|
Alright I can't handle all that. There's too many of you.
I'll admit that some of my arguments were misguided, others were simply not understood well and extrapolated upon, and many of the things I've said have been ignored or distorted, and I saw half a million slippery slopes and assumed implications that came from my arguments.
I want you guys to please take a step back and start over fresh with me. I know you probably hate me because of your current opinion of me as a person, but please, PLEASE bear with me. I'm a reasonable guy, and if my arguments seemed unreasonable, it's probably either because I expressed myself poorly or you didn't understand. In some case, especially the whole "promiscuity" debacle, that was me being a bit rough around the edges.
Let me explain how I actually feel, quickly (because I'm getting tired) but as clearly as I can.
I put a lot of importance in freedom. Freedom is my politics, I fucking love moral freedoms. I'll fight for freedoms before anything. If this made you feel like I disregard the right of women, it's my fault - but trust me, it's not like that. I really, REALLY wish we could prosecute rapists to the same extent that we can prosecute other things. What can I say now...
I'm out of it guys, I'm sorry. I hope that you guys don't think too lowly of me now, I swear, like I said, that I'm a reasonable guy. And if some of the things that I said seem like terrible things to say - you've probably misunderstood me. "It's not as bad as it seems".
|
On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions.
There's your problem: You're mistaking which decisions they did and did not make.
They are responsible for their bad decisions. You are responsible for yours. If they get drunk, they did not make the decision to have sex while drunk. They made the decision to get drunk. The person who had sex with them made the decision to have sex with them. He is the only person who made that decision. When only one person makes a decision to have sex, that is rape.
Your argument is literally no different from saying that somebody walking down a dark alley who got raped is at fault, because they made a bad decision.
|
Important thing to remember:
Whethere someone is nuked or not, wearing slutty clothes or wrapped all over, drunk or not, you DO NOT have any reason to rape her, much less have sex with her without her conscious intelligent consent. End of story.
|
On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me.
Here's some statistics for you, they weren't difficult to find:
"According to a statistical average over the past 5 years, about 60% of all rapes or sexual assaults in the United States are never reported to the authorities. For college students, the figure is 95%, noted in the Fisher, Cullen and Turner study cited above.
. . .
As well as the large number of rapes that go unreported, only 25% of reported rapes result in arrest. Many rape kits are not tested."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
I agree that the burden of proof should not be placed on the defendant, and as far as I know, no one else has argued for that approach in this thread. Based on these numbers, I think it's reasonable to conclude that, in the US at least, we have a much bigger problem letting rapists go free than we do with convicting innocents. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very difficult standard to meet, and I challenge you to find a single case, absent extraordinary circumstances, where a conviction was obtained using ONLY the victim's testimony.
|
On August 24 2012 05:26 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. Here's some statistics for you, they weren't difficult to find: "According to a statistical average over the past 5 years, about 60% of all rapes or sexual assaults in the United States are never reported to the authorities. For college students, the figure is 95%, noted in the Fisher, Cullen and Turner study cited above. . . . As well as the large number of rapes that go unreported, only 25% of reported rapes result in arrest. Many rape kits are not tested." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_StatesI agree that the burden of proof should not be placed on the defendant, and as far as I know, no one else has argued for that approach in this thread. Based on these numbers, I think it's reasonable to conclude that, in the US at least, we have a much bigger problem letting rapists go free than we do with convicting innocents. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very difficult standard to meet, and I challenge you to find a single case, absent extraordinary circumstances, where a conviction was obtained using ONLY the victim's testimony.
One thing I find a little wierd (coming from a stats/social sciences background) is how in the world they could possibly get accurate statistics on what percentage of rapes are never reported to the authorities.
This is not to diminish the issue of rape itself, only ask how they could get that number.
|
On August 24 2012 05:25 Djzapz wrote:
Alright I can't handle all that. There's too many of you.
I'll admit that some of my arguments were misguided, others were simply not understood well and extrapolated upon, and many of the things I've said have been ignored or distorted, and I saw half a million slippery slopes and assumed implications that came from my arguments.
I want you guys to please take a step back and start over fresh with me. I know you probably hate me because of your current opinion of me as a person, but please, PLEASE bear with me. I'm a reasonable guy, and if my arguments seemed unreasonable, it's probably either because I expressed myself poorly or you didn't understand. In some case, especially the whole "promiscuity" debacle, that was me being a bit rough around the edges.
Let me explain how I actually feel, quickly (because I'm getting tired) but as clearly as I can.
I put a lot of importance in freedom. Freedom is my politics, I fucking love moral freedoms. I'll fight for freedoms before anything. If this made you feel like I disregard the right of women, it's my fault - but trust me, it's not like that. I really, REALLY wish we could prosecute rapists to the same extent that we can prosecute other things. What can I say now...
I'm out of it guys, I'm sorry. I hope that you guys don't think too lowly of me now, I swear, like I said, that I'm a reasonable guy. And if some of the things that I said seem like terrible things to say - you've probably misunderstood me. "It's not as bad as it seems".
I'm listening.
On August 24 2012 05:21 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Let me hazard a direct response to the opening post.
A legal definition of rape that could apply universally:
1. Any form of physical assault that threatens the sexuality of a person (man or woman), such as kissing, groping, touching in private or near private areas, etc.
2. Any form of sexual advances to a person who has expressed her/his disapproval towards the same.
There is another case to be made for verbal and nonphysical . But I am not a legal expert and I base this these on a basic assumption of human rights. I can be wrong and I am open to corrections.
Finally, someone.
|
On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides.
And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here.
All right, I'll stop beating you up. I'm just being cruel at this point. 
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
|
On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me.
There's a lot of crimes, especially involving violence between two people that are heavily reliant on testimonies and circumnstancial evidence, many whom I'd argue is even harder to prove than rape. Your first statement are true but I'm not convinced that this means that there are an unproportunal amount of innocent convictions than other crimes that relies on similar type of evidence. You are correct it's possible given the nature of the crime may sway courts in favor of the victim but I've seen no proof that rape is special in that regard. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I just think that if people are so concern about innocent people going to jail, maybe they should look at the legal system as a whole rather than point the finger at rape cases like they are something out of the ordinary. People lie about crimes in court, and the legal system should be able to deal with this, rape or otherwise.
|
On August 24 2012 05:23 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. Even though I strongly agree with 'you are responsible for your actions', I strongly disagree with 'you can do whatever you want with drunk girls who cannot consciously make any decision like giving consent because they got drunk on purpose'.
At what point can they stop making consious decisions?
After one shot? Two? Four? When they get black-out-drunk?
|
On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen.
|
On August 24 2012 05:29 Shady Sands wrote:One thing I find a little wierd (coming from a stats/social sciences background) is how in the world they could possibly get accurate statistics on what percentage of rapes are never reported to the authorities.
This is not to diminish the issue of rape itself, only ask how they could get that number.
Probably by asking if you've been raped in anonymous polls, and comparing the numbers from those polls with the number of reported rapes.
|
On August 24 2012 05:35 Cpadolf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:29 Shady Sands wrote:One thing I find a little wierd (coming from a stats/social sciences background) is how in the world they could possibly get accurate statistics on what percentage of rapes are never reported to the authorities.
This is not to diminish the issue of rape itself, only ask how they could get that number. Probably by asking if you've been raped in anonymous polls, and comparing the numbers from those polls with the number of reported rapes.
Ahhh that makes sense. Thanks.
|
On August 24 2012 05:25 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. There's your problem: You're mistaking which decisions they did and did not make. They are responsible for their bad decisions. You are responsible for yours. If they get drunk, they did not make the decision to have sex while drunk. They made the decision to get drunk. The person who had sex with them made the decision to have sex with them. He is the only person who made that decision. When only one person makes a decision to have sex, that is rape. Your argument is literally no different from saying that somebody walking down a dark alley who got raped is at fault, because they made a bad decision.
I think the previous poster is taking issue with the fact that based on statutes in many countries, including the US, if a man and a woman have sex when both of them are drunk, the man is guilty of rape. Many people find this troubling, as it is ostensibly sexist and unfair. On the otherhand, it is reasonable to believe that practical considerations such as discouraging rape outweigh this unfairness. It's a very difficult issue in the law.
Easy solution - don't have sex with drunk people you don't know.
|
On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen.
your not wrong in your extent only your avenue.
EDIT: big ups for being modest
|
On August 24 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence.
Very well, your honor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
This page has several studies which put the the false report rate well above the average for other crimes. Several studies put it above 40%, though I will admit it also says atleast one of those is heavily criticized. But as you can see from the section on Rumney's study review report, many studies have found shockingly high rates.
I will defend my assertion that rape is the most convenient crime, with the fact that for rape or sexual assault, there needs to be no physical evidence of wrongdoing, one does have to point to the damages suffered, since in many cases it will only be psychological. It is very well suited to destroy somone with, because an accusation of rape will never be fully erased, even with an acquittal, and rape is very bad, as we all know.
For my assertion that rape is unusually difficult to prove, I will offer the fact that it often concerns the matter of whether or not consent was given, leading to his word against hers scenarios. This naturally makes the testimony of the accuser particularly important.
For the assertion that this leads to more lax standards I offer very little. I can only speculate on the fact that even judges are humans that want to see rapists in jail, and that it must be frustrating to see many of them walk free because of lack of evidence. The best kind of evidence, rates of false imprisonment, are very hard to come by. The statistical methodology would pose tremendous challenges. But, your honor, I do humbly ask that you consider that I offer this merely as a hypothesis, albeit one with alot of merit, and did not claim factual truth.
Having said this, I think the report rate of actual rapes are a far greater problem than the false accusations. Shoot me if you want.
|
On August 24 2012 05:26 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Important thing to remember:
Whethere someone is nuked or not, wearing slutty clothes or wrapped all over, drunk or not, you DO NOT have any reason to rape her, much less have sex with her without her conscious intelligent consent. End of story.
So it's rape if a girl is drunk, a guy asks to fuck, she says okay, undresses herself and sits upon the man. Then when she's sober she can say that she only said okay since she was drunk and so it's rape? Since "conscious intelligent consent" requires her to be sober?
Are you implying that?
to the above discussion (about women faking it), i believe it does happen a lot myself. women are treated very very easily in US courts (idk about other countries) and get off all the time on murder charges etc because they say "they were crazy, depressed, etc etc", but if a man tries that he still goes to prison.
|
On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen.
Except that you limit this specifically to rape. If you truly valued protecting the innocent from prison above all else, you would be suggesting that we should allow irrelevant nonsense "evidence" be allowed in all cases. But you don't; you suggest it only for rape cases. You justify this based on the idea that this will somehow balance the some alleged unfairness of rape trials.
Despite the fact that you admit that you don't know:
* That rape trials are unfair. Just because an innocent person is convicted doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The justice system is imperfect.
* That rape trials result in more innocent people being convicted per capita than any other form of allegation.
Your position is not based on knowledge or evidence. It's based on your belief about what happens in rape trials, likely fueled by and/or coupled with an irrational fear of a woman falsely accusing you of rape.
|
On August 23 2012 15:35 Shiragaku wrote:
Why should we even take George Gallaway seriously anymore? He has abandoned all of his values and sold out to Islamic fundamentalism and Baathism. He is a shame, even to the Left.
What I'm interested in is how he can back two conflicting socio-political ideologies. One is for Sharia and religious extremism governing the state, the other is for secular politics and society and suppressing religious extremism.
On August 24 2012 05:31 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:23 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. Even though I strongly agree with 'you are responsible for your actions', I strongly disagree with 'you can do whatever you want with drunk girls who cannot consciously make any decision like giving consent because they got drunk on purpose'. At what point can they stop making consious decisions? After one shot? Two? Four? When they get black-out-drunk?
This is an important point. Me personally, I just stay out of the way of girls who have been drinking as far as sleeping with them goes. A lot more sex is not worth the possibility of being sued for rape, because no court is going to be like "Oh she had one shot of vodka, she wasn't drunk enough to lose all sense of reason" and let you go scott-free.
|
On August 24 2012 05:46 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen. Except that you limit this specifically to rape. If you truly valued protecting the innocent from prison above all else, you would be suggesting that we should allow irrelevant nonsense "evidence" be allowed in all cases. But you don't; you suggest it only for rape cases. You justify this based on the idea that this will somehow balance the some alleged unfairness of rape trials. Despite the fact that you admit that you don't know: * That rape trials are unfair. Just because an innocent person is convicted doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The justice system is imperfect. * That rape trials result in more innocent people being convicted per capita than any other form of allegation. Your position is not based on knowledge or evidence. It's based on your belief about what happens in rape trials, likely fueled by and/or coupled with an irrational fear of a woman falsely accusing you of rape.
I think you don't understand how crimes like Rape are. Rape is not a normal crime, because in court it's a "he said/she said" situation and if the woman is not showing any negative physical conditions (bruises, etc) then how can you link rape to other crimes. You can't.
In most "he said/she said" situations, the woman prevails. There are stats for that.
|
On August 24 2012 05:46 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:26 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Important thing to remember:
Whethere someone is nuked or not, wearing slutty clothes or wrapped all over, drunk or not, you DO NOT have any reason to rape her, much less have sex with her without her conscious intelligent consent. End of story. So it's rape if a girl is drunk, a guy asks to fuck, she says okay, undresses herself and sits upon the man. Then when she's sober she can say that she only said okay since she was drunk and so it's rape? Since "conscious intelligent consent" requires her to be sober? Are you implying that?
Unfortunately, yes. This distinction has to be made, because the alternative is basically allowing an exception to the consent requirement of consensual sex. Basically, if we do not consider the scenario you described as rape, we assert that if someone is too inebriated to make a sound-mind-and-judgment decision, it's okay for somebody else to make it for them. It's unfortunate, and it would be really great to find a workaround to this, (and I'm not convinced that the scenario you described often leads to conviction) but in order to be legally consistent, it's the way it has to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
