It doesn't take a position on any particular form of "torture." It simply presents a logical framework of analysis.
Is rape torture?
ReplyDeleteNotMason said:
ReplyDelete"Is rape torture?"
Did you even read the article? Or do you simply salivate on cue at the sight of the word "torture"? Why don't you try to break your conditioned reflexes and interact with the substance of the article. And if you can't do that, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this debate.
That's Mason. He's trying to prove his "The Bible condones/commands rape vis-a-vis the "war-brides" in Deut. 21. He's assuming it's rape.
ReplyDeleteWe're still wating for you to prove that it is, Mason....
Rape is torture.
ReplyDeleteTorture said...
ReplyDelete"Rape is torture."
Which is irrelevant to Burgess-Jackson's article. His article isn't pro "torture" or anti-"torture." It doesn't take a position on any particular form of "torture." It simply presents a logical framework of analysis.