|
That shit about libel is ridiculous and you clearly don't understand how it works. And you cannot determine whether rape occurred based on people's statements.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes.
Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes.
Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
Person A is asked if he murdered person B: He says no.
By definition, murder didn't occur since we assume that people say the truth.
Case dismissed.
Fuck me right?
|
On November 09 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 09 2013 06:33 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this. It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape. If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape. In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point. It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective. Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases. he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out. Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent. Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no. By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict. If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation. If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines. Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent. Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing. If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies. Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
It's like watching a master fisherman... will frogrubdown take the bait? Ouch Djzapz already caught on the line.
|
On November 09 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:33 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this. It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape. If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape. In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point. It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective. Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases. he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out. Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent. Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no. By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict. If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation. If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines. Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent. Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing. If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies. Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
Do you recognize how fucked up what you are saying is?
How does the "paper trail" make clear who consented or not? Because the one who paid the drinks must be the rapist then. Holy shit...
|
Good God, I'd forgotten how much these threads about criminal law make my head hurt.
For the record, bringing a libel claim against the accuser isn't going top help the alleged rapist. The existence of the libel claim isn't admissible in the criminal proceeding. Besides, even if it was allowed into evidence, who cares? The most common defense to a libel claim is "truth." In other words, the alleged rapist would say "libel" and the accuser would says that it's not libel because it's true. Congratulations, nothing has been accomplished.
Also, before anyone asks, if the libel case is decided before the criminal case, the result from the libel case isn't binding on the criminal court.
|
On November 09 2013 07:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:53 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this. It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape. If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape. In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. The fuck does that even mean... I'll use an example so simple that even a child could understand the logic. Put yourself in this story so you'll understand: Your name is Bob, you meet this girl, Liz, you two go see a movie and then you go back to your place, you two end up having sex. Both of you consent at the time, everything that happens is perfectly legal. The next morning, Liz wakes up in your bed, and feels guilty or unhappy with the events for whatever reason. Perhaps she cheated on her boyfriend, perhaps it didn't turn out as she hoped, perhaps something else. She leaves your room, feeling bad. She "retracts" her consent after the fact. She accuses you of rape, and you get to court. In the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove that you raped her. She has to prove that she didn't give her consent. But she DID. If the judge were to just assume that she was saying the truth, YOU, Bob, would be prosecuted for a rape that you didn't commit, but that she accused you of. You'd most likely do jail time for rape, despite having not raped anybody. That's why her saying that she was rape by you doesn't constitute evidence. People can say anything. And how would you defend yourself from it if she lied, Bob? How do you prove that she lied? Do you make her sign a contract, do you have a log of the events, do you film her agreeing to the terms of the exchange? You don't prove yourself to be innocent here. It has to be proven that you're guilty. We already have laws that are to be used if people lie about you--that's called libel laws. You can use it at any time. It will open up both yours and the accused lives to public scrutiny showing you the boyfriend she cheated on, the depression she's going through, etc... If you believe that a person is slandering you with lies, we already have laws for that.
That's not how people deal with rape accusations. The libel thing would have to be handled by another tribunal and would likely be dismissed. You'd be asked to use the tribunal where you're accused to deal with whether the rape did occur and the libel suit would follow in the event that you were judged not guilty for you to potentially get reparation for having been wrongfully accused.
|
On November 09 2013 07:01 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:51 ComaDose wrote:
Additionally it is important to note that the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence far exceeds the number of people whom are wrongly convicted of rape so logically one should be concerned about the larger portion of misstrials. but of course we have to keep both in mind. Not that it doesn't happen, or even doesn't happen a lot, but doesn't the wording of that statement make it seem like any failed conviction of rape for lack of evidence is actually guilty but 'got away with it?' Seems like a lot of slanted statements in this thread.
what? maybe if i said the number of cases that are dismissed for lack of evidence somehow equals the number of rapists that get away with it. but i just said the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence. that's not really biased
you could just as easily assume I'm insinuating that every successful conviction is an innocent person getting imprisoned for rape. but im not implying either i ment what i said.
|
On November 09 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:33 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this. It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape. If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape. In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point. It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective. Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Ok, you are that confused.
No one is claiming that person A can consent for person B. People are claiming that person A can know whether or not person B consented. You seem to think that the inability of person A to consent for person B makes what person A says about whether person B consented completely irrelevant. This does not follow. So long as person A can know whether person B consented, his or her statements about person B's consent are just as relevant as person B's.
Maybe you think this is false. Maybe you think that nobody in world but person B can possibly know whether person B consented. This would be unfortunate because then the only way to know you aren't a rapist is to never have sex. It would also completely defeat the purpose of asking for consent.
|
Dude, Libel cases are strapping yourself to a nuclear device. There is no winner, it's mutually assured destruction. I'm going to prove you're lying at the cost of letting the entire world see everything I've ever done. Every silly thing, every embarrassing thing, every dumb ass move, every failure in my entire fucking life, just to prove you're lying. Libel cases are not to be taken lightly. Using a libel case is the last resort you should EVER take in your entire life. This isn't just some cute little trick up your sleeve, some trump card to countering a false allegation of rape that is backed by nothing but your word that should have been thrown out of court the second it came up.
Also who pursued who has nothing to do with consent at all. Spending money on someone doesn't prove a rape ever happened it only proves money was spent. It doesn't get any deeper than that, it answers not a single question.
|
On November 09 2013 07:09 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:33 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this. It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape. If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape. In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point. It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective. Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases. he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out. Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent. Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no. By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict. If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation. If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines. Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent. Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing. If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies. Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that. Do you recognize how fucked up what you are saying is? How does the "paper trail" make clear who consented or not? Because the one who paid the drinks must be the rapist then. Holy shit...
If both parties accuse the other of rape, then you have a situation where statements conflict. Since the statements are in direct conflict with one another, an investigation is needed.
In a situation where both parties state that they did not pursue or want sex, but sex happened anyway, one must be lying. If there is physical proof that one was pursuing the other--then that person was lying about not wanting to have sex. That physical proof would be the paper trail created by expenditures and the geographic placement of the events.
If one party says that he consented to sex and the other states that he did not consent to sex--there is no conflict in their statements. One person wanted to fuck, the other did not. Fucking happened anyway, hence rape. No conflict in statements, no reason to believe there is lying involved.
What is difficult about that?
|
Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist."
On November 09 2013 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:09 Sokrates wrote:On November 09 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:33 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this. It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape. If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape. In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point. It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective. Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases. he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out. Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent. Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes. Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes. Person B is asked if he consented: He says no. By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict. If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation. If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines. Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent. Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing. If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies. Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that. Do you recognize how fucked up what you are saying is? How does the "paper trail" make clear who consented or not? Because the one who paid the drinks must be the rapist then. Holy shit... If both parties accuse the other of rape, then you have a situation where statements conflict. Since the statements are in direct conflict with one another, an investigation is needed. In a situation where both parties state that they did not pursue or want sex, but sex happened anyway, one must be lying. If there is physical proof that one was pursuing the other--then that person was lying about not wanting to have sex. That physical proof would be the paper trail created by expenditures and the geographic placement of the events. If one party says that he consented to sex and the other states that he did not consent to sex--there is no conflict in their statements. One person wanted to fuck, the other did not. Fucking happened anyway, hence rape. No conflict in statements, no reason to believe there is lying involved. What is difficult about that?
The difficulty about that is that then everyone would defend oneself with being the one who didnt consent. And then you only got the "who paid the drinks?" argument.
Let us assume a rapist knows this, he lets the girl pay the drinks and says they have to go to her place, he rapes her. The next day he claims he got raped because he didnt consent. Now the raped girl also gets thrown into prison. Congratulations.
|
On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote:
Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist."
Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad.
|
On November 09 2013 07:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote:
Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist." Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad.
Look, a guy who got shot can't decide to pull the trigger for the shooter. Therefore, the gunshot victim can only affirm that he didn't shoot anyone, he can't say that the shooter shot him. If the shooter says that he didn't shoot the victim, the victim will have to sue him for libel.
|
On November 09 2013 07:22 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:18 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote:
Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist." Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad. Look, a guy who got shot can't decide to pull the trigger for the shooter. Therefore, the gunshot victim can only affirm that he didn't shoot anyone, he can't say that the shooter shot him. If the shooter says that he didn't shoot the victim, the victim will have to sue him for libel.
What if he puts the gun into the shooter's hand and then pulls the trigger on himself!?
|
On November 09 2013 07:24 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:22 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 07:18 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 07:17 Sokrates wrote:
Detective magpie: " One last question, who paid the drink?" "Hmm i did, why?" "We got our rapist." Where did they fuck? Her dad's place. He must have done it... Creeper dad. Look, a guy who got shot can't decide to pull the trigger for the shooter. Therefore, the gunshot victim can only affirm that he didn't shoot anyone, he can't say that the shooter shot him. If the shooter says that he didn't shoot the victim, the victim will have to sue him for libel. What if he puts the gun into the shooter's hand and then pulls the trigger on himself!?
I'll have to go ahead and not work out the rape analogy on that one...
|
To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
|
On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote:
To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor!
This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
|
On November 09 2013 07:28 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote:
To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor! This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion.
I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
|
Reported rape is not = to actual rape. Important distinction.
|
On November 09 2013 10:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 07:28 ninazerg wrote:On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote:
To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor! This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion. I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence!
Well, you did enter the discussion with this:
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote:
A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike.
What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening.
Also, that whole probabilities thing (posted earlier by ComaDose) was absolute bullshit. If "provocative clothing" is a factor to a rapist, why do unattractive women get raped? Why do men get raped? Why do children get raped? Because rapists do not choose their victims based on appearance, but because of the potential victims perceived vulnerability, accessibility, and the attackers' belief that they will not be punished and will get away with the act if they choose to engage in it.
|
On November 09 2013 12:05 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 10:33 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 07:28 ninazerg wrote:On November 09 2013 07:26 schaf wrote:
To get this thread back on track (at least a whole page discussing rape, really??):
I think it's a good idea, helps at least with situational rape, like getting hit in the park. As long as theres no knife involved... The offender can force the woman into opening it one or the other way, but even that buys time. I'm in favor! This thread will never be back on track; Djzapz has entered the discussion. I'm not that bad. I went after the crazy dissidence! Well, you did enter the discussion with this: Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote:
A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic. And I don't think anyone wants to throw innocent people into prison. I'm not a man-hater and I acknowledge that there are false reports of rape. I think any rational person would want justice for those who have been sexually assaulted, men and women alike. What I object to is the false assumption that the victim may bare some of the responsibility for being raped. What many people don't understand is that submitting to attacker is not the same as consenting to sex. I shouldn't have to explain what the difference is, because as soon as I do, some idiot will play Devil's Advocate and "Well, what if this happens?". So what if that happens? Is the law perfect? Hell no. By the same legal system that imprisons innocent people for being wrongly-accused, sex-offenders are set free. Both of those things upset me, but I am absolutely for anything that can prevent sexual assault from happening. Also, that whole probabilities thing (posted earlier by ComaDose) was absolute bullshit. If "provocative clothing" is a factor to a rapist, why do unattractive women get raped? Why do men get raped? Why do children get raped? Because rapists do not choose their victims based on appearance, but because of the potential victims perceived vulnerability, accessibility, and the attackers' belief that they will not be punished and will get away with the act if they choose to engage in it.
No one said anything about the victim baring some of the responsibility. However, certain actions increase your chance of being raped. Whether you choose to live pragmatically or strive for ideological purity is up to you, but there will always be bad people out there and there's nothing wrong with pointing out some actions will increase your chance of something bad happening to you.
The fact that unattractive women get raped does not in any way show that "provocative clothing" is a not a factor to a rapist. Everything in that paragraph in a personal belief, and should not said as if it's an obvious fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
